Divisional Air Defense System (DIVAD / DIVADS) Proposals

[sferrin]

You also got to remember that the Vigilante had a disturbing tendency to literally shake itself apart in its original configuration, largely due to the recoil of the 37mm being so harsh.

This is the one you've said twice was made by "Sprey and Company?" What original configuration? 37x255mm? 37x217mm?

Should be "Sperry" not "Sprey". Funny factoid is through all the subsequent acquisitions they're now L-3 Harris and there are still old pictures of the Vigilante on the walls over there.

 

[CJGibson]

This has been a fascinating thread. I thought it was only the British who cobbled stuff together then struggled to get it to work.

SPAAGS are quite fascinating, especially in the SPAAG gun/attack helicopter ATGW race.

Chris

 

[dan_inbox]

The IDF had the Chaparral and M163 Vulcan that was the US Army solution between the 60s and 1990. Is there any account of how they performed?

Heyl ha Avir's Chaparrals scored one Syrian MiG-17, which IIRC is the single world-wide kill by a MIM-72.

The M163 Hovet are credited with three victories, against Syria during op shalag in 1982.
They haven't had many other opportunities to defend against air attack since.

They have actually been used more in urban fighting, where their high elevation is useful to flush out foes hiding in the upper floors, without having to collapse the whole building.

 

[GruntFox]

They remedied the loss of DIVAD with Stinger, which was much less involved to deploy.

Sgt. York was a great name, and building around Bofors 40 was sound. But it's just an overly expensive remedy to a mission solved through technology. If it could have been mounted on a cheap chassis like M113, it had more chance. Did it really need twin guns, too? And they certainly did not need a multi-million dollar fighter radar to solve the 'helicopters behind trees and obstacles' problem. They just went too aggressive with their solution.

Here's a little factoid: you must have a radar on an AAG, or it's useless other than 'when aircraft are right on top of you'. This was as obvious as far back as WW2, mind you.

The M113 was still in use and was already slated for a few dozen things already... alongside the fact that it has quite a few limitations (the Vigilante was built on an M113 chassis, and the recoil of the gun basically wrecked the chassis).

Two guns were because the 40mm Bofors weren't as quick firing as the 35mm guns... and want to have the option of sending a lot of lead down-range if needed.

 

[MadRat]

Strange the chassis of M113 couldn't handle the shock considering a pair of 40's worked on an M41 chassis and Brazil (e.g. Charrau) did it on an extended M113 chassis. My very concern was the rate of fire for the opposite reason. You can only load so much up to fire. They tried a 37mm T250 in the T249 vehicle and it burnt through its drum real fast at anti-aircraft rates. In the ground role its rof was about same as the 40mm Bofors. The T250 on the T249 was a rotary, like the Vulcan, only in 37x219, with a 192-round drum, so you can imagine at 3,000 rounds a second you better be aiming where you mean it. Bofors in comparison was 40x365 of L70 and 40x311 of the L60. The twin was simply too heavy on a vehicle to react against helicopters and jets. Its my opinion that reaction time also needed to be cut down under 4 seconds to be useful, and the twin was not getting there. Today, with Link16, I don't imagine that would be as much of a problem against threats identified soon enough to pre-aim.

And btw- my beef wasn't that it had radar. My beef was them trying to sell too much radar for the role.

 

[GruntFox]

And btw- my beef wasn't that it had radar. My beef was them trying to sell too much radar for the role.

Thing was, that radar was the one they could get 'off the shelf' aka readily available. Also, it had responsiveness, but the problem is that said responsiveness had two problems: it would overload the 3k PSI hydraulics in certain situations, and the speed of the turret was considered 'nauseating'.

 

[timmymagic]

It is interesting that the British Army never deployed the Falcon AA system and relied on Blowpipe and Rapier.

Its the Marksman one that is even more puzzling...developed just after we realised that close in defence might need guns as well...no orders, then the Cold War drawdown arrived..

 

[MadRat]

Maybe they should just approach future SPAAG as an army CIWS. Instead of trying to reach long ranges they should be thinking about protecting a force under artillery attack or from hostile guided bombs while on the move at 35-45 mph. Can you do that with a DIVAD type of system, with its directional radar linked to share information with something using LINK16, or do you need spherical radar coverage? And if you use radar coverage, would you draw more fire than defend against? Would hate to be broadcasting your position in this highly dangerous environment.

 

[GruntFox]

Maybe they should just approach future SPAAG as an army CIWS. Instead of trying to reach long ranges they should be thinking about protecting a force under artillery attack or from hostile guided bombs while on the move at 35-45 mph. Can you do that with a DIVAD type of system, with its directional radar linked to share information with something using LINK16, or do you need spherical radar coverage? And if you use radar coverage, would you draw more fire than defend against? Would hate to be broadcasting your position in this highly dangerous environment.

Here's the thing, as far as I know, only Shilka (ZSU-23-4) crews were trained to do something like that, and even then, that was only against PGMs and only when they could catch them. It wasn't until the late '80s/early '90s that the capability actually started showing up.

 

[sferrin]

A GAU-8 on an Abrams chassis and lots of ammo.

 

[GruntFox]

A GAU-8 on an Abrams chassis and lots of ammo.

However, that would go against the fire support requirement, as the M42 Duster showed that 40mm HE is surprisingly good. Don't forget that battery fires are a thing, and they're nasty (which is what you'll need when using the damn thing), especially when considering the power consumption that the GAU-8 had. In comparison, the battery packs for the radar and whatnot are cheap change.

 

[Pioneer]

The most sensible, effective and cost efficient solution was the Gepard turret (including sensors and 35mm guns) on the M1 chassis - period.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[uk 75]

Western armies and those supplied with Western kit have never had to fight a war where they did not have air superiority.

The different approaches to defending ground forces of the US, UK, West Germany and France have never been put to the test.

Since neither the Russian nor the Chinese Air Force look like being able to achieve air superiority over Western and allied air power any time soon (they prefer missiles of various kinds), I dont see a Sgt York/Gepard being ordered for a while yet.

 

[Christopher Wang]

The most sensible, effective and cost efficient solution was the Gepard turret (including sensors and 35mm guns) on the M1 chassis - period.

Regards
Pioneer

Raytheon actually did propose using the Gepard turret mounted on the hull of the M48 Patton for the DIVAD contest. Unfortunately, Raytheon's proposal was rejected for unknown reasons in favor of the General Dynamics XM246 and Ford Aerospace XM247. There are no known actual photographs of Raytheon's DIVAD proposal to combine the M48 Patton hull with the Gepard turret.

Since the M48 Patton shares the same turret ring diameter of 85-inches / 215.9-centimeteres as the M60 MBT and M1 Abrams, perhaps it would be technically feasible to fit the Gepard turret onto an M60 or M1 hull.

 

[Pioneer]

The most sensible, effective and cost efficient solution was the Gepard turret (including sensors and 35mm guns) on the M1 chassis - period.

Regards
Pioneer

Raytheon actually did propose using the Gepard turret mounted on the hull of the M48 Patton for the DIVAD contest. Unfortunately, Raytheon's proposal was rejected for unknown reasons in favor of the General Dynamics XM246 and Ford Aerospace XM247. There are no known actual photographs of Raytheon's DIVAD proposal to combine the M48 Patton hull with the Gepard turret.

Since the M48 Patton shares the same turret ring diameter of 85-inches / 215.9-centimeteres as the M60 MBT and M1 Abrams, perhaps it would be technically feasible to fit the Gepard turret onto an M60 or M1 hull.

Thank you for your reply Christopher Wang.
One could probably surmise that the powers that be wanted the U.S.- centric R&D and content, verses a cost-effective system like the Gepard turret system which had already been developed. The notion and intent of utilising the M48 chassis was the least of the U.S. Army's problem. Like most U.S. Army air defence programs Post-WWII, being able to stay on requirement and delivering a functional and effective SPAAG system has proven to be a complete and utterly another thing.

Come to think of it, I wonder how an M1 Abrams as the basis of' Sergeant York' would have operationally fared, given the Abrams use of gas turbine and it's need to run longer, so as to generate power for the turret and associated sensors (I appreciate that the M1 Abrams eventually gained an APU for this very reason, but I don't think it existed at the time of the DIVAD program.

No IMO, the Gepard tarret was a big and detrimentally lost operational opertinity.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[sferrin]

Western armies and those supplied with Western kit have never had to fight a war where they did not have air superiority.

The different approaches to defending ground forces of the US, UK, West Germany and France have never been put to the test.

Since neither the Russian nor the Chinese Air Force look like being able to achieve air superiority over Western and allied air power any time soon (they prefer missiles of various kinds), I dont see a Sgt York/Gepard being ordered for a while yet.

Waiting until we lose air superiority in a hot war before starting a competition to solve the problem seems a bit. . .ah, too late for the party.

 

[sferrin]

Come to think of it, I wonder how an M1 Abrams as the basis of
'Sergeant York' would have operationally fared, given the Abrams use of gas turbine and it's need to run longer, so as to generate power for the turret and associated sensors (I appreciate that the M1 Abrams eventually gained an APU for this very reason, but I don't think it existed at the time of the DIVAD program.

No IMO, the Gepard tarret was a big and detrimentally lost operational opertinity.

Regards
Pioneer

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/liberty-air-defense-system.696/#post-26960

 

[MadRat]

If tank or artillery turrets could fire at a proper trajectory, does it matter if you use 120mm round versus 500 rounds of 35mm at a helicopter? If that 120mm round can use command guidance to make the kill with one shot then you simplify the number of platforms necessary in your force structure. And in a pinch maybe you can do the same with a 155mm gun or howitzer. Smart shells will have a huge \impact/ on what be done in the future. If one re-imagines air defense with guns in the field then you need to consolidate roles. The new generation of IFVs are pushing larger calibers. Tying all these systems together will be better than what could be done with M247. If DIVAD had been fielded surely 40mm would have become a common IFV round, and 25mm Bushmaster probably never gets used like it did. No doubt somethink like LINK16 between SPAAG could have kept them relevant until such larger smart shells I described become the standard.

 

[Pioneer]

Come to think of it, I wonder how an M1 Abrams as the basis of
'Sergeant York' would have operationally fared, given the Abrams use of gas turbine and it's need to run longer, so as to generate power for the turret and associated sensors (I appreciate that the M1 Abrams eventually gained an APU for this very reason, but I don't think it existed at the time of the DIVAD program.

No IMO, the Gepard tarret was a big and detrimentally lost operational opertinity.

Regards
Pioneer

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/liberty-air-defense-system.696/#post-26960

Thank you for your response and the link sferrin , but as you'd no doubtedly appriciate, the Liberty system was yet another mish mash and almost two decades later and ironically itself proved to be yet another U.S. Army failure torto it's failed Sgt York debarcle, which itself was supposed to be a replacement for the M167.......

Regards
Pioneer

 

[sferrin]

Come to think of it, I wonder how an M1 Abrams as the basis of
'Sergeant York' would have operationally fared, given the Abrams use of gas turbine and it's need to run longer, so as to generate power for the turret and associated sensors (I appreciate that the M1 Abrams eventually gained an APU for this very reason, but I don't think it existed at the time of the DIVAD program.

No IMO, the Gepard tarret was a big and detrimentally lost operational opertinity.

Regards
Pioneer

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/liberty-air-defense-system.696/#post-26960

Thank you for your response and the link sferrin , but as you'd no doubtedly appriciate, the Liberty system was yet another mish mash and almost two decades later and ironically itself proved to be yet another U.S. Army failuretfailure replace it's failed Sgt York debarcle, which itself was supposed to be a replacement for the M167.......

Regards
Pioneer

Yep.

 

[TsrJoe]

This one ?

 

[dan_inbox]

If tank or artillery turrets could fire at a proper trajectory, does it matter if you use 120mm round versus 500 rounds of 35mm at a helicopter?

Tsahal's experience during op shalag in '82 was that it was most effective for tanks to shoot HE shells airburst in the general direction of Syrian SA-342L Gazelle-HOT helos hiding behind terrain. The blast would slam the helo into the terrain, or at least wreck the rotor.
No need to hit it direct, not even to keep seeing the helo.

The tactic was used so often, against _any_ helo approaching, that IDF pilots complained of friendly fire. This led to the famous yellow V id marking.

(however in '82 the MBTs were firing mostly 105mm, not 120mm)

 

[Christopher Wang]

This one ?

So Oerlikon-Contraves really did propose fitting the Gepard turret onto other tank chassis such as the M48 and M60. Since the M48 and M60 share the same turret ring diameter of 85-in / 215.9-cm as the M1, it should be technically feasible to fit the Gepard turret onto the M1 Abrams.

I’m surprised that the Gepard turret was also proposed to be fitted onto the M109.

Where did you find this image?

 

[Pioneer]

This one ?

I’m surprised that the Gepard turret was also proposed to be fitted onto the M109.

Why so Christopher Wang?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[GruntFox]

Part of the problem was that they were working on the problems (i.e. replacing 3k PSI hydraulics with 5k PSI variants due to the 3k PSI units not being up to the task they were saddled with, debugging the FCS system, that sort of thing), but several hit-pieces-all-but-in-name showed up in the newspapers that sank it.

Much like how the AH-56 was killed by changing design philosophies (demanding two turbines instead of one, for example) and the USAF being itself just as the next round of fixes were being implemented.

 

[Christopher Wang]

Part of the problem was that they were working on the problems (i.e. replacing 3k PSI hydraulics with 5k PSI variants due to the 3k PSI units not being up to the task they were saddled with, debugging the FCS system, that sort of thing), but several hit-pieces-all-but-in-name showed up in the newspapers that sank it.

Much like how the AH-56 was killed by changing design philosophies (demanding two turbines instead of one, for example) and the USAF being itself just as the next round of fixes were being implemented.

What do you mean by "several hit-pieces-all-but-in-name"?

Is it possible that with more time to fix the problems, the M247 Sergeant York could have been made workable until a suitable replacement arrives?

 

[Christopher Wang]

This one ?

I’m surprised that the Gepard turret was also proposed to be fitted onto the M109.

Why so Christopher Wang?

Regards
Pioneer

I know that the M109 chassis was proposed for the Roland SAM in the form of the XM975 American Roland, and that the Gepard turret has been marketed for the Leclerc and M48 Patton chassis.

This is the first time I heard of the M109 being proposed as a SPAAG platform with the Gepard turret.

 

[Pioneer]

This one ?

I’m surprised that the Gepard turret was also proposed to be fitted onto the M109.

Why so Christopher Wang?

Regards
Pioneer

I know that the M109 chassis was proposed for the Roland SAM in the form of the XM975 American Roland, and that the Gepard turret has been marketed for the Leclerc and M48 Patton chassis.

This is the first time I heard of the M109 being proposed as a SPAAG platform with the Gepard turret.

Sorry, Christopher Wang, I hope my question didn't come across the wrong way.
I'm of the personal opinion that the M109 chassis was a versatile design which could have/should have been utilised more for other applications, as it would be cheaper, lighter and one would think being designed for a SPH, offer much more space for systems/ammunition than that of a MBT chassis.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

Part of the problem was that they were working on the problems (i.e. replacing 3k PSI hydraulics with 5k PSI variants due to the 3k PSI units not being up to the task they were saddled with, debugging the FCS system, that sort of thing), but several hit-pieces-all-but-in-name showed up in the newspapers that sank it.

Much like how the AH-56 was killed by changing design philosophies (demanding two turbines instead of one, for example) and the USAF being itself just as the next round of fixes were being implemented.

What do you mean by "several hit-pieces-all-but-in-name"?

Is it possible that with more time to fix the problems, the M247 Sergeant York could have been made workable until a suitable replacement arrives?

In all due respect, would you put all that time and money into fixing a adhoc system, only to wait and develop a "suitable replacement"?

One should probably also appreciate that the Sgt York Operational Requirement was supposedly important because of a certainty that war between U.S. and Soviet Union was imminent (going by the generals and the Reagan administration)

Regards
Pioneer

 

[GruntFox]

Part of the problem was that they were working on the problems (i.e. replacing 3k PSI hydraulics with 5k PSI variants due to the 3k PSI units not being up to the task they were saddled with, debugging the FCS system, that sort of thing), but several hit-pieces-all-but-in-name showed up in the newspapers that sank it.

Much like how the AH-56 was killed by changing design philosophies (demanding two turbines instead of one, for example) and the USAF being itself just as the next round of fixes were being implemented.

What do you mean by "several hit-pieces-all-but-in-name"?

Is it possible that with more time to fix the problems, the M247 Sergeant York could have been made workable until a suitable replacement arrives?

Well, there are two pieces that really killed the program, one by The Atlantic Monthly being the biggest one, while The New York Times had a similarly scathing but added the 'its necessary' to its piece.

I mean, the AH-56 was just about fixed when the call came down to kill the program, and from what I've read they were about to implement the changes for the production prototypes when the call came down.

Part of the problem was that they were working on the problems (i.e. replacing 3k PSI hydraulics with 5k PSI variants due to the 3k PSI units not being up to the task they were saddled with, debugging the FCS system, that sort of thing), but several hit-pieces-all-but-in-name showed up in the newspapers that sank it.

Much like how the AH-56 was killed by changing design philosophies (demanding two turbines instead of one, for example) and the USAF being itself just as the next round of fixes were being implemented.

What do you mean by "several hit-pieces-all-but-in-name"?

Is it possible that with more time to fix the problems, the M247 Sergeant York could have been made workable until a suitable replacement arrives?

In all due respect, would you put all that time and money into fixing a adhoc system, only to wait and develop a "suitable replacement"?

One should probably also appreciate that the Sgt York Operational Requirement was supposedly important because of a certainty that war between U.S. and Soviet Union was imminent (going by the generals and the Reagan administration)

Regards
Pioneer

You also forget that outside of the B-17, no US military procurement program was under budget and on time. US procurement is always over budget. Period.

 

[Christopher Wang]

A

This one ?

I’m surprised that the Gepard turret was also proposed to be fitted onto the M109.

Why so Christopher Wang?

Regards
Pioneer

I know that the M109 chassis was proposed for the Roland SAM in the form of the XM975 American Roland, and that the Gepard turret has been marketed for the Leclerc and M48 Patton chassis.

This is the first time I heard of the M109 being proposed as a SPAAG platform with the Gepard turret.

Sorry, Christopher Wang, I hope my question didn't come across the wrong way.
I'm of the personal opinion that the M109 chassis was a versatile design which could have/should have been utilised more for other applications, as it would be cheaper, lighter and one would think being designed for a SPH, offer much more space for systems/ammunition than that of a MBT chassis.

Regards
Pioneer

No offense taken.

According to the American Fighting Vehicle Database ( http://afvdb.50megs.com/ ), the M109 also has a turret ring diameter of 100-in / 254-cm. With the M109's large internal space and turret ring diameter, you're probably right about the M109's potential versatility. It would also be a bonus if the Roland and Gepard anti-aircraft systems could be fitted onto the newer six-wheel M109A7 chassis.

 

[Firefinder]

You also forget that outside of the B-17, no US military procurement program was under budget and on time. US procurement is always over budget. Period

Needs to be noted that even the B17 ended up needing a variety of fixes before it became the Iconic Fly Fortress of WW2.

Like it took them a long time to get the bottom turret to work properly.

So its even argueable that the B17 was on time and under budget.

 

[GruntFox]

You also forget that outside of the B-17, no US military procurement program was under budget and on time. US procurement is always over budget. Period

Needs to be noted that even the B17 ended up needing a variety of fixes before it became the Iconic Fly Fortress of WW2.

Like it took them a long time to get the bottom turret to work properly.

So its even argueable that the B17 was on time and under budget.

Well, for the initial production run, yeah, it was 'on time and under budget', but to get the iconic version that popular history remembers them as... it's over budget and over time. Though, in the B-17's case, it's probably boosted by Bomber Harris types inflating its reputation.

People keep forgetting that procurement isn't straight from paper to reality, more often than not it includes a lot of fixing and changes due to problems of that paper theory being applied to reality causes.

... like 3k PSI units being unable to work with the rapid multi-axial inputs that the Sgt York was designed (from the onset) to be standard procedure.

There are very good reasons that prototyping tends to be concept prototype -> production prototype -> initial production -> intermediate production -> final production...

 

[Christopher Wang]

I found these pictures on Reddit of a remote control scale replica of the General Dynamics XM246 DIVAD. The writing on the replica identifies it as belonging to the "GENERAL PATTON MILITARY MUSEUM", but the exact location where these pictures were taken is not known. Oddly, the museum display misidentifies the replica as the Ford Aerospace M247 Sergeant York.




Source:

https://www.reddit.com/r/tanks/comments/qk28b7

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/tanks/comments/qk28b7/apparently_this_little_guy_is_a_remote_control/

 

[Pioneer]

Oddly, the museum display misidentifies the replica as the Ford Aerospace M247 Sergeant York.

Did you politely bring this to the museum attention Christopher Wang ?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[TomS]

Oddly, the museum display misidentifies the replica as the Ford Aerospace M247 Sergeant York.

Did you politely bring this to the museum attention Christopher Wang ?

Regards
Pioneer

Given that Christopher notes in his post that he doesn't know where the museum is located, how could he do this? (And it's not trivial to figure out -- there are at least three "General Patton Museums" that I can find online, none of which call themselves the "General Patton Military Museum.")

 

[jstar]

Bet it's here:

https://generalpattonmuseum.com/exhibits/matzner-tank-pavilion/

The interior of the building looks very similiar, and the site says you can see an "M-60 turret"

 

[TomS]

Bet it's here:

https://generalpattonmuseum.com/exhibits/matzner-tank-pavilion/

The interior of the building looks very similiar, and the site says you can see an "M-60 turret"View attachment 688020

seems likely, but if that's a current image, they've rearranged and the model isn't on display. Maybe someone already called it to their attention.

 

[Pioneer]

Oddly, the museum display misidentifies the replica as the Ford Aerospace M247 Sergeant York.

Did you politely bring this to the museum attention Christopher Wang ?

Regards
Pioneer

Given that Christopher notes in his post that he doesn't know where the museum is located, how could he do this? (And it's not trivial to figure out -- there are at least three "General Patton Museums" that I can find online, none of which call themselves the "General Patton Military Museum.")

Yeah good point TomS

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Christopher Wang]

This one ?

Out of curiosity, where did you find this image?