Skysweeper 2010

There doesn’t seem to be a lot of development in this field. The large gun is probably the most reliable tactical weapon in an arsenal. It can sustain a high fire rate. Its inexpensive to develop compared to rocketry and manned aircraft. It can throw out a lot of material over the target zone at a relatively low cost. Its pretty much an all-weather weapon. It can be built very quickly.

Here’s a few of the weapons used for awhile post-WW2:

M1 (120 mm L/60) 25-mile slant range at up to 57K ft altitude @12rpm
M2 (90mm L/53) 12-mile slant range at up to 34K ft altitude @25rpm

QF 5.25-inch (133mm L/50) 15.33-mile slant range at up to 55K ft altitude @10rpm
QF 4.5-inch (113mm L/45) 13-mile slant range at up to 44K ft altitude @8rpm
QF 3.7-inch (94mm L/50) 12-mile slant range at up to 40K ft altitude @10rpm (20 rpm for the fixed site)

KS-30 (130mm) 19-mile slant range @60K ft altitude @6-8rpm
KS-19 (100mm) 13-mile slant range @50K ft altitude @12-15rpm
M1939 (85mm L/) 7-mile slant range @35K ft altitude @10-12rpm

Can you not use recoilless guns or say rail guns?

That’s why our SP artillery died so horribly over in Iraq, even when Iraq successfully got off counter-battery fire. /end sarcasm

Mobility does not mean or necessitate constant movement. The Serbs showed that even relatively large missile launchers can be mobilized successfully. Its not like you have to put them on treads or to make them SP. Towed assets have worked well in the past. Towed assets are more survivable at better than a 3:1 ratio historically speaking.

Non-mobile = dead. The LCS’ 57mm Bofors mount sans ammo already weighs almost 8 metric tonnes. The German eighty-eight weighed almost 11 tonnes naked in the last anti-air version. The German 128mm flak was way over 20 metric tonnes. The stuff is heavy and produces a lot of recoil. Even mounted on a MBT chassis you reach the practical (semi-)mobility limits very fast. And as said, non-mobile = dead.

I’m thinking bigger shell sizes than what they use in Pantsir or Shilka. 76mm was the low end of AAA. Common AAA shell diameters were also the 90mm and 130mm. The larger the shell the more complex it can be which also scales the cost. I can see a usefulness for a semi-mobile 203mm system for strategic defense, but it wouldn’t be realistic for most other situations. But smaller shell diameters would be plenty mobile and useful at the same time. That is why I wonder why the lack of development in this respect.

Matt thats also what came to mind when i read this. Also some thing a little older ZSU-23-4 Shilka.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJMwjvYERzc

Doesnt the tunguska and the pantsir take this concept still?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdGZ5y8aEyI

Its definitely in a caliber range suited for it.

http://www.deagel.com/Weapon-Stations/Davide_a001748001.aspx

or it could be, like with the davide, guided via datalink. I assume that makes it more rugged and less susceptible to high acceleration damage when exiting the barell.

I hadn’t really considered the miniaturized laser seeker guidance package being developed for 2.75″ rockets. Very plausible. You understand the premise of tactical ballistic missiles, being area denial weapons. And because the majority of them fly an oscillating flight path one missile simply isn’t enough to engage a single missile. With a mix of guns – and the smart aim of computers – you can place several KE or HE projectiles in the flight path of a tactical ballistic missile. And the same system could intercept glide weapons. Plus there is no reason it cannot be used for fire support. It forces an obsolescence of several generations of standoff weapons currently used worldwide. And it’s high RoF is affordable. Netcentric warfare at it’s finest.

Agreed, such guns could play a much greater role against various artillery and/or bomb attacks than against ballistic missiles. Reentry speed/mass of SRBMs is just too great for a gun to be able to move them away from their trajectory. Speed also means a much narrower window of opportunity to intercept. Even if we use a very conservative figure of yesteryear’s BMs and say they will fall at 3 km/sec, in practice that means even a large caliber gun (say 76mm) will have no more than two second window of engagement. Again speed will mean its harder to hit it. Furthermore, it is often more worthwile to go for a cluster warhead or even just detonate the warhead a km or two before impact – to cover a larger area. BMs arent pinpoint precision assassins but area denial weapons.

On the other hand – a highly automatized and precise weapon system – perhaps with 76mm rounds being passively guided by a laser illuminator, could potentially be quite good against various incoming cruise missiles, winged bombs (a la SDB) and perhaps even regular fast falling JDAMS etc.

During my second tour of Iraq redundant Phalanx CIWS were employed at the COB (Basrah Int Airport) along with all their radar and support equipment.

These fixed sites were put in place to provide counter battery fire against more frequently occuring insurgent mortar and rocket attack. The phalanx proved very successful in this role and I must admit watching two seperate 20mm cannon tear up the night sky was something to behold!

Phalanx, with 81mm mortar (range around 5-6km) and AS90 (25+km) in place to provide counter fire gave them somthing to think about!:diablo:

OTO-Melera tried the concept with the Otomatic 76mm AAA tank.

It didn’t sell!