WI no Chaparral SAM and VADS?

The 37mm T68 round is more powerful than the 30mm. It's a shame that family was jettisoned so quickly
It might have been more powerful but it just looked bulkier and heavier, both the gun and ammunition, to me. That and the fact that most modern anti-aircraft guns seem to have gone for around the 30-35 mm range in terms of calibre.
 
It might have been more powerful but it just looked bulkier and heavier, both the gun and ammunition, to me. That and the fact that most modern anti-aircraft guns seem to have gone for around the 30-35 mm range in terms of calibre.
Overall length on the T68 Ammo was not far from the Oerlikon 35mm. There is little hard info on what the T250 gun system weights
 
I never understood why the US Army never went with a ground launched version of the Falcon or Sparrow. It would seem that developing a ground launched version of an extant AA missile for tactical air defense would have been cheap and efficient.

For that matter, I’m surprised the Navy never developed a surface launched Phoenix.
 
I never understood why the US Army never went with a ground launched version of the Falcon or Sparrow. It would seem that developing a ground launched version of an extant AA missile for tactical air defense would have been cheap and efficient.

Ironically, probably all of the AA missiles of the world were 1st tested from ground launchers.

For that matter, I’m surprised the Navy never developed a surface launched Phoenix.

Strap a booster on it, marry it to a box/vertical launcher and presto - all your Spruances can double as anti-aircraft destroyers with multi-target capacity of 100 mile radius. Phoenix also offers over-the-horizon interception, due to it's active seeker.
But, then again, this will mean that USN will be spending less money than they want ... ;)
 

Zen9

Banned
Meteor was developed for SAM applications by the US and the RN as Mopsy....under urging from the RN this ultimately lead to Tartar.
Previously the RN had been working on Popsy using Red Hawk.
Though oddly Pink Hawk which lead to Fireflash never seems to have been exolored for SAM applications.

In the mid to late 60's Red Top and other AAMs were looked at and judged as not good enough.
Hence why the French went off with Cactus/Cotral instead and the Italians worked on Indigo.

Sea Pheonix was a real proposal, but threatened the more complex and expensive Standard and was thus quietly shelved. Shame it gave more than Sea Sparrow and could have been of interest to a number of allied states.
 
AAMs don't make particularly good SAMs due to their different operating environments. The sparrows rocket was designed to be launched from somewhere around mach 1, which made it very slow accelerating as a SAM. Similarly the seeker was designed for use at altitude where there are few radar reflections, whereas on the ground half the picture will be clutter. Even the aerodynamics aren't suitable, when the amraam replaced the sparrow and sea sparrow didn't need commonality it was repackaged and the current sm6 looks like a Standard sam now with its long narrow wings.
 
AAMs don't make particularly good SAMs due to their different operating environments. The sparrows rocket was designed to be launched from somewhere around mach 1, which made it very slow accelerating as a SAM. Similarly the seeker was designed for use at altitude where there are few radar reflections, whereas on the ground half the picture will be clutter. Even the aerodynamics aren't suitable, when the amraam replaced the sparrow and sea sparrow didn't need commonality it was repackaged and the current sm6 looks like a Standard sam now with its long narrow wings.
I seem to recall a ground based version of the AMRAAM was fielded ?
 
I mean the Roland 2 entering widespread US Army service, it was selected in the 70s but the programme fizzled out to 27 fire units equipping 1 NG btn.

The weapon itself is fine as far as I know, it shot down a Harrier in the Falklands.
Yep... IMHO a more aggressive effort to deploy Roland on a larger scale by the U.S. would have made sense.
 
Not enough of room for aircraft to hide. Under 500m, they can be engaged by small arms, including heavy MGs, and under 2-3 km the MANPADs are a threat. JNA lost 25 jets by those means in 1991/92, against the enemy without hi-alt air defence that HAWK or SA-2/3 can provide.



Yes, integrated air-defenses are, well, integrated for a reason of one of systems covering shortcomings of another.



The text in blue is easy to fault.
Radar-assisted firing solution will start making firing solutions before the inbound aircraft enters the kill zone of a gun. So we have a gun firing at aircraft that is at 3 km, in order for the 1st burst to meet the aircraft well within the effective range.
Further, a bombed-up jet aircraft flying low and trying to find and bomb it's target will not fly at 800 km/h, but much lower speeds. Anything that try to avoid Vigilante will find itself in the net of the HAWK.
Yep... Plus the U.S. also pushed the development of MANPADS (both Redeye and then the Stinger.) They also issued .50 Cal Mg's on a fairly wide basis as well, and I seem to recall some efforts were made to give the 25 mm chain gun on the Bradley a basic AA capability (I may be mis rembering this ?)

Edit to add:
Apparently the M42 duster was also still in reserve service into the late 1980's. With the benefit of hindsight I do wonder why the M42 duster gun mounts couldn't have been installed on a more modern chassis ? The extra range and shell size of the 40mm might have been handy against attack helicopters (vs some of the other options the Army had at the time.)
 
Last edited:
The Phoenixes long range was due to it being launched at altitude, then climbing to 80-100,000 feet in a ballistic arc. It gained a lot of potential energy once up high. Don’t know how that would work if surface launched.
 
The Phoenixes long range was due to it being launched at altitude, then climbing to 80-100,000 feet in a ballistic arc. It gained a lot of potential energy once up high. Don’t know how that would work if surface launched.
True but I suspect the active seeker might have been useful.
 
The older 70s-era missiles were very slow compared to modern missiles. It's mostly a function of energy density in the motor design. A good rule of thumb is that a missile you wouldn't use in a dogfight probably wouldn't make a good anti-aircraft SAM. The old Sea Sparrow was intended almost exclusively for head-on engagements against sea-skimmers. Sparrow and Phoenix are relatively slow missiles optimized primarily for high-altitude use. All-aspect Sidewinders would work, and AMRAAMs accelerate much faster than Sparrows, due in part to their lower weight.
 
Top