← Home ← Back to /k/

Thread 63859560

31 posts 10 images /k/
Anonymous No.63859560 >>63862618 >>63862638 >>63862662 >>63863705
>Kills a jet in somwhere in serbai sometimes around the 90s
Are this things a good investment for your AA?
Anonymous No.63859687
Unless you are thinking of something else, i think you are talking about 2 YAF Soko J-21 "Jastreb"-s getting shot down over Šibenik.

One was shot down by a 3/20 M55 and the other was shot down by a Strela 2M

Heres a video
https://youtu.be/_Oi5fEw-mpk?si=qXBNJg6f3ZtuaIC2
Anonymous No.63862618 >>63862784 >>63862860 >>63863682
>>63859560 (OP)
Yes, these things would delete drones like shaheds like no tomorrow without issue. I'm honestly suprised a few hundred bofors batteries with proxy-fuzed shells hasn't been sent to Ukraine yet.
Anonymous No.63862638
>>63859560 (OP)
How did you cram that much esl into one post?
Anonymous No.63862662 >>63862668 >>63863708
>>63859560 (OP)
If you can at least partially automate them with radar guidance and/or some form of EOTS. If it's just some jackass sitting there cranking it or fiddling with his joystick like the old days it'll be significantly less effective. AA guns are going to find themselves in a new role shooting down drone swarms. Strategically placed batteries in common Shahed flight paths would make life significantly easier in Ukraine. They're cheap, you could put them on rooftops if you felt like it, and are plenty capable of shooting down drones and other threats that get in range.
Anonymous No.63862668 >>63862708
>>63862662
would it be possible to use it to also down cruise missiles or ambush planes you know use a determined path
Anonymous No.63862708
>>63862668
If the battery's detection system and FCS is good enough and doesn't give away the game early. I don't think most if any cruise missiles react to unexpected radar emissions, but planes might. That reaction might be a bit more than just avoidance too. SEAD/DEAD is a thing. The biggest thing would be simply having the battery in position and ready to go in the correct spots. Kinda useless if they're even just a couple miles off on positioning where a SAM might still be able to do the job in that case.

It gets easier if the pilots get complacent/arrogant flying the exact same path at the exact same times every night and start opening their bomb bays early too.
Anonymous No.63862784 >>63863682 >>63863735
>>63862618
>'m honestly suprised a few hundred bofors batteries with proxy-fuzed shells hasn't been sent to Ukraine yet.
Ok, then what am I hearing/seeing during shahed attacks in kyiv?
A lot of anti-drone AA here is of one of another kind of "gun"
- occasional machnegun/ak fire here and there - automatic gunfire that sounds "flat" and "tinny"
- something significantly heavier than a machnegun, still full auto but it's slow enough that you distinctly hear each shot, and they sound much more...substantial. it's ammo is with tracers, and there is proximity/timed fuse(or simply a self-destruct feature) - when those things fire, you see shells explode almost simultaneously in small area of the sky(visible even in daylight), awfully loud too especially when they do it directly above your commieblock. there's a lot of those installations - I can see only a small portion of the sky above left bank part of the city, and there's like six or seven locations from which those things fire in my direct view. I of course might be mistaken, but it seems like bofors of some kind to me.
- rarely there's what I assume a gepard firing(never seen it, only heard) - sounds almost as meaty as previous thing, but it fires even more rapidly than a machnegun, a roaring, dense burst or two with a duration of ~two seconds and thats it for the night.
Anonymous No.63862860 >>63863682
>>63862618
The guns ain't a problem. The Ammo is, a Bofors can easily eat up a few hundred rounds.
Anonymous No.63863030 >>63863067
AA guns with prox fuzes will come back on a large scale to yeet drones and Im all for it
Anonymous No.63863067 >>63863119
>>63863030
What's the smallest thing a prox fuse would actually go off on?
Anonymous No.63863119 >>63863742
>>63863067
The M1265A1 SHORAD Stryker uses a 30mm XM914 auto cannon, which is supposedly the smallest available proximity fuse.
Anonymous No.63863682
>>63862618
>>63862860
>>63862784

Bofors 40mm AAA has been sent to Ukraine
Anonymous No.63863705
>>63859560 (OP)
Please use some AI to fix your spelling and grammar next time.
Anonymous No.63863708 >>63865722 >>63866204
>>63862662
>Strategically placed batteries in common Shahed flight paths would make life significantly easier in Ukraine.
They won't use the same flight paths if they're getting intercepted. They tend to travel in small groups to the target to reduce mass interceptions, then swarm and all dive from 5km on command or preset timer.

Fixed batteries near high value targets is a valid use but mostly the guns need to be mobile and race around to take up positions to intercept the drones in small groups of five or nine. I haven't seen a group of ten yet, it's usually nine or less.

Because they need to be mobile, technicals are preferred though the 5km altitude is giving them some trouble.
Anonymous No.63863735
>>63862784
>it's ammo is with tracers, and there is proximity/timed fuse(or simply a self-destruct feature) - when those things fire, you see shells explode almost simultaneously in small area of the sky(visible even in daylight)
Those look really pretty with astigmatism, lots of little starbursts in sequence, the video on my phone never looks as good.

>but it seems like bofors of some kind to me.
I'm sure there are.
There are also Skynex/Gepard AHEAD rounds too which are basically the irl version of what OP is talking about.
Anonymous No.63863742 >>63865722
>>63863119
I think anon was asking what is the smallest target a prox fuze would engage, which I have no idea about.
Anonymous No.63865722 >>63866395
>>63863708
Personally I think batteries on rooftops in cities and in raised positions with overlapping coverage outside of them would be a good move. Roving SPAAGs is a good idea but having a good static defensive setup at high value locations is a must if your enemy is just lobbing piles of Iranian bootleg V-1s at you.

Also, the Russians absolutely will with Shaheds. The idea is even if you do intercept with your fancy SAMs and whatnot there's just so many that they'll still slip through.

>>63863742
Correct. My bet is you'd actually want programmable rounds rather than proximity fuses for the smaller drones. I'm expecting to see a massive do or die tier improvement and miniaturization in programmable AA rounds over the next few years.
Anonymous No.63866042
the L/70 bofors is still used for point defense and small boat shredding on various warships.

AAA is always useful and the lesson from Vietnam and the Gulf War is at low level enough mass of bullets can shoot down anything. Al Habbaniya had 148 radar laid AAA guns arrayed around the base. Obviously they were easily jammed by even the shitiest western DECM pods but the Iraqis just threw up a pattern of fire WW2 style creating what was described by pilots as a "scintillating dome of light" or flying through rain real "flak blankets down" type shit. That's why the gulf war was the definitive point where everyone without slavic FAS decided medium level bombing was the only way.
Anonymous No.63866204 >>63866234
>>63863708
Technicals armed with what? Machine guns? Totally ineffective against anything flying at 5km.
The exploding tracers are gepards, the third one is probably that AHEAD 30mm autocannon.
Anonymous No.63866234 >>63866384
>>63866204
Isn't the ZU-23-2 the generic technical weapon?
Anonymous No.63866384
>>63866234
I doubt it can reach those heights though.
Anonymous No.63866395 >>63866646 >>63867386
>>63865722
are programmable rounds really more cost-effective than normal rounds aimed with a radar-guided FCS?
Also why not use larger caliber programmable rounds, since most of the cost is in the individual electronics?
Anonymous No.63866416 >>63866578 >>63867386
A professional army shouldn’t be so immobile that they’d get any value from AAA placement.
Anonymous No.63866578
>>63866416

hold on let me just move this 12,000ft runway
Anonymous No.63866646 >>63867386
>>63866395
>are programmable rounds really more cost-effective than normal rounds aimed with a radar-guided FCS?
It's not about cost-effectiveness, it's about straight-up effectiveness. Frankly speaking, cost-effectiveness in the real world tends to devolve into poorfag copium.
In tests done by Rheinmetall comparing the regular direct-impact 35 mm round to an AHEAD one, it took about 7 regular rounds to knock out a small moving target drone, but only 2 AHEAD. This translates into lower ammo expenditure per target (meaning you can engage more targets before having to reload), and lower time per engaged target (meaning you waste less time dealing with it, allowing you to quickly engage another one).

>Also why not use larger caliber programmable rounds, since most of the cost is in the individual electronics?
Mainly due to ammo capacity. SPAAGs have limited payload, and take a jumungus amount of time to reload, especially if you don't have a dedicated reloader vehicle. IIRC, back when they first got the Gepards, it took ukes about an hour to reload them from empty (though I think they managed to bring that down considerably now).
Anonymous No.63867386 >>63867491 >>63867812 >>63867880
>>63866395
As that other anon said cost-effectiveness isn't really what matters in the end. Obviously you don't want to be launching a $125k missile at a $25 drone with a brick of C4 strapped to it but I'm sure you'd rather do that than get hit by the drone. That said, those programmable rounds WILL end up being more cost-effective than any other option. Based on a very quick google supposedly AHEAD rounds are already only $750, $1k per. Sounds like a lot but that's significantly cheaper than even the cheapest effective MANPADS option.

>>63866416
Traditional AAA is probably going to see a renaissance because a programmable shell is going to end up being significantly cheaper for downing threats like drones than any missile on the market. It's going to be the new CIWS/CRAM for countries that can't afford to spam 20mm. Actual CIWS/CRAM will also see a benefit because you no longer will need to shoot a line on the incoming target's path. No more "INCOMING! INCOMING! INCOMING! BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR" videos sadly. That gun's basically just going to fire off 5-6 programmed rounds that do the job 30+ used to do. If it still fires off a line the whole line will likely explode at the same time.

>>63866646
You don't have to rely on only SPAAGs. Larger guns would be fine for emplacements. Even an old 88mm would be nasty if it were autoloaded, slaved to radar/EOTS/some sort of centralized FCS, and fired programmable rounds. The question though becomes how big is too big? Eventually you'll get diminishing returns on anything but swarms. A cool potential is volleys. Imagine deleting a whole ass cube of airspace because your system can accurately fill a space with shells all programmed to go at roughly the same time at optimum distances from each other.

Between accurately blasting single drones and clearing whole swarms it could be absolutely impressive stuff, and still cheaper than throwing missiles at the problem.
Anonymous No.63867491
>>63867386
Leonardo should create a land-based version of the Sovraponte STRALES turret, for fixed emplacements. A sort of modern-day Skysweeper.
Anonymous No.63867812
>>63867386
>She fires $1k AHEAD rounds at 1,100 rpm
>It costs $220,000 to fire this weapon...for 12 seconds
Anonymous No.63867880 >>63868804
>>63867386
There's no such thing as diminishing returns when a drone can wipe out a $10 million piece of equipment for as little as $100.
Those 88mm flak guns, slaved to a radar, would be a better guarantee than a 20/30/40mm if the 88mm was programmable since you'd likely need the one round rather than 5-6.
I think the happy middle ground would just be deploying the guns from naval vessels that already do the radar guided point defence and just accepting the cost of the rounds since as I said before, its better to spend $10,000 in ammo to protect $1 million and guarantee the kill than it is to spend $5-6000 and potentially fail, especially as drones get better and better.
Just fucking fill the sky with explosions.
Anonymous No.63868804
>>63867880
Diminishing returns is a thing. Firing a 16 inch shell like that is probably going to be inferior to three five inchers plugging away. Big boom isn't everything.

>Just fucking fill the sky with explosions.
Sure, but at the same time you shouldn't typically need to with this sort of setup. Ideally for lone threats of low threat counts slaved guns firing programmable rounds should be able to do the job with minimal expense. Where you'd normally need a bunch of shells a couple at most would do the trick. Got a legit swarm that's going to make it silly to take them like that? Like I said, if you set them up right you should just be able to program the whole system to just kill anything in a sizeable cube of sky at the same time. It shouldn't be hard to rig up your guns to fire for a time on fuck you attack with shells all programmed to detonate within a tenth of a second of each other in a space of whatever size and shape you want. Basically aerial grid removal volleys, which you could probably also just set to fire at will as well.

Only time I'd say you should legit just fill the sky with flak is if you know something fast is coming that you can't just accurately blast, your interceptors are out past the flak barrier, and you want that as a last line just in case. Even then you'll still benefit from gun automation and shell programming. Guns could just start by filling a circle with flak then focus in as the target approaches and radar+EOTS refines their aim. I'd still want something like THAAD or Patriots for that, but a fuckton of relatively accurate flak is a hell of a lot better than "Fuck... interceptors missed! Take cover!"