[Tuccy]

Just got an idea, did the US consider using Gepard turret in the Sgt York program? And if not, why? Just because new ammo was not desired? And in such a case wouldn't it be cheaper to replace 35mm guns with 40mm? So why not just take the turret and mate it with Abrams chassis?
And was the GAU-8/A or GAU-13/A ever considered for AA purposes? I know it's a big beastie, but a MBT hull can surely mount it, no?

[JamesG123]

NIH

[Tony Williams]

James is basically right. There were several competing designs, at least one of which used the Gepard turret. Considering that the US Army had expressed this as an urgent requirement, it would have been logical to have selected an already tried and tested system, but they went for an untried design and paid the ultimate price of not getting anything.

[Dawes]

I think I recall seeing an old artist's conception of an M48-mounted GAU-8 that was an early concept for DIVADS.

[Dawes]

FWIW, this is the Wikipedia entry on DIVADS:



Several companies responded to the DIVADs contest.[7]

Sperry Rand entered a system based on their older Vigilante gun, modified to fire the 35 mm round from the Oerlikon KDA series, widely used in NATO in the anti-aircraft role.[8] The gun could be fired at 3,000 rounds per minute for anti-aircraft use, or 180 rounds per minute for use against ground targets, fed from a 1,464 round magazine. The aluminium turret was topped by two radars and an IFF system, all from Sperry.

General Electric entered a version with a small turret mounting their 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger cannon from the A-10 Thunderbolt II. It included a single search/track radar adapted from the earlier FAAR, although they later suggested an improved system.

Raytheon proposed using the turret from the Dutch version of the German Gepard flakpanzer. Most of the turret remained the same as the original Gepard, including the twin 35 mm Oerlikon KDA cannons, but used Hollandse Signaalapparaten radars and an Oerlikon Contraves fire-control computer. Raytheon demonstrated that the turret, although designed for the Leopard 1, could be mounted on the M48 with some adaptation.


General Dynamics' DIVAD entry.General Dynamics' entry also mounted twin Oerlikon KDA cannons, but mounted them side-by-side in a new aluminum turret, as opposed to either side of the turret as in the Gepard. They could be fired in either the automatic or semiautomatic mode, and their combined rate of fire was 1,100 rounds per minute from a 600 round magazine. The radar and fire control systems were derived from their Phalanx CIWS system, with the tracking radar mounted on the front of the turret, beside the guns, and the search radar on top. The turret also included independently stabilized optical sights and a laser range finder for manual engagements.[7]

Ford Aerospace's entry was based around the Bofors 40 mm L/70 cannons, twin-mounted in the center of the turret in a fashion similar to the General Dynamics entry. The relatively large and boxy turret also mounted separate long-range search and short-range tracking radars on top. The radars were mounted on booms to give them a clear view of the sky, and both had the ability to be folded down to reduce the vehicle's height. The tracking radar was a modified version of the Westinghouse AN/APG-66 from the F-16 Fighting Falcon. Like the GD entry, it also mounted a complete optical sighting and ranging system.[7]

Some critics claim that Ford's use of the 40 mm Bofors appears to have been a business decision, not a technical one. While the 35 mm round was already a widely accepted NATO standard and was technically well respected, Ford had a marketing agreement with Bofors. As Gregg Easterbrook later reported:

Immediately the lobbying began. Ford had a marketing agreement with the Swedish firm Bofors, a maker of 40-mm but not 35-mm cannons; while Ford could have switched to a 35-mm weapon for DIVAD, the potential profits from a 40-mm weapon were higher. Department of Defense lawyers, the Army pleading to Congress, had advised that specifying the caliber DIVAD's gun would be 'anti-competitive' and could lead to lawsuits-'the most ludicrous excuse I've ever heard' a high-ranking Pentagon official had told me.

When the final DIVAD requirements were issued they called for a gun 'in the 30-mm to 40-mm range'.[9]
However, the Bofors 40 mm Flak series of cannon have worldwide popularity, which brings ready availability of ammunition in any theater of operations. In addition, FACC had developed a proximity-sensing round for the 40 mm, which increased probability of a kill, and the 40 mm shell carried either a greater explosive charge or higher deadweight mass than the smaller anti-aircraft platforms, thus were more effective against a wider range of targets. These factors would be important in the primary scenario for which the DIVAD was to be deployed, that being the large-theater land operations of a third World War, NATO v. the Warsaw Pact.

[ShotMagnet]

Quote

General Electric entered a version with a small turret mounting their 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger cannon from the A-10 Thunderbolt II. It included a single search/track radar adapted from the earlier FAAR, although they later suggested an improved system.

I'm surprised that the GAU-8 never did find its way to an AA chassis. I'm assuming that ammo storage and/or accessibility had something to do with that, but the GAU-8 still seems like it would have been a fearsome weapon.


Shot

[Special-K]

ShotMagnet, on Mon 15 Jun 2009 1129, said:

I'm surprised that the GAU-8 never did find its way to an AA chassis. I'm assuming that ammo storage and/or accessibility had something to do with that, but the GAU-8 still seems like it would have been a fearsome weapon.
Shot

I think it (and the rest for that matter) would have made great ground support weapons too!




-K

[Sikkiyn]

Could you imagine having said beastie in the forward-support role! <drooling>

[Dawes]

Pretty capable weapon, but you would need significant space for ammo storage. The A-10's basic load of 1150 rounds takes up two full CNU-332 containers and weighs around 2300 pounds. Of course, I would imagine that issue had already been examined.

[JamesG123]

Sikkiyn, on Mon 15 Jun 2009 2044, said:

Could you imagine having said beastie in the forward-support role! <drooling>

As envisaged, it would have been very vulnerable in that role to its tall/large silhouette and thin armor.

However if it had worked, it would have freed up a large number of M-163 Vulcans for that role, perhaps for light and airborne units (don't call me Sparky).

[Stuart Galbraith]

Mind you, Roland wasnt built in the states either, or rapier, and the Pentagon ended up paying for a number of those for West Germany to use defending US bases. Did the same with Rapier in the UK as I recall.

Im frankly amazed, not so much by the AA installation which had proven technology if basically flawed in integration, that they put the whole thing on a old chassis that was unable to keep up with an Abrams or a Bradley.

[KingSargent]

ShotMagnet, on Mon 15 Jun 2009 1529, said:

I'm surprised that the GAU-8 never did find its way to an AA chassis. I'm assuming that ammo storage and/or accessibility had something to do with that, but the GAU-8 still seems like it would have been a fearsome weapon.
Shot

I can't think of an AFV the GAU-8 would fit into, much less the ammo. It's a big weapon.

[JamesG123]

;)

Stuart Galbraith, on Mon 15 Jun 2009 2127, said:

Im frankly amazed, that they put the whole thing on a old chassis that was unable to keep up with an Abrams or a Bradley.

The speed differential would have been less of a problem operationally than theoretically. In contact or travelling, the lead formations they would have been covering would have been moving tactically (behind the scouts or by bounding overwach, etc) which would be much less than the M1 and M2's max speeds.

If nothing else, they could catch up when the M1s had to keep stopping to refuel. ;)

[JWB]

What ground targets would a GAU-8 be used against that a 25mm Chain Gun couldn't deal with itself?

[JamesG123]

Anything?

The big gun could more effectively chew up heavy reinforced buildings that would provide cover from 25mm fire, and the higher volumn of fire would threaten even an MBT with much more chance of "golden BB" hits.

[Harry]

pictures from two versions of Divad

http://www.secretpro...c=2362.msg20767

[Dawes]

Wonder if the A-10's ammo would have been used or some new type of round developed?

[JamesG123]

New types most definately (gotta spread that defense money around to everyone's districts ya know). Probably some kind of Fragmenting HE as opposed to the GAU-8s DU API et al designed for AT work.

And if it had gotten into service, today we would probably see it with some of the gee whiz miniaturized proximity and programmed detonating fuze technology.

[5150]

Tony Williams, on Mon 15 Jun 2009 0753, said:

[snip] . . . but they went for an untried design and paid the ultimate price of not getting anything.

Ultimate price is a bit of an exaggeration. They just didn't have the capability, which it turned out wasn't necessary anyway.

When was the last time an American soldier was killed by enemy air action? Korea?

[Tuccy]

5150, on Mon 15 Jun 2009 2132, said:

Ultimate price is a bit of an exaggeration. They just didn't have the capability, which it turned out wasn't necessary anyway.

When was the last time an American soldier was killed by enemy air action? Korea?

IOW let's prepare for last war?