Do you think a clean sheet IFV/SPAAG combination could be effective against light drones? The concept was inspired by the M3 bradley which is a recon variant of the M2 IFV. SPAAGs and IFVs generally have similar caliber guns, SPAAGs generally have much higher rates of fire, often with multiple barrels but not always e.g. Gepards. You might have two variants, one more IFV focused with an ATGM and an infantry compartment, and another with IR SAMs and the compartment used to carry more ammunition, but both would have RADAR guided cannons and rapid turret rotation speeds. Please explain why this is retarded.
>>65362199It was called the Bradley Linebacker, but they chose using the LAV over the Bradley for the short range air defence role. There were a couple made but they were pulled from service and reconverted. They might come back, but I think its just as likely a new platform is used instead of the legacy Bradley, only advantage the Bradley would have is costs per unit (refits are cheaper than new vehicles).
>>65362220>It was called the Bradley LinebackerNo it isn't, that had the same gun and FCS. The M-SHORAD maybe would fit.
>>65362220>they chose using the LAV over the Bradley for the short range air defence roleIf you have played Battlefield 3 you may recognize this, its where I first saw it anyways. I believe it was used almost exclusively for airfield defence, with little use otherwise. They didn't build more than 20 and it was obviously seen as either a redundancy(?) if they didnt want it or as just not good enough. >>65362226M-Shorad is a demonstrator, the linebacker was acutally fielded by the military. An autocannon with airburst is good, but obviously the job can still be done with dumb ammo, just with less wiggle room and more rounds on target (you'd want a better way to detect and track though, hence M-Shorad not being called linebacker II)
>>65362199It's retarded because the modern concept of armor/protection inherently requires active protection systems; it requires the ability to shoot down threats before they make their way to you. You can think of this on a human level as having a gun to defend yourself against people armed with knives or swords. You inherently defend yourself against their aggression by shooting them before they get close to you; before they can come into stabbing range and the range to penetrate flesh with metal. Similarly, modern "armored" (protected) vehicles need to have the ability to shoot down low-cost munitions before they're close enough to penetrate their armor.Dividing this ability to shoot down threats onto specific vehicles is like giving only a part of your police force, or a part of your military, guns, leaving the rest of them to operate under the assumption that others will cover them.This is fundamentally not realistic when you consider the ubiquitous nature of modern drones. Sending an IFV into combat without anti-drone guns is like sending a police officer into the worst ghetto of Gary Indiana without a service pistol. Technically, it can work, but it requires you to concentrate massed efforts at a level which is just not necessarily realistic, or at least is not competitive in terms of achieving objectives. This idea of dividing anti-drone efforts onto specific vehicles is basically why Russia is currently facing a strategic failure in Ukraine; not specifically because of the idea, but because of technical limitations. Russia just can't build a true modern military.
>>65362199Absolutely. It would be even better if it was on a rooftop. It would be even better if it had a detached vampire system that could detect incoming and send a few dozen rockets to meet them. For ballistic missiles forget it.
>>65362199If you have a good FCS you can shoot down drones with the coaxial machine gun.
>>65362232> M-Shorad is a demonstrator, the linebacker was acutally fielded by the military.Irrelevant to the discussion which is about hypothetical designs and not in service equipment
>>65362243Fuck the Ukies did it with the fucking basic bitch Bradley autocannon.
So the Stryker SGT STOUT isnt in service?
>>65362694Is the M-SHORAD gun radar guided? Regardless the idea wasn't "an IFV variant for SHORAD" it was "An IFV all variants of which have a gun and sensors capable of SHORAD". It would be like all Strykers having M-SHORAD guns, assuming they have sufficient sensors/fire control which I am not certain of as the 8 missiles seem to be more of the focus.Are there APKWS pods for Strykers yet?
>>65362199Why? I don't get this weird mindset with manned-warfare enjoyers. Did the militaries scratched their heads on how to redesign horse cavalry when tanks were invented? Manned fighting vehicles are obsolete. You fight drones with drones.
>>65363141Bait
>>65362235this anon understands some shitfor the near term, he is rightin the medium term, losses from bunching soldiers up into one vehicle will become prohibitive, so there will be a brief but glorious age of the battlesuitthen the machines will take over the few niches left for human combatants and it will be well and truly ogrethen the Butlerian jihad will come and we will be back to pushing pointy sticks into each other as nature intended
>>65363141this anon truly understands
>>65362199>take Bradley>remove turret>install C-RAM in hole>slap a 2 pack of RIM-116s on each side also painted white>use former troop compartment for anything else needed to make it work>name it the "Doug"Instant SPAAG with fast reaction times and a high rate of fire based on already proven systems.
>>65366390>tips over in 30mph winds>shakes itself apart in 30 seconds of sustained fire>no room or power for a search radarlol
>>65362235>wall of textJust say that any vehicle you send will need their own anti-drones system or be destroyed the second they are separated.
>>65362199With something like BAE 3P ammo you could easily have the autocannon function as both AA and AP. With a chain gun varying the firing rate is easy enough.All you would really need is fast traverse / elevation, higher elevation and a track / scan radar.
>>65366405I could swear a search radar was in the top part of the hat on a Phalanx. Honestly I'd set it up to allow datalink and full on slaving to other more powerful radar in the area anyways. If you've also got a Patriot battery nearby and/or an AWACS that's going to shit all over a CIWS size radar for capability. It probably would need some sort of EOTS that could quickly verify the target is actually a drone, not a flock of rare and endangered doodlesnipes, and automatically engage. A good EOTS system would also allow it to target things effectively without emitting. If you're worried about power there's a nice roomy troop compartment you could fill part of with an additional generator and towing bigger generators is still an option. Also, you know C-RAMs only carry like 20 seconds of ammo right? If it can fire from a HEMTT or a trailer it ought to be perfectly fine on a Bradley hull. This would almost certainly be heavier than a regular Bradley or HEMTT.That said the truth is I really REALLY just want to see some shaheds and an FPV or two get absolutely wasted by a properly painted "Doug" while the Fairly Odd-parents theme is blasted on an external speaker instead of the old "INCOMING" alert.
>>65362199>>65366427Already being solved.https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4495825/defeating-the-swarm-project-flytrap-accelerates-natos-counter-drone-lethality/
>>65366444>I could swear a search radar was in the top part of the hat on a Phalanxfire control radarnot a great one, at that>full on slaving to other more powerful radar in the areamein Fuhrer, Steiner... Steiner could not bring Pac3 battery radars or AWACS to the edge of the battlespace BECAUSE IT IS RAINING FUCKING SHAHEDS on our bases and airfields. Steiner's ADN is not operational.>t can fire from a HEMTT or a trailerafter you put jacks down on a hardened surface, sure
>>65366468Why aren't you placing AD on known flight paths? Where's all your other AD at your airfield? Why aren't the C-RAMs at your airfields doing work? How does shahed spam at one airbase stop an E-3 from flying in from another location or going to a different base if it needed to land? It sure wouldn't ground an already flying plane. You can just say "I don't like it" without attaching Russian levels of incompetence to all involved.I'm pretty sure the fire control radar is in the cylinder and MUCH better than its search radar, considering its job. The whole point of C-RAM using the Phalanx is its a complete package with both search and fire control radar built in. If you're worried about stability adding jacks to the vehicle isn't exactly going to be a monumental feat compared to attaching a whole ass Phalanx, a new generator, and a bunch of electronics. I don't know why you're acting like a Bradley is light as a twig. Full slaving ought to be optional. Set up as part of a patriot site? Yeah. Off on its own in a hedge somewhere? Local radar just shares its info for a bigger clearer picture even when the phalanx itself is not emitting.If you want a truly front line SPAAG then bring back the Linebacker and give it an all around faster turret, a jammer, a 35mm autocannon with programmable rounds, a basic radar setup, and 360 degree EOTS akin to an F-35's. At the end of the day it'd just be a fancy up-gunned Bradley with no infantry in the back if you ever had to scrap with it.
>>65368045>known flight paths1000 miles range at 30ft AGL lmao>Where's all your other AD at your airfield?fucked by BSD (big shahed dick)>shahed spam at one airbaseshahed spam at every airbase in the AOhave you, like, been following the recent Iranian kerfluffle at all?I can see American tanker aircraft parked on the apron at my local airport in eastern europe because they can't hang at Ben Gurion lol>It sure wouldn't ground an already flying planeoops your spare parts depot just got shahed'd>MUCH better than its search radarPhalanx does not have a search radar, it relies on outside information to train the FCR to where it needs to look>a basic radar setupkeks>If you want a truly front line SPAAG I don'tthe drones will always be cheaper, i.e. more plentifulyour system will always have a limited number n of engagements it can do between max detection range and min weapon range and the enemy will always be able to send n+1 dronessimple as
>>65368310Oh... you're one of the retards. Please give your poor parents my condolences.
>>65362199>Do you think a clean sheet IFV/SPAAG combination could be effective against light drones?Yes. 50mm is perfect/excessive and will be suited to the 80 degree elevation turret they're putting on it.
>>65362199Literally just put these on every single vehicle.
>>65362255Just admit you were wrong, bitch
>>65368938Wrong about what?
>>6536849950 seems far too large. I'd say 35 is the sweet spot as far as capability vs ammunition load.
>>65368942What you were trying to deflect from.
>>65368956Oh you're trollingBased retard
>>65368953You're right that 35mm is probably more suitable given you'll be engaging ground targets more, and want more stowed ammo, but it is a bit of a niche calibre and not used in many cannons.Still, it's what the US has decided on for the Bradley replacement program.
>>65366444I think you've totally missed the whole point of Phalanx. It's a completely standalone system that's designed from the ground up to function in the absence of anything else, so that if for eg your ship lets a missile in that trips power your CIWS has no failover delay during engagement on the other missiles coming in while it swaps power sources, changes radar modes etc
>>65369060As I said, the thing's the complete package. If it wasn't able to function standalone it'd be worthless for CIWS/C-RAM duties. Giving it extra capabilities on top of that isn't a bad deal though.
>>65368429>I'm all out of argumentsI accept your unconditional surrender
>>65369060>It's a completely standalone systemlmao
>>65369480No, but you're clearly one of those mooks that thinks shahed spam is the be all end all of war so it's not worth the time :D
>>65369519>I am going to misrepresent your argument because I don't have one of my ownyou already conceded, no need to be shaming yourself further
>>65362235>DRONES!!!It's perplexing to me that you don't believe America has a solution for drones that they don't share to maintain supremacy.
>>65369836>America has a solutionYeah, say that to multiple of their base in ME that blasted by drones.
>>65369821It's getting to the point that we need a filter for conceded like we do with ŞÕŶ
>>65369839Wow, the bases were completely destroyed!?
>>65369844>completely destroyedDamaged enough to stop them from being operational.Dont move the goal post, please.
>>65369841what's funniest to me is you're American but you're arguing the same stupid stuff that a Soviet junior officer would be arguing over vodka and salo back in the 80s>hurr durr there will always be a functional air defense network backing us upwhich is funny because it is a complete 180 from what any US jr officer up to a few years ago would have argued, namely>hurr durr we will always have air superioritynevermind. when you're done malding, coping and seething, when a few more brave American mercenaries are cooked inside their APCs, a few more AWACS and tankers are burnt on the tarmac, a few more frigates and destroyers sunk, you will understand that drone spam really is the new meta
>>65369941brown hands
>>65369326>If it wasn't able to function standalonein practice, it isn'tthe fcr can in theory search and track, but in practice it's so limited as to be near useless on its own. the putative search cone is something like a 60 degree solid angle, for examplenow IN THEORY you could have enough LPWS to cover all 360 degrees around you and wiggle them all up and down to give decent coverage in elevationbut in practice a C-RAM system consists of at least one search-and-track radar (many times it's even a repurposed counterbattery radar) to which one or more LPWS are slaved because LPWS don't grow on trees
>>65369959>insult instead of argumentyou keep proving yourself worthlessalso I'm probably much whiter than you, lcpl Shartinez because my ancestors
>>65369852Which bases?
>>65369941>>65369964
armor is actually bullshit
>>6536895350mm and 35 mm use same case. Storage wise they are same sizes.
>>65370040
>>65370024except for a brief period in the 11-14th centuries in Northern Europe, it was always for emotional support and will always beoffense is easier, just a fact of basic geometry
>>65362232The M1265A1 Sgt Stout has officially been adopted by the Army.
>>65362199Yes. Basically you need:>a FCS to engage them>power to drive said FCS (including radar, optics etc) a turret that can traverse quickly and accurately>a gun that can deliver enough firepower accuratelyIf there was a vehicle that ticks these boxes you really only need a software engineer to make it happen.
>>65370106Yeah, the iron dome is for emotional support
>>65370329command guided missiles are actually the only kind of missiles that can be made cheap enough per shot to be worth throwing at drones or big rocket artillery rounds
>>65362199It would be better to kit out ten pickup trucks with VAMPIRE systems ready to go, independent tracking, and defense in depth, comparable to just one SPAAG
>>65370590>command guided missiles are actually the only kind of missiles that can be made cheap enough per shot to be worth throwing at drones Boomer thinking.
>>65370601that "cheap" drone is anything but cheap (if you actually buy the version with the onboard sensors that make it able to hit the broad side of a barn autonomouslly) and failed to prove its worth against shahsneeds in Bahrein
>>65371044Did they actually have them? Looking at geran interception rates they work pretty fucking well.
>>65371059says who?
>>65370590>instead of spending money on intercepting the drone just let it destroy shit worth few times as much
>>65369836Why aren't they using it against Iran?
>>65362199some times you need a dedicated platforman IFV should just be an IFVthere should be a complementary followup vehicle that is M113 sized, because it has no troop bay, just a modular turret mount for autocannon, ATGM, AAA, mortar, recon, etc
>>65375311Sounds fucking retarded, it already has an autocannon no reason not to make it capable enough to engage slow aircraft and munitions
