4 ms·

(Automated) AA guns have been around for a while with low cost per intercept - no need for missiles. Edit: looks like Gepard ammunition is actually surprisingl

(Automated) AA guns have been around for a while with low cost per intercept - no need for missiles. Edit: looks like Gepard ammunition is actually surprisingly expensive based on some contracts in the press, but still...

foota 3y ago
I don't think they're cheap per installation though due to radar, are they?
- rocqua 3y ago
  You need radar to detect incoming things anyway, and radar can be re-used.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Before they were falling out of fashion, there were relatively "cheap" versions produced in larger numbers (like 400+ Gepards for Germany, for example, no idea how many of the 35mm guns were made), if I recall correctly, also, you don't need thousands of AA guns to protect an object. The current skyranger 30 system is $5+M I think, but I don't think you need necessarily luxury systems to defend against rather simple drones (and it has low production numbers, I believe).
- corethree 3y ago
  Put a turret on a vehicle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-propelled_anti-aircraft_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-propelled_anti-aircraft_w... Also the state of the art for this kind of thing is the phalanx I believe. They have it installed on carriers. https://www.armyrecognition.com/united_states_us_army_artillery_vehicles_system_uk/centurion_c-ram_land-based_weapon_system_phalanx_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video.html https://www.armyrecognition.com/united_states_us_army_artill... It can definitely go on vehicles. I would say China can easily bypass this tech with hyper sonic missiles and even just launching 10 missiles at one carrier at the same time can probably fuck it up. Just even getting one missile with a system such as this is a miracle. Anduril is far away from having the know how of building any system to the level of the phalanx.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - NickNameNick 3y ago
    There's a minimum size of vehicle you can mount a gun on. The mount needs to absorb the recoil without breaking or getting pushed around too much. The Swiss have been experimenting with recoilless chain-guns to try and reduce that footprint. Which might be interesting, but recoilless weapons are extremely unpleasant to be near due to the backblast. It still might make sense to mount such a weapon on a remote automated station, and stick it on the roof of any available truck or APC/IFV. The hype around hypersonic missiles is overcooked. Ballistic missiles are faster. The hypersonic's advantage is supposed to be its manoeuvrability, expecting an heavy anti-ship missile to be more agile than an interceptor is just silly. And It'd take way more than 10 missiles to overwhelm a carrier groups air defence. The combat system on an American destroyer can track "100+" targets. The carrier group has several destroyers. In order to overwhelm the systems, you'd be getting close to the point of exhausting their interceptors. So why even bother with the fancy missiles?
    - corethree 3y ago
      The link I put there has a phalanx mounted on a vehicle. So it's doable and that fact is orthogonal to your reasoning. There are tons of AA vehicles that hold missiles and tons that have guns as well. These are real and they already exist. >The combat system on an American destroyer can track "100+" targets. The carrier group has several destroyers. Uncharitable response. Obviously tracking targets is easy. Knocking out 100 incoming targets that are simultaneously converging on the same position is a different story. What do these ships have 100 phalanxes or does that thing have to turn and shoot to pick things off one by one. Let's be real. I've seen these things even hitting one missile takes a bit. 10 missiles can overwhelm one carrier, they need a fleet of destroyers to make it work and in that case 10 would still be a high risk scenario. Heck bump it to 20 and they can pick off the destroyers one by one with salvos of 20 cheap china made hypersonics. Look it's not about whether it's faster than an ballistic. You just need something cheap and efficient to take out a carrier. That's all I'm saying here. The carrier model is obsolete, it's easy to destroy. It's basically a painted target. Anduril is going in the right direction here but the company is nowhere near china. Anduril is trying to operate technologically from the same perspective as china. Speed and hacking everything together for cheap is the mantra and compared to china and they are building things that are lower quality for a higher price and taking longer to it.
koube 3y ago
Gepard has a range of 6km vs buk range of 50km or s-300 range of 120km. You would need a lot of them and they also don't have enough range to cover offensives.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Yes, but the cheap drone stuff moves slowly and you could potentially even airdrop AA to litter the landscape.
  - runjake 3y ago
    > you could even airdrop AA to litter the landscape. Sounds like a good way to equip the enemy. Have you considered that you might be outside your lane here?
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      .
      - runjake 3y ago
        I have but then I quickly remembered I worked on and with such weapon systems, beginning during the Cold War. What was your MOS? Also, you’re talking about conventional forces tactics which don’t really apply to this submission much.
        RandomLensman 3y ago
        The linked article is far broader than special operations. Sorry, not US, so no MOS. My impression was that the US took a somewhat different route to air defense than the Europeans back then (and not just in terms of continental air defense). I don't think we need to accuse each other of "ignorance" anymore, but rather we have had different experiences and a different read on the linked text.
    - hardkorebob 3y ago
CuriousCosmic 3y ago
AA guns have the following issues: 1. Everything you shoot into the air must come down. 2. Active radar is a loud target and stationary targets are difficult to relocate quickly. 3. Automated AA have a larger footprint and are more obvious installations. Considering the customer who this was designed for was US Special Operations Command, it makes sense that small, light, pinpoint, and easily relocatable were priorities.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  AA need not be stationary and the footprint is small (see a Gepard, and there were smaller AA systems, I believe). Anything that has a successful intercept has stuff falling down. For unsuccessful, only laser etc. have nothing falling down. Edit: the link doesn't specifically talk about niche special forces, but rather broader air defense.
  - runjake 3y ago
    1. Gepards are big and not suitable for special operations roles. You can't throw one in a truck and haul it through rough terrain. 2. The Roadrunner system doesn't "fall down", it's designed to land if the intercept is unsuccessful. 3. Roadrunner is designed to be "cheap", compact and re-usable, as much as possible.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      A large part of the Gepard weight/size is armor, not the AA, but yes, not man portable by any means (edit: the gun assembly is still many tons, I'd guess). The linked text talks about defense against cheap drones and cost curves - not about niche special operation air defense. If you have to defend an installation against a hundred cheap drones a week or so, not sure roadrunner is that cost efficient. On 2), yes, but only if the intercept fails kind of completely.
      - hn_throwaway902 3y ago
        @RandomLensman - would be very interested to speak with you. I work with some folks in Ukraine to support defensive tech. chris at ukrainedefensefund dot org
jjk166 3y ago
AA guns can only hit relatively low altitude targets. Gepard for example is limited to altitudes of 3 kilometers (~10,000 ft). Good for local defense against attack helicopters and fixed wing close air support, but no where near cruising altitude for modern jet aircraft.

foota 3y ago

I don't think they're cheap per installation though due to radar, are they?

rocqua 3y ago
You need radar to detect incoming things anyway, and radar can be re-used.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
RandomLensman 3y ago
Before they were falling out of fashion, there were relatively "cheap" versions produced in larger numbers (like 400+ Gepards for Germany, for example, no idea how many of the 35mm guns were made), if I recall correctly, also, you don't need thousands of AA guns to protect an object. The current skyranger 30 system is $5+M I think, but I don't think you need necessarily luxury systems to defend against rather simple drones (and it has low production numbers, I believe).
corethree 3y ago
Put a turret on a vehicle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-propelled_anti-aircraft_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-propelled_anti-aircraft_w... Also the state of the art for this kind of thing is the phalanx I believe. They have it installed on carriers. https://www.armyrecognition.com/united_states_us_army_artillery_vehicles_system_uk/centurion_c-ram_land-based_weapon_system_phalanx_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video.html https://www.armyrecognition.com/united_states_us_army_artill... It can definitely go on vehicles. I would say China can easily bypass this tech with hyper sonic missiles and even just launching 10 missiles at one carrier at the same time can probably fuck it up. Just even getting one missile with a system such as this is a miracle. Anduril is far away from having the know how of building any system to the level of the phalanx.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- NickNameNick 3y ago
  There's a minimum size of vehicle you can mount a gun on. The mount needs to absorb the recoil without breaking or getting pushed around too much. The Swiss have been experimenting with recoilless chain-guns to try and reduce that footprint. Which might be interesting, but recoilless weapons are extremely unpleasant to be near due to the backblast. It still might make sense to mount such a weapon on a remote automated station, and stick it on the roof of any available truck or APC/IFV. The hype around hypersonic missiles is overcooked. Ballistic missiles are faster. The hypersonic's advantage is supposed to be its manoeuvrability, expecting an heavy anti-ship missile to be more agile than an interceptor is just silly. And It'd take way more than 10 missiles to overwhelm a carrier groups air defence. The combat system on an American destroyer can track "100+" targets. The carrier group has several destroyers. In order to overwhelm the systems, you'd be getting close to the point of exhausting their interceptors. So why even bother with the fancy missiles?
  - corethree 3y ago
    The link I put there has a phalanx mounted on a vehicle. So it's doable and that fact is orthogonal to your reasoning. There are tons of AA vehicles that hold missiles and tons that have guns as well. These are real and they already exist. >The combat system on an American destroyer can track "100+" targets. The carrier group has several destroyers. Uncharitable response. Obviously tracking targets is easy. Knocking out 100 incoming targets that are simultaneously converging on the same position is a different story. What do these ships have 100 phalanxes or does that thing have to turn and shoot to pick things off one by one. Let's be real. I've seen these things even hitting one missile takes a bit. 10 missiles can overwhelm one carrier, they need a fleet of destroyers to make it work and in that case 10 would still be a high risk scenario. Heck bump it to 20 and they can pick off the destroyers one by one with salvos of 20 cheap china made hypersonics. Look it's not about whether it's faster than an ballistic. You just need something cheap and efficient to take out a carrier. That's all I'm saying here. The carrier model is obsolete, it's easy to destroy. It's basically a painted target. Anduril is going in the right direction here but the company is nowhere near china. Anduril is trying to operate technologically from the same perspective as china. Speed and hacking everything together for cheap is the mantra and compared to china and they are building things that are lower quality for a higher price and taking longer to it.

koube 3y ago

Gepard has a range of 6km vs buk range of 50km or s-300 range of 120km. You would need a lot of them and they also don't have enough range to cover offensives.

RandomLensman 3y ago
Yes, but the cheap drone stuff moves slowly and you could potentially even airdrop AA to litter the landscape.
- runjake 3y ago
  > you could even airdrop AA to litter the landscape. Sounds like a good way to equip the enemy. Have you considered that you might be outside your lane here?
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    .
    - runjake 3y ago
      I have but then I quickly remembered I worked on and with such weapon systems, beginning during the Cold War. What was your MOS? Also, you’re talking about conventional forces tactics which don’t really apply to this submission much.
      - RandomLensman 3y ago
        The linked article is far broader than special operations. Sorry, not US, so no MOS. My impression was that the US took a somewhat different route to air defense than the Europeans back then (and not just in terms of continental air defense). I don't think we need to accuse each other of "ignorance" anymore, but rather we have had different experiences and a different read on the linked text.
  - hardkorebob 3y ago

CuriousCosmic 3y ago

AA guns have the following issues: 1. Everything you shoot into the air must come down. 2. Active radar is a loud target and stationary targets are difficult to relocate quickly. 3. Automated AA have a larger footprint and are more obvious installations. Considering the customer who this was designed for was US Special Operations Command, it makes sense that small, light, pinpoint, and easily relocatable were priorities.

RandomLensman 3y ago
AA need not be stationary and the footprint is small (see a Gepard, and there were smaller AA systems, I believe). Anything that has a successful intercept has stuff falling down. For unsuccessful, only laser etc. have nothing falling down. Edit: the link doesn't specifically talk about niche special forces, but rather broader air defense.
- runjake 3y ago
  1. Gepards are big and not suitable for special operations roles. You can't throw one in a truck and haul it through rough terrain. 2. The Roadrunner system doesn't "fall down", it's designed to land if the intercept is unsuccessful. 3. Roadrunner is designed to be "cheap", compact and re-usable, as much as possible.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    A large part of the Gepard weight/size is armor, not the AA, but yes, not man portable by any means (edit: the gun assembly is still many tons, I'd guess). The linked text talks about defense against cheap drones and cost curves - not about niche special operation air defense. If you have to defend an installation against a hundred cheap drones a week or so, not sure roadrunner is that cost efficient. On 2), yes, but only if the intercept fails kind of completely.
    - hn_throwaway902 3y ago
      @RandomLensman - would be very interested to speak with you. I work with some folks in Ukraine to support defensive tech. chris at ukrainedefensefund dot org

jjk166 3y ago

AA guns can only hit relatively low altitude targets. Gepard for example is limited to altitudes of 3 kilometers (~10,000 ft). Good for local defense against attack helicopters and fixed wing close air support, but no where near cruising altitude for modern jet aircraft.