USA's "Project Cancelled"

I will never understand the "no tower" idea...
Weren't there a couple carriers in the 20's-30's that started out as "flatirons" but were then reconstructed to provide for a small island? Probably the same thing could have been done with the USS US... well, with some ummm... revision to the catapult layout :p
I do like the (I presume, based on the shape of the turret) 5" bow-chaser, though...
 
Weren't there a couple carriers in the 20's-30's that started out as "flatirons" but were then reconstructed to provide for a small island? Probably the same thing could have been done with the USS US... well, with some ummm... revision to the catapult layout :p
I do like the (I presume, based on the shape of the turret) 5" bow-chaser, though...
The Ranger as designed didn't have an island nor did the Kaga or Akagi
 
Weren't there a couple carriers in the 20's-30's that started out as "flatirons" but were then reconstructed to provide for a small island? Probably the same thing could have been done with the USS US... well, with some ummm... revision to the catapult layout :p
I do like the (I presume, based on the shape of the turret) 5" bow-chaser, though...
Could have been done, but has the potential to go very wrong very fast and end up costing more than a new carrier ala HMS Victorious, or almost as much ala USS Midway, as you are altering the strength deck and not just the superstructure as on the 20's era carriers. It is the same reason the US did not change the suboptimal elevator layout of the Forrestal class, too much cost for too little gain
 
I will note that the USN pre Pearl Harbor was planning a major modernization of the Lexington class carriers once the first few Essexes had come into service. The Saratoga had a fair chunk of said work done on her during her repairs/modernization in the first half of 1942 but the one thing that wasn't done was the expansion of the aft elevator which would have taken another 4 months minimum of structural work to do which with a war on wasn't going to happen
 
Weren't there a couple carriers in the 20's-30's that started out as "flatirons" but were then reconstructed to provide for a small island? Probably the same thing could have been done with the USS US... well, with some ummm... revision to the catapult layout :p
I do like the (I presume, based on the shape of the turret) 5" bow-chaser, though...

More the point: those (and WWII experience) proved the lack of a tower was a bad idea... and then this project pops up...
 
More the point: those (and WWII experience) proved the lack of a tower was a bad idea... and then this project pops up...
Yeah... in hindsight it's one of those "WTF were they thinking?" type things...
Could leave the catapult arrangement intact and stick the island right in the middle of the flight deck.... that would be... umm... challenging :p
How many nets can you string across a flight deck again?
 
It's because M60 was still needed as a MBT while there were hundreds of M48s lying around unused. That said yes, only using a M1 hull or significantly overhauling the M48 hull would have worked.
I recall that the most serious issues with the M247 (far from any of the Reformers' lies about "can't shoot the broadside of a barn") were with the ammunition resupply and the hydraulics system. That doesn't mean the project wasn't a clusterfuck and it is clear that Ford Aero didn't know what it was doing.

In fact, some of the people working on the project from the Army side say that the whole program was pretty much intended to fail or at the very least was hijacked by corrupt officers and politicians who chose the Ford proposal when the GD one was actually superior. Just producing the Gepard turret in the US would have been enough too as this was found to be compatible with the M48 hull. In any case while using off-the-shelf components isn't bound to be a disaster per se it likely was suboptimal in the case of the Ford design.

Even then, the Sergeant York was flawed from the start because it was about a decade too late (and several years overdue). The M163 VADS interim SPAAG entered service in 1969. Germany was already far along in its SPAAG program, and the Gepard entered service in the mid 1970s. Not only was the US stuck without a truly modern SPAAG for far longer than it should have, but by the time the Sergeant York would have entered service, missiles were already growing to be better than SPAAGs while progress in helicopter ATGMs and aircraft guided munitions meant that gun-based systems were starting to be too short ranged.

A Gepard-like system made sense in the 1970s when missile technology did not quite allow good performance against nap-of-the-earth popping targets. By 1985 there were more durable options. The US was arguably right to cancel M247 and instead invest in a proper SAM system even though the Cold War evolved to make the latter program irrelevant. The mistake was not starting M247 immediately in 1969, but Vietnam and other failed projects were hoarding all the money so can't blame the Army here.

I'd argue AA guns aren't obsolete. Perhaps even less so today with the threat of drone storms. If you have to fight off one hundred drones at close range guns make a lot more sense then missiles. You're starting to see a resurgence in AA guns with the Germans coming up with a rather neat integrated stationary AA gun system intended for protecting major targets like airports/airfields.


It's an interesting system composed of six networked 35mm AA guns connected to radars and fully automated.

Even today the Russians continue to combine guns and missiles for most of their SPAAG designs.

For the short term in the 80's I kind of like the idea of the US licensing the Gepard system and mating it with M1 or M60 hulls. Then see if you can attach a few Stinger MANPADs to it for added oomph. Maybe eventually go for a Avenger looking like system with one of the 35mm gun "Arms" replaced by a multi shot Stinger box launcher. Or potentially a "Tunguska" like design with a couple of two tube Stingers attached to each side of the SPAAG.
 
For the short term in the 80s I kind of like the idea of the US licensing the Gepard system and mating it with M1 or M60 hulls. Then see if you can attach a few Stinger MANPADs to it for added oomph.
If you're sticking missiles on this thing would you not want something with a longer range than what the infantry are already carrying themselves? Compared the the Russian Tunguska something like the RIM-116 RAM seems roughly more similar in size.
 
If you're sticking missiles on this thing would you not want something with a longer range than what the infantry are already carrying themselves? Compared the the Russian Tunguska something like the RIM-116 RAM seems roughly more similar in size.

I was thinking of what would be simplest and easiest to attach to the Gepard turret on a M60 or M1 hull. The Stinger has it's own guidance system so wouldn't be as hard to integrate into a existing system as a longer ranged design would.

Eventually yeah I'd say try and develop a design that mates auto cannon of around 25mm-35mm range and combine it with a longer ranged missile like the AIM9 or something like that. Maybe see if you can adapt the AIM-7 Sparrow or Sea Sparrow to the system.

Stingers on the Gepard are just the quickest and cheapest option hopefully without a prolonged and expensive development and experimentation system.
 
I'd argue AA guns aren't obsolete. Perhaps even less so today with the threat of drone storms. If you have to fight off one hundred drones at close range guns make a lot more sense then missiles. You're starting to see a resurgence in AA guns with the Germans coming up with a rather neat integrated stationary AA gun system intended for protecting major targets like airports/airfields.


It's an interesting system composed of six networked 35mm AA guns connected to radars and fully automated.

Even today the Russians continue to combine guns and missiles for most of their SPAAG designs.

For the short term in the 80's I kind of like the idea of the US licensing the Gepard system and mating it with M1 or M60 hulls. Then see if you can attach a few Stinger MANPADs to it for added oomph. Maybe eventually go for a Avenger looking like system with one of the 35mm gun "Arms" replaced by a multi shot Stinger box launcher. Or potentially a "Tunguska" like design with a couple of two tube Stingers attached to each side of the SPAAG.
Gepard A2 tested Stingers on the sides of each gun arm so that can work.
 
Gepard A2 tested Stingers on the sides of each gun arm so that can work.

Perfect. I was thinking something like twin tubes on each arm. Gives it a bit more reach and oomph without costing as much as something that would require a new expensive guidance system and radar system like the Sparrow or Sidewinder.

Eventually I'd like something like the Tunguska with twin auto cannon gun "Arms" with twin tubes for the Sparrow or Sidewinder or something on each arm. I'd probably have kept the 35mm Oerlikon if I could. I'd also have bought production rights to build a number of the towed or stationary model as an update to the 20mm towed guns the US had a few off. Use the towed ones to defend airbases, bases, headquarters, ammo dumps, fuel depots, and other stationary positions as a low altitude supplement to SAMs. This was the time where high altitude flying was becoming a lot more dangerous so the powers were designing their aircraft for very low altitude terrain following flying. Also the time when attack helicopters were becoming a big thing.
 
Given the timing, AMRAAM is the more likely option for the missile. The Norwegians used it as an SAM as early as the mid-90s, and it has the benefit of not needing onboard radar guidance.
 
Given the timing, AMRAAM is the more likely option for the missile. The Norwegians used it as an SAM as early as the mid-90s, and it has the benefit of not needing onboard radar guidance.
As I recall the US actually has procured some of said system to defend DC(and other high valued targets) airspace 24/7 without the need for fighters to be constantly airborne
 
I'd argue AA guns aren't obsolete. Perhaps even less so today with the threat of drone storms. If you have to fight off one hundred drones at close range guns make a lot more sense then missiles. You're starting to see a resurgence in AA guns with the Germans coming up with a rather neat integrated stationary AA gun system intended for protecting major targets like airports/airfields.


It's an interesting system composed of six networked 35mm AA guns connected to radars and fully automated.

Even today the Russians continue to combine guns and missiles for most of their SPAAG designs.

For the short term in the 80's I kind of like the idea of the US licensing the Gepard system and mating it with M1 or M60 hulls. Then see if you can attach a few Stinger MANPADs to it for added oomph. Maybe eventually go for a Avenger looking like system with one of the 35mm gun "Arms" replaced by a multi shot Stinger box launcher. Or potentially a "Tunguska" like design with a couple of two tube Stingers attached to each side of the SPAAG.
Think my grandfather, if he were still alive, would agree with you. Don't underestimate flak. :p Somewhere I have a photo of his TBM parked on the deck of the Franklin, with a hole in the wing from Japanese AA big enough to pass a football through...
Missiles are expensive, shells are cheap.... and damned effective, if you throw enough of 'em up...
 
Remember, most U.S. tacair losses in Southeast Asia were to flak, not SAMs. You can shoot off all of your missiles, but if you've still got ammo....

Another weapon that should have been canceled? The Davy Crockett tactical nuke. The weapon was so "dirty" that fallout would have been on the launch crew.
 
Think my grandfather, if he were still alive, would agree with you. Don't underestimate flak. :p Somewhere I have a photo of his TBM parked on the deck of the Franklin, with a hole in the wing from Japanese AA big enough to pass a football through...
Missiles are expensive, shells are cheap.... and damned effective, if you throw enough of 'em up...

I mean against high flying fast jet's it's not effective by the mid to late cold war. But it can still be pretty effective against helicopters, attack choppers, and low flying slow and low attack jets (Like the A-10, SU-25, SU7/SU-22, and the like).
 
Remember, most U.S. tacair losses in Southeast Asia were to flak, not SAMs. You can shoot off all of your missiles, but if you've still got ammo....

Another weapon that should have been canceled? The Davy Crockett tactical nuke. The weapon was so "dirty" that fallout would have been on the launch crew.
I think the whole concept of "tactical nukes" was borderline insanity, rather on the level of chemical weapons in WWI.... all it takes is the wind blowing in the wrong direction, and you have a BIG problem on your hands....
 
Remember, most U.S. tacair losses in Southeast Asia were to flak, not SAMs. You can shoot off all of your missiles, but if you've still got ammo....

Another weapon that should have been canceled? The Davy Crockett tactical nuke. The weapon was so "dirty" that fallout would have been on the launch crew.

Missiles combined with guns are the way to go.

The Davy Crockett made sense within the context of that point in the cold war. It was insane in the sense that the crew might die of cancer but frankly if an exchange happened at that point a US serviceman in West Germany probably wasn't going to live long enough to worry about cancer. Meanwhile they were absurdly mobile compared to the other nukes of the era and they could be effectively dispersed to the point that no matter the number of Soviet air attack or Spetsnaz raids could get them all. Meanwhile with them a single platoon's worth of men could wipe out an entire Soviet brigade or even division.

They were crazy but within the context of MAD they actually made a crazy sort of sense.
 
I mean against high flying fast jet's it's not effective by the mid to late cold war. But it can still be pretty effective against helicopters, attack choppers, and low flying slow and low attack jets (Like the A-10, SU-25, SU7/SU-22, and the like).
Yep... and when you're on the ground, it's exactly those low flying slow attack aircraft you're gonna be worrying about the most....
 
Yep... and when you're on the ground, it's exactly those low flying slow attack aircraft you're gonna be worrying about the most....
Yep.

Frankly I think the US militaries post WW2 policies regarding ground based air defense is inherently flawed. Especially now with the threat of Drone Swarms being a real thing.

If you're base has twenty stingers that can be launched and you've got a hundred drones coming at you then you're in serious trouble.
 
Top