WI no Chaparral SAM and VADS?

[Riain]

In the late 50s the US Army began developing the T249 Vigilante, an SP AAA gun with 6 barrel 37mm gatling cannon.

Then in the 60s it decided that guns were outdated so began developing the Mauler SAM system, which was found to be too complex and cancelled in 1964. Then in a panic they rushed the Chaparral SAM and the Vulcan Air Defence System into service, both of which appear on the surface to be worse than the Vigilante.

Is there any way to un-fornicate this goat, and get some good stuff into service?

 

[marathag]

What should have been done was Mobile HAWK, and not just a shuttle system

Or this

in Israeli service on an M113 chassis.
but all in one transport, fire control and radar (see the trailer PAR in the corner? ) on a stretched Patton, or do like the Soviets and split between two vehicles, like the SA-11

Or just buy this

Test mules around in 1970. Buy the turret to plop on an M60 hull, a consolation prize for the MBT-70 project falling thru

 

[Riain]

I think the Hawk had a minimum engagement altitude, which is why the US Army deployed the Chaparral and VADS rather than putting the Hawk on tracks.

 

[alspug]

The 6 barrel 37 mm was a mistake . All that you needed was to put the twin 40 mm bofors with a decent radar and prediction sight . add in enough power traverse and elevation to keep up with supersonic targets and you have a winner . The Chaparral was a brilliant system able to be modernised easily by adding better AIM-9 missiles . What cost it in the early days was the inability to track and engage an incoming strike . It could only fire at targets going away . This could be mitigated by placing them on the threat axis but far enough away from the target to defend it by firing from behind . By the early 80's the introduction of the AIM-9L or even just using it's seeker would have changed the game . The 20 mm Vulcan cannon was bought to make the enemy honour the threat and occasionally get kills . the tracers from a 20 mm Vulcan would have introduced a pucker factor for any pilot .

 

[Jukra]

How about going for a larger caliber, OTO-Melara has a SPAAG version of their 76mm naval gun, called Otomatic, which has not found any customers, though... Plus factor is the ability to use it against surface targets and also in indirect fire, if there's not air threat? Naval version entered service in 1964, so roughly similar timeframe might be feasible. In US case it might be made with modified Skysweeper. 75mm ammunition would offer space for various warheads and in long term would have growth potential for guided munitions.

Though, the problem would lie with the initial love affair with missiles in all roles.

 

[XLII]

Just buy the I-shred-everything-which-comes-close(ish) Roland (yeah, its not domestic tech, but you are already buying Rheinmetall). If you put a "good" mix in the ammo feed, it shreds ground forces as well. Add to that SAM-Launchers, and pronto one of the best SPAAs (ever, I think).

Edit: As the poster above said: Problem is the thorough love affair with missiles...even for things they aren't suited for.

 

[Riain]

From what I can figure the vigilante and mauler were stand alone systems whereas the Chaparral and VADS operate in conjunction. My guess is that the VADS pushes threat aircraft up into the engagement envelope of the chaparral.

 

[Zen9]

The problem here goes to choosing SARH for Mauler's guidance. Thinking they could overcome clutter returns.
Also there were issues with the rocket motor and missile housing.

Really though it's SARH that's the problem.
You'll note most such SAMs use variants of command guidance or Beam riding in this regime.
Only modern systems cope with the clutter issues for SARH and ARH.

 

[steamboy]

Didnt' the Vigillante literally shake itself to bits in the process of firing?

 

[Riain]

Didnt' the Vigillante literally shake itself to bits in the process of firing?

Dunno but it was in a light chassis rather than a tank like the Gepard, Sgt York etc so I wouldn't be surprised with such a powerful gun.

 

[marathag]

I think the Hawk had a minimum engagement altitude, which is why the US Army deployed the Chaparral and VADS rather than putting the Hawk on tracks.

The MIM-23A has a minimum engagement range of 2 kilometres , a maximum range of 25 km, a minimum engagement altitude of 60 metres, a maximum engagement altitude of 11,000 m.
The MIM-23B has has a minimum engagement range of 1.5 kilometres, a maximum range of 35 km, a minimum engagement altitude of 60 metres, a maximum engagement altitude of 18,000 m
the I-Hawk, the -23B came out in 1971
for close targets, a land based Phalanx, the Centurion, could have been done at the same time as the Naval unit

rather than waiting 40 years.

Put the CIWS on this FWD MM-1 Matador/Mace Transporter for mobility

The M167 Vulcan had radar range finder, no search radar. It was pretty much an optical system.

Chaparral was really limited on incoming targets, being the IR seeker wasn't really an all aspect missile, and still had a 500m minimum range

 

[tomo pauk]

Land-use Sea Sparrow is the most obvious candidate to me. It was offered by the Swiss historically, coupled together with 35 mm cannons and fire-control radar, system named Skyguard.
Aspide is Italian variation to the theme, usable both from aircraft, ships and land.

OTOH, I'd love to see a self-propelled Skysweeper, just because of rule of cool

 

[Jukra]

The MIM-23A has a minimum engagement range of 2 kilometres , a maximum range of 25 km, a minimum engagement altitude of 60 metres, a maximum engagement altitude of 11,000 m.
The MIM-23B has has a minimum engagement range of 1.5 kilometres, a maximum range of 35 km, a minimum engagement altitude of 60 metres, a maximum engagement altitude of 18,000 m
the I-Hawk, the -23B came out in 1971
for close targets, a land based Phalanx, the Centurion, could have been done at the same time as the Naval unit

20mm gun has very short range and the ammunition is not very effective. Against target coming directly at you (ie. CIWS) it's a different question. There's a reason why 30-40mm caliber range, and sometimes even larger, has been more popular.

I wonder why, as you wrote, the US simply did not purchase Gepard, a good SPAAG already developed and in use. Could have been built in the US for a higher cost and pork dividend, if required.

 

[Jukra]

OTOH, I'd love to see a self-propelled Skysweeper, just because of rule of cool

Ca. 3" shell has higher kill radius and longer range and could utilize sabot rounds as well. It could kill anything short of MBT in direct fire role. Additionally, it could be used for indirect fire if there's no air threat. But, considering no one has bought Otomatic or Draco I guess there's drawbacks as well. Italy uses 76mm for naval CIWS role too.

 

[Riain]

The MIM-23A has a minimum engagement range of 2 kilometres , a maximum range of 25 km, a minimum engagement altitude of 60 metres, a maximum engagement altitude of 11,000 m.
The MIM-23B has has a minimum engagement range of 1.5 kilometres, a maximum range of 35 km, a minimum engagement altitude of 60 metres, a maximum engagement altitude of 18,000 m
the I-Hawk, the -23B came out in 1971

There you go, with those numbers there is plenty of room for a plane to hide in a Corps area covered by Hawks, leaving space for the shorter range systems like the proposed Vigilante, Mauler, Roland and Sgt York and filled IOTL by the Chaparral and VADS.

The M167 Vulcan had radar range finder, no search radar. It was pretty much an optical system.

Chaparral was really limited on incoming targets, being the IR seeker wasn't really an all aspect missile, and still had a 500m minimum range

Neither is much chop alone, but together and with the FAAR radar and datalink could make their defended area very unpleasant indeed, with attempt by pilots to avoid the Chaparral envelope leading them to run into appropriately sited VADS.

 

[BigBlueBox]

Considering that most American aircraft lost over Vietnam were shot down by AAA and not SAMs or enemy fighters, one really has to question the judgement of whomever was responsible for deciding that AAA was obsolete in the 1960s.

 

[marathag]

There you go, with those numbers there is plenty of room for a plane to hide in a Corps area covered by Hawks, leaving space for the shorter range systems like the proposed Vigilante, Mauler, Roland and Sgt York and filled IOTL by the Chaparral and VADS.

The Threat Envelope of the Hawk was better than the SA-6, that did real well in 1973. They did most of the work, not the larger SA-3 or the very short range ZSU-23-4.

Not saying the mobile Hawk would have worked alone: it shouldn't have.
But the ADA needed better than the Chaparral/Vulcan combo, all would agree. Both were trash.

 

[marathag]

Considering that most American aircraft lost over Vietnam were shot down by AAA and not SAMs or enemy fighters, one really has to question the judgement of whomever was responsible for deciding that AAA was obsolete in the 1960s.

SA2s were not a great system, and were only in the North. The North did have a whopping huge amount of Tube AAA.

 

[Ian_W]

Are we allowed to do ASB things, like have the US Army buy something developed by either it's allies or the US Navy ?

 

[Riain]

The Threat Envelope of the Hawk was better than the SA-6, that did real well in 1973. They did most of the work, not the larger SA-3 or the very short range ZSU-23-4.

Not saying the mobile Hawk would have worked alone: it shouldn't have.
But the ADA needed better than the Chaparral/Vulcan combo, all would agree. Both were trash.

What should have worked with the Mobile Hawk?

The Chaparral/Vulcan combo isn't great but its better than nothing at all, which appears to be the alternative given the failure of the Vigilante, Mauler, Roland and Sgt York.