Thoughts on Replacement for Bradley Linebacker

vitalida

New Member
I was thinking about what might be the ideal SPAAG replacement for the Linebacker. I came up with the idea of a Stryker CIWS (Close In Weapons System) based on the current Phalanx CIWS system. The Stryker would mount a modified version of the CIWS for both ground to air and ground to ground missions. I though the Stryker would be the most suitable chassis due to its speed in getting to the combat zone and off road capability. In addition it is armoured to defeat rounds up to 14.5mm in calibre and has stand-off, anti-RPG grilles. Its pretty well protected for a wheeled IFV.

Primary armament would consist of 2 x 25mm - or if not practical - 2 x current model 20mm Vulcans in a low profile, extensible turret. The CIWS radar would sit between the two guns, giving it a significantly lower profile than current CIWS systems where the radome sits atop the cannon. The tracking and fire control radar would need to be made more compact to give it a lower profile. In addition to fire direction by turret movement and gun directional control, the two guns would be fitted with fine movement actuators where coupled to the turret. These would allow the cannon to be focused on a single small area or spread to deliver a larger window of less dense fire. Outside either gun would be an armoured container (similar to the Bradley TOW) with 2 x Stinger missiles on one side and 2 x HellFire missiles on the other. The missile containers and radome would be proof against small arms fire up to 7.62mm. The missile containers would provide limited protection to the lower section of the radome and the gun movement actuators on either side of the turret. The combination of Stinger and HellFire gives a significant boost to both ground to air and ground to ground capability. The multi-barrel 25mm (or 20mm) guns would be capable of firing AP-T (Armour Piercing/Tracer), HE-I (High Explosive/Incendiary) and HE-F (High Explosive/Fragmentation) rounds. The turret would have two positions: lowered for transport and raised telescopically to give the two guns the full range of elevation and depression required to engage air and ground targets. In ground to air mode the guns are directed into firing position by the turret and gun adjustment mechanisms, and then the by the fine control mechanisms I mentioned earlier. In this mode, the 2 x Stinger missiles give an enhanced shootdown capability. Gun laying for ground to ground mode is identical. The 2 x HellFire missiles carried would be useful for hard targets such as concrete structures, reinforced machine gun positions and so on. The HE-F rounds provide an anti-personnel capability. A full range of day and night optics would be carried. Remaining space within the hull could be used for ferrying combat ready troops. The vehicle would suppress any enemy fire with its powerful offensive weaponary during disembarcation of the infantry.

I figured that this vehicle would be useful to provide close support to troops under mortar attack and/or fighting their way out of an ambush, or making a rapid advance into new territory. The speed and all terrain capability of the Stryker would allow it to provide close support quickly. With its twin 6-barrel gatling guns the Stryker CIWS could quickly lay down withering fire on the enemy and destroy any strong points with HellFire. The concept is similar to the Russian 'Tunguska' but in a faster and more versatile package.

In summary it serves three functions:

(1) Self Propelled Anti-Air Gun and ground to air missile system
(2) Ground to ground fire support vehicle
(3) Infantry carrier

For what its worth, that's my opinion on replacing the Linebacker with a much more capable, multi-role vehicle. Anyone have any thoughts?
 
Last edited:

Methos

New Member
It's IMO a rather bad idea. Too small caliber, weak performing guns which at the same time weigh much more than conventional ones, poor rounds, an undefined role and a bad chassis. Not to mention the radar systems.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
I was thinking about what might be the ideal SPAAG replacement for the Linebacker. I came up with the idea of a Stryker CIWS (Close In Weapons System) based on the current Phalanx CIWS system. The Stryker would mount a modified version of the CIWS for both ground to air and ground to ground missions. I though the Stryker would be the most suitable chassis due to its speed in getting to the combat zone and off road capability. In addition it is armoured to defeat rounds up to 14.5mm in calibre and has stand-off, anti-RPG grilles. Its pretty well protected for a wheeled IFV.

Primary armament would consist of 2 x 25mm - or if not practical - 2 x current model 20mm Vulcans in a low profile, extensible turret. The CIWS radar would sit between the two guns, giving it a significantly lower profile than current CIWS systems where the radome sits atop the cannon. The tracking and fire control radar would need to be made more compact to give it a lower profile. In addition to fire direction by turret movement and gun directional control, the two guns would be fitted with fine movement actuators where coupled to the turret. These would allow the cannon to be focused on a single small area or spread to deliver a larger window of less dense fire. Outside either gun would be an armoured container (similar to the Bradley TOW) with 2 x Stinger missiles on one side and 2 x HellFire missiles on the other. The missile containers and radome would be proof against small arms fire up to 7.62mm. The missile containers would provide limited protection to the lower section of the radome and the gun movement actuators on either side of the turret. The combination of Stinger and HellFire gives a significant boost to both ground to air and ground to ground capability. The multi-barrel 25mm (or 20mm) guns would be capable of firing AP-T (Armour Piercing/Tracer), HE-I (High Explosive/Incendiary) and HE-F (High Explosive/Fragmentation) rounds. The turret would have two positions: lowered for transport and raised telescopically to give the two guns the full range of elevation and depression required to engage air and ground targets. In ground to air mode the guns are directed into firing position by the turret and gun adjustment mechanisms, and then the by the fine control mechanisms I mentioned earlier. In this mode, the 2 x Stinger missiles give an enhanced shootdown capability. Gun laying for ground to ground mode is identical. The 2 x HellFire missiles carried would be useful for hard targets such as concrete structures, reinforced machine gun positions and so on. The HE-F rounds provide an anti-personnel capability. A full range of day and night optics would be carried. Remaining space within the hull could be used for ferrying combat ready troops. The vehicle would suppress any enemy fire with its powerful offensive weaponary during disembarcation of the infantry.

I figured that this vehicle would be useful to provide close support to troops under mortar attack and/or fighting their way out of an ambush, or making a rapid advance into new territory. The speed and all terrain capability of the Stryker would allow it to provide close support quickly. With its twin 6-barrel gatling guns the Stryker CIWS could quickly lay down withering fire on the enemy and destroy any strong points with HellFire. The concept is similar to the Russian 'Tunguska' but in a faster and more versatile package.

In summary it serves three functions:

(1) Self Propelled Anti-Air Gun and ground to air missile system
(2) Ground to ground fire support vehicle
(3) Infantry carrier

For what its worth, that's my opinion on replacing the Linebacker with a much more capable, multi-role vehicle. Anyone have any thoughts?
The LAV-25 carries about 600 rounds of 25mm linked ammo which is about one third of a load for a Phalanx 1b - you're putting *two* such weapons into a Stryker - so I can safely rule out any "spare space" in the vehicle - you'd need the thing to be crammed to the roof with ammunition to keep those guns fed.

Add to which the Stingers and the Hellfires...Nah..

It'll look wonderful in a video game but in real life, it's a horrendous kludge of weapons and requirements.
 

vitalida

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
I still reckon its practical. If the Russians can do it with the Shilka (4 x 23mm) and the Tunguska (2 x 30mm + SAMs), I don't see why its so impractical. Its possible to remove one of the 25mm and instead, mount 2 x Stingers on that side instead of having them mounted either side of the turret if the ammunition requirements for two guns is too high. You're right about the ammunition reqiurements though but I still come back to the ZSU-23-4, a smaller vehicle with a rapid fire, large calibre quad mount. I think that it could be done, spare space or not. Why would the combination of Stinger and Hellfire plus the 2 x 25mm be so impractical aside from the ammunition requirement? The combination of ground to air and ground to ground would (I thought) have significant advantages. Anyway these are just my thoughts. The Wermacht found their 4 x 20mm flak 18s (Flakveirling) very effective against ground targets and that's where the idea came from. What alternative would you see as more suitable?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I still reckon its practical. If the Russians can do it with the Shilka (4 x 23mm) and the Tunguska (2 x 30mm + SAMs), I don't see why its so impractical. Its possible to remove one of the 25mm and instead, mount 2 x Stingers on that side instead of having them mounted either side of the turret if the ammunition requirements for two guns is too high. You're right about the ammunition reqiurements though but I still come back to the ZSU-23-4, a smaller vehicle with a rapid fire, large calibre quad mount. I think that it could be done, spare space or not. Why would the combination of Stinger and Hellfire plus the 2 x 25mm be so impractical aside from the ammunition requirement? The combination of ground to air and ground to ground would (I thought) have significant advantages. Anyway these are just my thoughts. The Wermacht found their 4 x 20mm flak 18s (Flakveirling) very effective against ground targets and that's where the idea came from. What alternative would you see as more suitable?
Reality check time. Take a look at the M163 Vulcan SPAAG. As a practical matter, there is a finite amount of space available on a vehicle the size of an M113 or Stryker to fit the sort of mounting a multi-barrel 20 mm cannon requires, especially on a turret. Then there is the very real issue of being able to carry sufficient ammunition and arranging the ammo feed from the hull into the weapon system. Attempting to mount two such multi-barrel weapons onto a turret would IMO not fit, there just would not be sufficient space and weight available, nevermind the complexities of the ammo feed into both guns.

Then adding on Stinger SAM and Hellfire SSM's would make things even more complicated. Not to mention of limited utility if/when working. Aside from exposed personnel and LOV/LAV type vehicles, a 20 mm cannon is not all that useful. Especially one which has such a high ROF (1k - 3k RPM) Apart from when firing short bursts, the M163 could exhaust its onboard ammo supply within ~42 seconds IIRC.

Including something like Hellfire SSM's would only be useful if the vehicles could carry sufficient munitions to provide a useful anti-armour capability. If the internal space of the SPAAG was taken up by the AA gun mounting and ammunition, then insufficient weight and space would be available for ATGW, and it would detract from the vehicle's ability to provide an air defence capability. Including something like Stinger SAM's while limited in number at least would be part of providing the air defence capability.

When speaking of vehicles, there are real limits in terms of what will fit within space and weight limitations, and the ability to carry sufficient ammunition to be worthwhile, as well as taking into account recoil, weapon accuracy, etc.

-Cheers
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
I still reckon its practical. If the Russians can do it with the Shilka (4 x 23mm) and the Tunguska (2 x 30mm + SAMs), I don't see why its so impractical. Its possible to remove one of the 25mm and instead, mount 2 x Stingers on that side instead of having them mounted either side of the turret if the ammunition requirements for two guns is too high. You're right about the ammunition reqiurements though but I still come back to the ZSU-23-4, a smaller vehicle with a rapid fire, large calibre quad mount. I think that it could be done, spare space or not. Why would the combination of Stinger and Hellfire plus the 2 x 25mm be so impractical aside from the ammunition requirement? The combination of ground to air and ground to ground would (I thought) have significant advantages. Anyway these are just my thoughts. The Wermacht found their 4 x 20mm flak 18s (Flakveirling) very effective against ground targets and that's where the idea came from. What alternative would you see as more suitable?

It's the line from your original post that runs ". Remaining space within the hull could be used for ferrying combat ready troops."


This thing will be packed to the gills with cannon ammunition - the ZSU carries 2000 rounds, but each barrel has a rate of fire of about 1200 rounds per minute so it's empty in thirty seconds. Sticking a pair of electrically driven cannon with rates of fire from 3-6 thousand rpm onto a vehicle the size of a Striker will need all the ammunition you can find - there won't be room for troops is my point.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
When speaking of vehicles, there are real limits in terms of what will fit within space and weight limitations, and the ability to carry sufficient ammunition to be worthwhile, as well as taking into account recoil, weapon accuracy, etc.
His particular suggestion is not practical, but SPAAG/SAM point air defense vehicles in general are possible and do exist... the real question is why the US would need them? Given USAF air dominance, I don't see a scenario where a Linebacker-style system would be relevant.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Then adding on Stinger SAM and Hellfire SSM's would make things even more complicated. Not to mention of limited utility if/when working. Aside from exposed personnel and LOV/LAV type vehicles, a 20 mm cannon is not all that useful. Especially one which has such a high ROF (1k - 3k RPM) Apart from when firing short bursts, the M163 could exhaust its onboard ammo supply within ~42 seconds IIRC.
I was involved with the chapparal equiped LAVs that were brought into australia for evaluation.

the eval last 2 months before everyone realised that they were a tactical woftam and embuggerance on the rest of the accompanying force.

look sexy, seem impressive but in a modern military force, a woftam and chewing away valuable resources better utilised elsewhere
 

Methos

New Member
Using the M61 Vulcan or a 25 mm version (i.e. the GAU-12) is a bad idea. Using two of them is even worse. The M61 uses the 20 x 102 mm catridge, which is the worst performing anti-aircraft round currently existing. The 25 x 137 mm catridge has been adopted in some roles, including short-range air-defence.

If you take a look at this image the limitations of the ronds of your proposals for autocannon armament become pretty clear.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ModernNavalAA.jpg

The 20 x 102 mm round performs due to the small size as worst in terms of penetration and explosive filler. Since some modern helicopters/aircrafts are protected against 23 mm SAPHEI (which is due to it's larger chamber similar to 25 x 137 mm in terms of penetration), 20 x 102 mm will not be enough. The 25 mm gun therefore should be prefered, but then again a number of factors speak against it. The Soviets originally used their 23 mm autocannons for close-range air-defence, but that was in the 1960s. Modern anti-aircraft emplacements generally use larger cannons, most common is the usage of 35 x 228 mm rounds, while some users prefer 30 mm rounds (South-Korea, Russia). The Soviets/Russian decided to not continue the usage of 23 mm autocannons on their next generation of air-defence vehicles, they adopted the 30 x 165 mm 2A38M on the Tunguska self-propelled anti-air gun system. This round outperforms the 23 and the 25 mm round in all categories.
You suggested the use of two types of rounds: AP and HE. That's technological on the level of the Second World War. HE-I can't penetrate aircraft armour, to damage a fighter plane you would need to hit the cockpit or use AP rounds - which penetrate the armour, but are incapable of dealing enough damage to ensure a kill. For downing an aircraft you would need more than a dozen hits...
Modern ammunition for anti-aircraft use is therefore designed in other ways. Most ammunition manufacturers produce frangible rounds (i.e. FAP and FAPDS), just take a look at the websites from General Dynamics and Rheinmetall. FAP are AP rounds which are made of a combination of materials so that the heavy-metal core will shatter after penetrating and have a shotgun-like effect inside the aircraft. More modern are the ideas of using programmed rounds, mostly known is the Oerlikon/Rheinmetall AHEAD ammunition, which creates a shotgun-like blast of subprojectiles already outside the aircraft, so that hitting is even more probable.
25 mm HE/SAPHEI fails to penetrate a 2 layers of concrete wall, 25 mm FAPDS can do that.
Your choice of caliber also limites the effective range. The Germans considered their 20 x 139 mm anti-aircraft twin gun to be effective at heights up to 1,600 - 2,000 m (depending on aircraft speed) - the Vulcan will have a even smaller range. The 25 mm gun (regardless of it being Equalizer or another one) and the Russian 23 mm gun on the ZSU-23 will have a slightly larger maximum range - compared to that the "standard" 35 mm guns which are used by most nations have a range of 4,000 m height with the right ammuntion.
Worst of all is the idea of using a rotating-barrel cannon/Gatling gun. Why? Because of a number of different factors. First of all is the weight. The Vulcan weighs about 1.5 times of what a Rh 202 with better ammunition weighs. The 25 mm GAU-12 weighs as much as a MK 30-1 with better ammunition weighs. The GAU-8/A Avenger weighs as much as a twin 35 mm gun. Not nice for a chassis which fails to support more than 22 tonnes.
Also speaking against a gatling gun is that it is externally powered. This means that although you can have a greater total rate of fire than with a conventional gun, you will have a very low rate of fire in the first seconds. On example comes from aircrafts, the F22 is fitted with the Vulcan, while the Eurofighter uses the Mauser BK27. In a 0.5 second long burst, the Vulcan will fire ~2 kg of ammo, while the Mauser gun will fire ~4 kg. Given the fact that for anti-aircraft roles firing is often limited to a very short amount of time (less than 2 seconds with the 35 mm gun), using a gatling weapon seems to be stupid. Also gatlings/rotary cannons need a significant larger amount of space than conventional weapons.

And why putting the Stinger and the Hellfire missiles on the vehicle? Stinger is getting outdated and a number of countries has phased it out already or will phase it out in near future. Tunguska has similar properties in terms of range, but is faster (very important!) and does carry more than two times the warhead of Stinger. Hellfire is not designed to deal with aircrafts and putting an anti-tank weapon on a self-propelled anti-air system is just insane. Why would your vehicle need Hellfires? It should operated in a combined arms operation and not as lone wolf.

Then there is the chassis... why should anybody consider the Stryker as good vehicle? Does it have the capabilites to follow tanks in all terrains? Can it support enough weight? Does it offer enough protection? Can it be easily modified?
Most of these questions have to be answered with "no" or "not really".

The U.S. have designed a number of really revolutionary vehicles, but nearly all of them had some troubles in realization or with politics. This is the reason why the U.S. army/navy/marines operate a number of vehicles which are sub-standard (at least seen internationally) like the hybrids/bastards (in the genetic sense) known as M163 VADS and M6 Linebacker.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I still reckon its practical. If the Russians can do it with the Shilka (4 x 23mm) and the Tunguska (2 x 30mm + SAMs), I don't see why its so impractical. Its possible to remove one of the 25mm and instead, mount 2 x Stingers on that side instead of having them mounted either side of the turret if the ammunition requirements for two guns is too high. You're right about the ammunition reqiurements though but I still come back to the ZSU-23-4, a smaller vehicle with a rapid fire, large calibre quad mount. I think that it could be done, spare space or not. Why would the combination of Stinger and Hellfire plus the 2 x 25mm be so impractical aside from the ammunition requirement? The combination of ground to air and ground to ground would (I thought) have significant advantages. Anyway these are just my thoughts. The Wermacht found their 4 x 20mm flak 18s (Flakveirling) very effective against ground targets and that's where the idea came from. What alternative would you see as more suitable?
OK here is an M113 with the 20mm vulcan, just where are you going to add the "phalax" dome and stingers without making the thing bloody top heavy (noting and unobstructed radar horizonis pretty important) and completely unamanagable.

Remember the gun must be capaable of an elevation close to vertical.

 

Cadredave

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Lets break this argument down:

I still reckon its practical. If the Russians can do it with the Shilka (4 x 23mm) and the Tunguska (2 x 30mm + SAMs), I don't see why its so impractical. Its possible to remove one of the 25mm and instead, mount 2 x Stingers on that side instead of having them mounted either side of the turret if the ammunition requirements for two guns is too high.
The Russian vehicle is a follow on design that fulfils a place in there force construct, what doctrinal force construct is your vehicle fulfilling? and more importantly whos force, Nato/USA/UK. If its the US then what need do you have for it when they will almost without a doubt have complete mastery of the sky.

You're right about the ammunition reqiurements though but I still come back to the ZSU-23-4, a smaller vehicle with a rapid fire, large calibre quad mount. I think that it could be done, spare space or not.
The ZSU-23-4 has one ammunition nature has the ability to keep up with the tracked AFV its supporting and was designed to be a part of a battle group with the corresponding doctrine to go with it. It fit the USSR doctrine at that time where air supremacy was not guaranteed.

Why would the combination of Stinger and Hellfire plus the 2 x 25mm be so impractical aside from the ammunition requirement? The combination of ground to air and ground to ground would (I thought) have significant advantages. Anyway these are just my thoughts.
The US has no need for a system like this why would they need a wheeled AFV for ground to air or ground to ground when you have complete control of the battle space, JTAC's are calling down shock & awe from the USAF with the corresponding leathal fires both direct & indirect from the Battle group

The Wermacht found their 4 x 20mm flak 18s (Flakveirling) very effective against ground targets and that's where the idea came from.
Worked well in WW2 but mate this is not then we have far more effective tools at our disposal to prosecute an attack far more effectively times have changed.

What alternative would you see as more suitable?
C4ISR, networked with the following in laymans terms:

BFT, Airpower, MBT, Artillery both gun / MLRS, Gunships, UAV's and the list go on.

With your vehicle you have not dealt with the logistical issues of supporting this vehicle that has three different ammunition natures have a look at what support a normal US Heavy or Stryker Div requires.

CD
 
Last edited:

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
the bloody vulcan would be as long as the bradley....

and there's no point sticking a dillon on there.

absolute woftam
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
the bloody vulcan would be as long as the bradley....

and there's no point sticking a dillon on there.

absolute woftam
Particularly when all the efforts made to stick a gattling gun, missiles and associated radar and FC on a AFV chassis hve not been successful to date with the US as there are better options for them.
 

vitalida

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #15
Additional considerations

I didn't really explain the idea too well and after a lot of thought I concur that mounting a multi-barrel cannon on a Stryker is unworkable. There was a lot of comment on the AGM-114s. I didn't see them having a role in taking out tanks or in aerial defence. The vehicle I proposed was designed for short range air defence with a secondary mission of fire support, which is where the AGMs come in. I thought that they would be useful in knocking out hardpoints, sniper positions and so on. The Russians learned the hard way that including SPAAGs on patrols was I good idea. Remember their entry into Grozny in the first Chechen war? Their armour (T-72s and T-80s), BMP-2s and BTR-80s were annihalated by RPG fire from the upper floors and rooves of buildings. Some tanks were hit 4-5 times by RPGs in the same place and could do nothing about it. Their primary armament could simply not evevate to the required angle to engage. They began including ZSU-23-4 Shilkas in their patrols which could suppress and destroy these positions and it was a success. That was my idea for the Hellfire mission, augmenting the guns. I think that twin M230LFs, as are being designed for the navy would have been a better choice of primary armament, firing the standard HEDP projectile, which can pierce up to 2" RHA (Rolled Homogeneous Armour) and are also frangible. Ideal for both the air defence and fire support missions.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I didn't really explain the idea too well and after a lot of thought I concur that mounting a multi-barrel cannon on a Stryker is unworkable. There was a lot of comment on the AGM-114s. I didn't see them having a role in taking out tanks or in aerial defence. The vehicle I proposed was designed for short range air defence with a secondary mission of fire support, which is where the AGMs come in. I thought that they would be useful in knocking out hardpoints, sniper positions and so on. The Russians learned the hard way that including SPAAGs on patrols was I good idea. Remember their entry into Grozny in the first Chechen war? Their armour (T-72s and T-80s), BMP-2s and BTR-80s were annihalated by RPG fire from the upper floors and rooves of buildings. Some tanks were hit 4-5 times by RPGs in the same place and could do nothing about it. Their primary armament could simply not evevate to the required angle to engage. They began including ZSU-23-4 Shilkas in their patrols which could suppress and destroy these positions and it was a success. That was my idea for the Hellfire mission, augmenting the guns. I think that twin M230LFs, as are being designed for the navy would have been a better choice of primary armament, firing the standard HEDP projectile, which can pierce up to 2" RHA (Rolled Homogeneous Armour) and are also frangible. Ideal for both the air defence and fire support missions.
That's a bad idea. The solution to the elevation issues is either a dedicated support vehicle (like an IFV, or the BMPT) or a change in tactics, using infantry to sweep through the buildings. A change in tactics is what accounted for the difference in losses between the assault on Grozny in 1994-95, and 1999-2000. The use of Shilkas in this role was desperate improv. The appropriate way to learn from it would be to incorporate the ability to elevate their weapons higher up into IFV turret designs. And if you look at the combat module on the BTR-82, and the MT-LBM 6Ms you will see that they did just that with the 2A72s.

When thinking of your potential vehicle, consider it's application. If you're looking for air defense for mech columns on the move, the USAF handles that quite nicely. If you're looking for direct-fire support then perhaps there is a need to up-gun the Bradleys, or mount heavier weapons on up-armored HMMVWs and MRAPs which currently just feature your typical crew-served weapon mounts. I don't see a hole drastic enough that a brand new type of vehicle needs to be developed to fill it.
 

Methos

New Member
And what is the idea behind the M230? The M230 is designed for helicopters, which can't stand much recoil - it is inferior in most aspects to normal anti-air gun systems. The M230 fires a very short round (especially when you look at the projectile mass to propellant mass ratio) at a very small velocity - it works somehow nice on the Apaches, but they always shot at targets below. With a muzzle of only 800-810 m/s hitting becomes very unlikely (all modern anti-aircraft guns have a muzzle velocity of above 1,000 m/s, with sub-caliber ammo even as high as 1,400 m/s) and the M230LF version has a rate of fire of only 200 rpm - this is less than a 1/5th of other anti-air gun systems.

The HEDP rounds might be usefull against buildings and light armoured vehicles, but they are not designed for air-defence. If you want to increase the velocity of an spin-stabilized round by using a longer barrel you also will increase the spin rate - effectively reducing penetration power. That's why HEDP is only used on helicopter armement (using light-weight, low-recoil ammunition) and on grenades (e.g. the 40 mm Mk 253 and the 40 mm DM111 are HEDP for under-barrel or stationary 40 mm weapon systems).

The 30 x 113 mm M789 HEDP needs 12 seconds to reach a 3,000 m distant target - this is not suitable for air-defence.
 

Gremlin29

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The M230 is called the AWS (Area Weapon System). It is closer to being a grenade launcher than an actual "gun". I've tried numerous air to air scenarios with that gun in the sim and it is difficult to hit an air target to say the least. Even firing fixed forward dead astern with a target flying straight and level, it wasn't that easy. It's a fantastic weapon for the Apache, but would be crap on a ground vehicle. Part of it's success is that it can produce a beautiful beaten zone from above (which is why it is called an AWS) but that's the ballistic computer moving the gun to create that ideal zone. What's wrong with the 25mm on the Brad to begin with? Anyway it's not so much the gun these days, it's all about the ballistic computing and that's where I'd put my money.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Well, a 25x137mm doesn't offer much room for fancy electronics and a usefull payload.
Add to that the better range and penetration (in case of emergency fire against lonely enemy AFVs) of 30+mm autocannons and you can see why SPAAGs tend to use bigger calibers.

IMHO another kind of SPAAG is highly interesting. The single 76mm in a turret. OTO revived the concept with it's Draco design. Light enough to be fitted onto wheeled chassis like the Centauro. A 76mm offers a nice combination of range and payload while modern ammunition offers additional capabilities.

The calibre also offers some nice firepower against ground targets. In self defense situations it overmatches the armor of every AFV bar the front of a MBT. Make the radar easy to demount and you get a capable fire support and heavy patrol vehicle for all these pesky asymetric conflicts where there is not much use for a SPAAG.
 

Methos

New Member
What's wrong with the 25mm on the Brad to begin with? Anyway it's not so much the gun these days, it's all about the ballistic computing and that's where I'd put my money.
The 25 mm caliber is fine, if you want something comparable to the ZSU-23... but that's more or less 1960s level of air-defence (in regards to the gun performance at least). But all countries which produce their own vehicles have moved to larger, higher performance guns - with the exception of China maybe, which use four 25 mm guns on their latest self-propelled anti-air gun designated PZG 95 (which should already be too much for the Stryker).
Aircrafts become faster, more maneuverable and better protected - the guns have to keep up with this development in the same degree as the radars/sensors and the fire control systems need to be updated. The performance depends on the weakest member of these three factors, if you have a good gun, but no FCS, then you won't hit the enemy. If you have a good ballistic computer and nice sensors, but your gun has a small muzzle velocity and a short range, then you can't effectively engage enemy planes.
The M242 Bushmaster as used on the Bradley does also have reasons why it should not be used for air-defence (and as far as I know the Linebackers do not enegage enemy aircraft with them) - one of them is the very low rate of fire, which is limited to 800 rpm, but typical 200 rpm because of the motor used.
 
Top