DIVAD Proposals

Back in the late 1960s, the West Germans commissioned a paper study and model work to see if the anti air weapons proposed for the Leopard 1 (Fla Pz Gepard) could be fitted to the KPZ 70, which was planned to replace the M48 in FRG service.
Because of the failure of the MBT/KPZ 70 nothing materialised. However, if the project had gone ahead, this would have been a great opportunity for the US and West Germans to standardize kit.
However, as the Gepard was never mated with the later Leopard 2 (KPZ 70s actual replacement) perhaps not.
But, I love paper studies, so maybe out there....
 
Pioneer said:
Still can't believe the the US Army still haven't fielded an adiquite/meaniful SPAAG since the demise of the DIVADS program....Yes I know the Cold War has ended.....Yes I know the Pentagon realise on taking and retaining air supremacy of the battlefield via fighter aircraft and air interdiction.....but still IMO a real and serious capability short fall IMO.


Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...

There's a need for C-RAM system (Counter Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar), which essentially is the landbased equivalent of a naval CIWS. However, what is the real purpose of an old fashioned self propelled AA gun? The US Army did publish a presentation on the use a new 50mm chain gun to combat the drone threat. Aside from that novel concept, what's the intended role?

The DIVAD requirement was really a belated response to the Soviet ZSU-23-4 system. It looked good on paper to have an equivalent system, especially when the annual report on Soviet military power was showing highly speculative renderings of a Soviet SPAAG that looked like the German 35mm Gepard.
 
Pioneer said:
Still can't believe the the US Army still haven't fielded an adiquite/meaniful SPAAG since the demise of the DIVADS program....Yes I know the Cold War has ended.....Yes I know the Pentagon realise on taking and retaining air supremacy of the battlefield via fighter aircraft and air interdiction.....but still IMO a real and serious capability short fall IMO.
Click to expand...

I read it in a copy of field artillery magazine from 1987 or so that the feeling largely became that because a heavy division had 300 x Bushmaster cannon on Bradley vehicles, all able to elevate 60 degrees, and the main value of a gun was hitting aircraft that appeared too physically close to use a missile the actual need for a SPAAG was pretty low. The need for a missile long ranged and fast enough to counter a helicopter firing ATGMs was however high, but DIVAD was cancelled in part because it could not do this.

I'm aware of two different exotic projectiles intended to improve that equation. One was a simple rocket assisted projectile, another was a solid fuel ramjet projectile that could maintain the 40mm muzzle velocity to 3km range and was apparently test fired a fair bit. Both would help, but they still could not actually counter a helicopter at 6km as was expected from a Mi-24 with AT-6 missiles. And nor could Stinger, though it was proposed to place stinger on DIVAD late in the game. Starstreak could, having been designed from the ground up to do so, and that's what led to Starstreak being tested on Apache and the Avenger into the 1990s.

Basically DIVAD had been rendered moot by technological advances in the likely threat. You needed a much bigger gun to have both the firing range and a useful time of flight to that range, which turns into the Otomatic. Nobody ever bought Otomatic.
 
"The DIVAD requirement was really a belated response to the Soviet ZSU-23-4 system."
Click to expand...

TinWing, I would have thought it would have been more in response to the Soviet/Warsaw Pact's doctrine revitalisation of effective/purpose-designed anti-tank, ground attack and interdiction assets like the Mi-24, Su-25 and MiG-27.

"....especially when the annual report on Soviet military power was showing highly speculative renderings of a Soviet SPAAG that looked like the German 35mm Gepard."
Click to expand...

TinWing, are you referring to the West misconception of the ZSU-X [A Gepard-type gun/radar/turret mounted on a T-72/T-80], which the West perceived as a 'Gepard-based' spin-off, so as to give an air of parity to the West's best SPAAG (as convienently denoted by the Conservitive/Neo-Liberal Soviet/Russian-baiting 'Soviet Military Power: The Annotated and Corrected Version of the Pentagon's Guide'); which would in fact be the 2K22 Tunguska, which exceeded the capabilities of any Western SPAAG designs by far.

- - - - - - - -

"I read it in a copy of field artillery magazine from 1987 or so that the feeling largely became that because a heavy division had 300 x Bushmaster cannon on Bradley vehicles, all able to elevate 60 degrees, and the main value of a gun was hitting aircraft that appeared too physically close to use a missile the actual need for a SPAAG was pretty low."
Click to expand...

My dear Sea_Skimmer2, the principal issue I have with this analogy, is the effectiveness of these '300 x Bushmaster cannon on Bradley's' lacking any real or effective sensors to warn, detect and track Soviet-era fast ground attack/air interdiction aircraft like Su-25's, MiG-27's, ...... As much as I grant them a reasonable chance of hitting a couple of Mi-8's and Mi-24's with 300 x 25mm cannon's, such configuration can be classed as an effective on the European battlefield, let alone in the modern the 24-hour battlefield........

Regards
Pioneer
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20190224_190547.jpg
    IMG_20190224_190547.jpg
    685.4 KB · Views: 404
It is interesting to compare the main NATO armies (including France in this case) to AA artillery.

The Bundeswehr initially only fielded the US M42 Duster, but as soon as it could fielded REDEYE then STINGER, plus GEPARD and ROLAND

France started with its AMX13 based AA gun and then added CROTALE, ROLAND and MICRA (the AMX30 based AA was only exported, and a smaller wheeled 20 mm system was cancelled and then partially fielded.

The Brits, short of money, developed AA artillery like the FALCON and later systems, but had to make do with BLOWPIPE/JAVELIN and RAPIER

NATO was all over the place on this issue, so its no wonder that the US Army was too.
 
Most of the offerings the Army has looked at in recent years for a short-range air defense vehicle seem rather basic compared to DIVAD or the FAADS program. Stingers, Sidewinders, and Hellfires seem to be the only missile options being considered although I imagine Hellfire there is to make the vehicle multi-purpose versus being ideal against air targets.
 
uk 75 said:
It is interesting to compare the main NATO armies (including France in this case) to AA artillery.

The Bundeswehr initially only fielded the US M42 Duster, but as soon as it could fielded REDEYE then STINGER, plus GEPARD and ROLAND

France started with its AMX13 based AA gun and then added CROTALE, ROLAND and MICRA (the AMX30 based AA was only exported, and a smaller wheeled 20 mm system was cancelled and then partially fielded.

The Brits, short of money, developed AA artillery like the FALCON and later systems, but had to make do with BLOWPIPE/JAVELIN and RAPIER

NATO was all over the place on this issue, so its no wonder that the US Army was too.
Click to expand...

I agree with your analogy UK 75!
IMO US/NATO seriousness about ground-based/formation-based air defence was and remains woefully and ignorantly neglected! :mad:


Regards
Pioneer
 
To add to UK75's list, there was also the Oerlikon-Contraves Air Defense Anti-Tank System (ADATS) which was acquired by Canada in 1986 for use in West Germany and selected by the US Army for the Forward Area Air-Defense (FAAD) requirement but cancelled in the post-Cold War cutbacks.
 
Then there was this:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,696.msg5232.html#msg5232
 
There's no doubt the US Army has seriously lacked and needs a serious and proficient SPAAG system to accompany and defend it's mechanised formations. The thing is, as with the case of most modern US Army programs, this requirement could have should have been fulfilled quite simply and affordably. But the lack of williness of the US Army (and USMC for that matter) to adopt an off-the-shelf proven foreign designed SPAAG (though either political unwillingness or over-burdened/over-complicate an existing design with exaggerated added requirements/systems/sensors) or completely over-complicate the design with extreme exaggerated from the moment of its conception, making it extremely expensive and technologically troublesome and operationally unreliable.

The US Army sense of a priority given to the ground-based air defence of its mechanised units seems to have an ad-hoc exceptence to it, as aptly demonstrated by it's williness to except and persist with the M48 Chaparral self-propelled surface-to-air missile system and M163 Vulcan Air Defense System in place of the failed and cancelled "Forward Area Air Defense" (FAAD) program, known as the MIM-46 Mauler.
This ad-hoc attitude was again applied to the again improvised "Avenger Air Defense System", when the consecutive
ill-fated "US Roland programme" in the late 1970's, the "Division Air Defense" (DIVAD), and even later FAADS/LOS-Forward-Heavy programs failed miserably again and again....To add insult to the wound IMO is the again 'improvised and ad-hoc' "Interim Maneuver-Short-Range Air Defense system program" for the U.S. Army formations in Europe.
As to emphasise this analogy:

"The U.S. Army’s interim short-range air defense system, which will urgently fill a capability gap identified a few years ago in the European theater."

To say nothing of the need for the US Army to re-activated the 5th Battalion, 4th Air Defense Artillery Regiment's, which were ignorantly prematurely deactivated in 1990.

(source: https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/06/28/us-armys-interim-short-range-air-defense-solution-crystallizes/)

(Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/us-army-activates-first-short-range-air-defense-unit-in-europe-2018-11)

Finally, if I may, is the real added firepower afforded by SPAAG's in terms of ground-to-ground fire support a gun or mixed gun/missile SPAAG system adds to a mechanised unit, which convienently seems to get overlooked/ forgotten on the battlefield - something the US Army shouldn't forget, what with their continuous effective employment of the M16 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage and M42!


Regards
Pioneer
 
Wasn't the HMMWV Avenger was the "light" component of FAADS-LOS?

Despite talk of technical problems and unreliability I think the real reason the US Army cancelled its purchase of ADATS was almost entirely due to budgetary matters. Another missed opportunity for sure.

What would have been the best cannon to supplement ADATS on the M2 hull? One variation tested added a 25mm M242 chain gun and I imagine other configurations were considered. The M242's only utility would be for engaging helicopters and ground targets however, too low rate of fire for use against fixed wing.

The USMC had the short-lived LAV-AD which had a 25mm GAU-12 which was probably pretty effective.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
The USMC had the short-lived LAV-AD which had a 25mm GAU-12 which was probably pretty effective.
Click to expand...

Yeah, never understood it's short service life, it seemed a good and cost effective system!
I hate to say it, but I hold the notion that arrogance of a notion that the USMC didn't need an organic air defence weapons platforms like the LAV-AD.
Always thought the LAV-AD would have been superior to the "Avenger Air Defense System", but I guess because it wasn't Army in origin, it was never gonna get a look-in in the Army ORBAT.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Wasn't the HMMWV Avenger was the "light" component of FAADS-LOS?
Click to expand...
The notional divisional FAADS battalion seems to have had three 'heavy' batteries with one platoon of six FOG-M launchers and two platoons of six ADATS Bradleys, one battery to accompany each brigade in the forward area, and one 'light' battery with three platoons of twelve Avengers for rear area defence.

Alongside that, there was to have been a divisional anti-tank battalion with 36 FOG-M launchers which could carry out air defence fires as a secondary mission. When this was being discussed, the FOG-M launcher for the heavy division looks to have had twelve cells on an MLRS-based chassis.
 

Attachments

  • FOGM HFU.PNG
    FOGM HFU.PNG
    119.8 KB · Views: 2,034
RLBH said:
Colonial-Marine said:
Wasn't the HMMWV Avenger was the "light" component of FAADS-LOS?
Click to expand...
The notional divisional FAADS battalion seems to have had three 'heavy' batteries with one platoon of six FOG-M launchers and two platoons of six LOSAT Bradleys, one battery to accompany each brigade in the forward area, and one 'light' battery with three platoons of twelve Avengers for rear area defence.

Alongside that, there was to have been a divisional anti-tank battalion with 36 FOG-M launchers which could carry out air defence fires as a secondary mission. When this was being discussed, the FOG-M launcher for the heavy division looks to have had twelve cells on an MLRS-based chassis.
Click to expand...

Great info on ORBAT thank you RLBH

Also appriciate the MLRS-based chassis FOG-M drawing!!

Regards
Pioneer
 
AFAIK the current idea of the U.S.Army for battlefield air defence is to refurbish Avengers and equip them with AIM-9X among other munitions.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/us_army_avenger_an/twq-1_air_defense_missile_comes_back_into_service_in_europe.html
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/global-force-symposium/2017/03/14/80s-flashback-boeing-soups-up-old-avenger-for-short-range-air-defense-gap/

That would be Chaparral on 4x4.
 
RLBH said:
Colonial-Marine said:
Wasn't the HMMWV Avenger was the "light" component of FAADS-LOS?
Click to expand...
The notional divisional FAADS battalion seems to have had three 'heavy' batteries with one platoon of six FOG-M launchers and two platoons of six LOSAT Bradleys, one battery to accompany each brigade in the forward area, and one 'light' battery with three platoons of twelve Avengers for rear area defence.
Click to expand...

I can see Fog-M, since it had a secondary anti-air role, but how did LOSAT, a dedicated anti-tank weapon, fit into the Forward Area Air Defense mission?
 
TomS said:
RLBH said:
Colonial-Marine said:
Wasn't the HMMWV Avenger was the "light" component of FAADS-LOS?
Click to expand...
The notional divisional FAADS battalion seems to have had three 'heavy' batteries with one platoon of six FOG-M launchers and two platoons of six LOSAT Bradleys, one battery to accompany each brigade in the forward area, and one 'light' battery with three platoons of twelve Avengers for rear area defence.
Click to expand...

I can see Fog-M, since it had a secondary anti-air role, but how did LOSAT, a dedicated anti-tank weapon, fit into the Forward Area Air Defense mission?
Click to expand...
Mostly by actually being ADATS, and me not getting my weapons systems mixed up. :-[ I'll modify the earlier post to avoid possible confusion.
 
RLBH said:
TomS said:
RLBH said:
Colonial-Marine said:
Wasn't the HMMWV Avenger was the "light" component of FAADS-LOS?
Click to expand...
The notional divisional FAADS battalion seems to have had three 'heavy' batteries with one platoon of six FOG-M launchers and two platoons of six LOSAT Bradleys, one battery to accompany each brigade in the forward area, and one 'light' battery with three platoons of twelve Avengers for rear area defence.
Click to expand...

I can see Fog-M, since it had a secondary anti-air role, but how did LOSAT, a dedicated anti-tank weapon, fit into the Forward Area Air Defense mission?
Click to expand...
Mostly by actually being ADATS, and me not getting my weapons systems mixed up. :-[ I'll modify the earlier post to avoid possible confusion.
Click to expand...

I thought that might be the case, but I wasn't sure. :)
 
To be fair, as LOSAT was just a beam-riding kinetic energy weapon, I suspect that it could be guided into the vincinity of an aircraft quite happily and would make an almighty mess of it if it hit. The challenges would be acquisition, tracking, and launcher elevation.
 
RLBH said:
To be fair, as LOSAT was just a beam-riding kinetic energy weapon, I suspect that it could be guided into the vincinity of an aircraft quite happily and would make an almighty mess of it if it hit. The challenges would be acquisition, tracking, and launcher elevation.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the British Rapier SAM a kinetic energy weapon - lacking an explosive warhead! So I guess it was feasible - alas LOSAT much higher speed would undoubtedly brought other issues!
LOSAT, yet another exceptional weapon system the US Army ignored to its detriment today, IMO )


Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer said:
RLBH said:
To be fair, as LOSAT was just a beam-riding kinetic energy weapon, I suspect that it could be guided into the vincinity of an aircraft quite happily and would make an almighty mess of it if it hit. The challenges would be acquisition, tracking, and launcher elevation.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the British Rapier SAM a kinetic energy weapon - lacking an explosive warhead! So I guess it was feasible - alas LOSAT much higher speed would undoubtedly brought other issues!
LOSAT, yet another exceptional weapon system the US Army ignored to its detriment today, IMO )


Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...

CKEM as well. :'(
 
Pioneer said:
Wasn't the British Rapier SAM a kinetic energy weapon - lacking an explosive warhead!
Click to expand...

Not quite. The Rapier has a 1.4 kg warhead with 0.4 kg of explosive. Small, though still there.
 
RLBH said:
To be fair, as LOSAT was just a beam-riding kinetic energy weapon, I suspect that it could be guided into the vincinity of an aircraft quite happily and would make an almighty mess of it if it hit. The challenges would be acquisition, tracking, and launcher elevation.
Click to expand...

First time I ever see someone claim that LOSAT was beam-riding. I saw videos of it, and they don't look like beam-riding AT ALL.

AFAIK it was radio command guided, and could have worked with INS-backed autopilot only as well.
 
GTX said:
Pioneer said:
Wasn't the British Rapier SAM a kinetic energy weapon - lacking an explosive warhead!
Click to expand...

Not quite. The Rapier has a 1.4 kg warhead with 0.4 kg of explosive. Small, though still there.
Click to expand...

Rapier was unique in that it was CLOS (Command to Line Of Sight) guided - in other words it was visually guided with a command link between the guidance system and the missile. It had a radar on each firing unit (the drum like structure between the missiles) but that was purely a search radar. There was also the Blindfire guidance radar - which was a separate system - which took over the missile after launch and guided it to it's target. The CLOS system was successful for the relatively short ranges of the Rapier system. Interestingly, on the Tracked Rapier system, it was replaced with the automatic command system from the Swingfire ATGWS because the "collection time" was considered too long for the manual system of the standard Rapier system.
 
lastdingo said:
RLBH said:
To be fair, as LOSAT was just a beam-riding kinetic energy weapon, I suspect that it could be guided into the vincinity of an aircraft quite happily and would make an almighty mess of it if it hit. The challenges would be acquisition, tracking, and launcher elevation.
Click to expand...

First time I ever see someone claim that LOSAT was beam-riding. I saw videos of it, and they don't look like beam-riding AT ALL.

AFAIK it was radio command guided, and could have worked with INS-backed autopilot only as well.
Click to expand...

Loral really liked laser beam riders but LOSAT wasn't. It was as you describe but with a laser uplink.
 
When it came to the gunner doing his part was LOSAT or CKEM a typical SACLOS system? Just keep the crosshairs on target like TOW?

Considering the proliferation of active protection systems I'm amazed CKEM hasn't seen a revival of some kind.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
When it came to the gunner doing his part was LOSAT or CKEM a typical SACLOS system? Just keep the crosshairs on target like TOW?
Click to expand...

Even less: the FLIR was supposed to go into auto-track mode after launch.
 
GTX said:
Pioneer said:
Wasn't the British Rapier SAM a kinetic energy weapon - lacking an explosive warhead!
Click to expand...

Not quite. The Rapier has a 1.4 kg warhead with 0.4 kg of explosive. Small, though still there.
Click to expand...

Thank's for the clarification Greg. Just think that I've carried that notion about the Rapier around for all my life
Or was I thinking it didn't have a proximity fuse, and relies on direct impact???


Regards
Pioneer
 
loosely related:
https://defence-blog.com/army/lockheed-martin-led-team-revealed-details-of-new-falcon-air-defense-weapon-system.html
LM combined its command control box with German IRIS-T SL (or SLM?) and Swedish multi-purpose Giraffe 4A radar (can also be used to detect rocket/mortar/artillery locations and other modes).

I suppose they could use AMRAAM-ER and AIM-9X instead on some of the launchers developed for NASAMS 2 (including the HMMWV-mounted quick response thing).

All this would still be largely focused on defence against aircraft (fixed and rotary wing), though. The missiles would cost more than some cruise missile and all glide bomb types. A low end intercept capability against air-launched stnad-off munitions is necessary.

Moreover, future air defence should include a counter to small, autonomous 'killer' drones (at least when they're in the air).
https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2018/05/summary-modern-air-defences-for-europe.html
 
lastdingo said:
loosely related:
https://defence-blog.com/army/lockheed-martin-led-team-revealed-details-of-new-falcon-air-defense-weapon-system.html
LM combined its command control box with German IRIS-T SL (or SLM?) and Swedish multi-purpose Giraffe 4A radar (can also be used to detect rocket/mortar/artillery locations and other modes).

I suppose they could use AMRAAM-ER and AIM-9X instead on some of the launchers developed for NASAMS 2 (including the HMMWV-mounted quick response thing).

All this would still be largely focused on defence against aircraft (fixed and rotary wing), though. The missiles would cost more than some cruise missile and all glide bomb types. A low end intercept capability against air-launched stnad-off munitions is necessary.

Moreover, future air defence should include a counter to small, autonomous 'killer' drones (at least when they're in the air).
https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2018/05/summary-modern-air-defences-for-europe.html
Click to expand...


Hopefully this goes somewhere. I wonder if you could stack 5 of them on the front of a 10" dia. booster to deal with saturation attacks. . .

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/miniature-hit-to-kill.html

For the real small, numerous, drones I'd think an SSL would be the way to go for cost if nothing else.
 
General Dynamics XM246.
 

Attachments

  • GD XM246.jpg
    GD XM246.jpg
    843.1 KB · Views: 373
I apologise if this video link has already been posted, but I just stumbled across it!


Regards
Pioneer
 
Re-reading this topic, and just picked up on how sensible this Raytheon proposal would have been - especially when one considers that the DAVID operational requirement pertained to the US Army operating in Europe to support its Armoured/Mech Inf Divisions......................


RyanCrierie said:
The Raytheon proposal adapted the turret from the Dutch version of the German flakpanzer Gepard to the M48A5 chassis. This turret, used on the Dutch CA-1 Cheetah antiaircraft tank, was armed with twin Oerlikon KDA 35mm cannon. Fire control equipment utilized the Hollandse Signaalapparaten radar and a Contraves computer. The Raytheon study showed that the turret and fire control systems were compatible with the M48A5 chassis and that it had 94 per cent maintenance line replaceable unit commonality with its European counterpart in NATO. Raytheon and their subcontractors were licensed to manufacture the system in the United States.
Click to expand...

Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer said:
Re-reading this topic, and just picked up on how sensible this Raytheon proposal would have been - especially when one considers that the DAVID operational requirement pertained to the US Army operating in Europe to support its Armoured/Mech Inf Divisions......................


RyanCrierie said:
The Raytheon proposal adapted the turret from the Dutch version of the German flakpanzer Gepard to the M48A5 chassis. This turret, used on the Dutch CA-1 Cheetah antiaircraft tank, was armed with twin Oerlikon KDA 35mm cannon. Fire control equipment utilized the Hollandse Signaalapparaten radar and a Contraves computer. The Raytheon study showed that the turret and fire control systems were compatible with the M48A5 chassis and that it had 94 per cent maintenance line replaceable unit commonality with its European counterpart in NATO. Raytheon and their subcontractors were licensed to manufacture the system in the United States.
Click to expand...

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
I remember reading somewhere that the Gepard turret was also compatible with the M1 with minimal changes. It really would have been an excellent choise.
 
MihoshiK said:
Pioneer said:
Re-reading this topic, and just picked up on how sensible this Raytheon proposal would have been - especially when one considers that the DAVID operational requirement pertained to the US Army operating in Europe to support its Armoured/Mech Inf Divisions......................


RyanCrierie said:
The Raytheon proposal adapted the turret from the Dutch version of the German flakpanzer Gepard to the M48A5 chassis. This turret, used on the Dutch CA-1 Cheetah antiaircraft tank, was armed with twin Oerlikon KDA 35mm cannon. Fire control equipment utilized the Hollandse Signaalapparaten radar and a Contraves computer. The Raytheon study showed that the turret and fire control systems were compatible with the M48A5 chassis and that it had 94 per cent maintenance line replaceable unit commonality with its European counterpart in NATO. Raytheon and their subcontractors were licensed to manufacture the system in the United States.
Click to expand...

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
I remember reading somewhere that the Gepard turret was also compatible with the M1 with minimal changes. It really would have been an excellent choise.
Click to expand...
Cost and operational sense RyanCrierie!
But undoubtedly suffered from 'Not designed and produced in the US'
And to this day, the US Army still lacks an adiquite SPAAG/M system



Regards
Pioneer
 
...
 

Attachments

  • gd 1.png
    gd 1.png
    499.2 KB · Views: 226
  • gd 2.png
    gd 2.png
    881.5 KB · Views: 171
  • gd 3.png
    gd 3.png
    1 MB · Views: 165
  • York 1.png
    York 1.png
    631 KB · Views: 154
  • AWST 4.25.83.png
    AWST 4.25.83.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 140
  • AWST 9.2.85 1.png
    AWST 9.2.85 1.png
    829.2 KB · Views: 118
  • AWST 9.2.85 2.png
    AWST 9.2.85 2.png
    767.2 KB · Views: 120
...
 

Attachments

  • york 1.png
    york 1.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 139
  • york.png
    york.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 209
Via one of the MICV threads, some info on the original ARGADS proposals, courtesy of skylancer-3441:
xscqrvrr-jpg.615357


tmp-cam-80991698-jpg.615360

tmp-cam-1418371130-jpg.615361


tmp-cam-1919797938-jpg.615362



 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom