• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

DIVAD Proposals

RyanCrierie

Crazy Researcher
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
848
Reaction score
107
Website
www.alternatewars.com
Sperry's Proposal for the DIVAD system:

divad37mmvigilantebz8.jpg


Was based off their earlier T37 VIGILANTE AA Gun, but rechambered in 35mm NATO instead of 37mm.

------

General Electric's Proposal for the DIVAD system:

gau8divadij7.jpg

Utilizing their GAU-8A AVENGER cannon system.
 

Ranger6

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
44
Reaction score
1
Two interesting alternatives to the Divads disaster -- I wonder if these multi-barreled guns would have been better choices in terms of lethality to enemy aircraft/helicopters.

Did the GE proposal have any radar? I can't tell from my monitor whether or not the object behind the CO's cupola is an open hatch or a radar antenna.

Good post, but we need more details!
 

RyanCrierie

Crazy Researcher
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
848
Reaction score
107
Website
www.alternatewars.com
Some more info:

After presentations to the Army Vice Chief of Staff and the Secretary of Defense, the Defense Department approved the operational requirement for the new self-propelled weapon. Originally referred to as the Advanced Radar-directed Gun Air Defense System (ARGADS), it later became the Division Air Defense (DIVAD) gun system. At this time, the caliber had not been selected and the request for proposal only specified 30mm to 40mm leaving the choice of the gun to the industry.

Studies at the Ballistic Research Laboratory, the Air Defense School, as well as other agencies had listed five weapons as candidates to arm the new system. These were the 30mm Mauser F gun then under development, the General Electric 30mm GAU-8 multi-barrel cannon used in the Air Force A10 attack plane, the Oerlikon 35mm twin guns in production for the German Gepard antiaircraft tank, a 35mm version of the Sperry 37mm T250 Vigilante Gatling type gun, and an adaptation of the Bofors 40mm L/70 twin guns.

.........

It was intended that each contractor would utilize as many items of standard equipment as possible to minimize cost and improve reliability. In both cases, the gun system was to be installed on government-furnished modified M48A5 tank chassis.

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.

Not surprisingly, the General Electric Company proposal adapted their successful 30mm GAU-8 seven barrel cannon to an antiaircraft turret. In this mount, the externally powered GAU-8A was manned by a crew of two. Both the commander and the gunner had firing controls and either could operate the entire system. Nicknamed the Avenger, the proposed weapon had an effective kill range of 4000 meters as a design goal. Originally, the radar was an improved version of the one developed for the earlier Vulcan air defense system with which the fire control equipment had some items in common. Later, a more advanced radar system was proposed.

...

The Sperry entry in the DIVAD competition made use of their previous experience in developing the Vigilante antiaircraft weapon system. It utilized basically the same Gatling type gun modified from its original 37mm caliber to fire the 35mm NATO round. A two man turret crew, seated side by side, manned the weapon system which, like the other entries, was fitted to the M48A5 tank chassis. The 35mm gun mounted at the left side of the aluminum armor turret had two rates of fire. These were 3000 rounds/minute for engaging aircraft and 180 rounds/minute for use against ground targets. The weapon was fed from a magazine containing 1464 rounds of ammunition. In addition to the Sperry integrated radar/IFF (Identification, Friend or Foe) system, other sensors provided independent 360 degree direct or television viewing for the crew.

General Dynamics armed their vehicle with twin Oerlikon KDA 35mm cannon. These weapons could be fired in either the automatic or semiautomatic mode and their combined rate of fire was 1100 rounds/minute. The magazines held 600 ready rounds and were accessible for rapid reloading. The twin gun mount was installed in the front center of the welded aluminum armor turret. A high performance electrohydraulic turret drive and stabilization system provided a shoot-on-the-move capability. The radar fire control was derived from the Phalanx system already in production. Independently stabilized optical sights, including a laser range finder, provided a separate means of target engagement for the two man turret crew seated directly behind the gun mount.
 

Firefly 2

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
461
Reaction score
8
What did go wrong with this project, it seems to hold a lot of potential.
 

dan_inbox

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
854
Reaction score
388
Firefly said:
What did go wrong with this project, it seems to hold a lot of potential.
A lot of things.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M247_Sergeant_York
 

smurf

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
549
Reaction score
41
A lot of things.
Which of these were specific to the competition winner?
Was it a matter of trying to do too much, and they would all have failed, or did the judges make a bad choice?
 

PMN1

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
767
Reaction score
124
M1 based AA system

http://www.knox.army.mil/armormag/backissues/1990s/1996/ja96/4agds96.pdf
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
331
PMN1 said:
M1 based AA system

http://www.knox.army.mil/armormag/backissues/1990s/1996/ja96/4agds96.pdf

yes, very interesting indeed, however, with the inclusion of the ADATS system, won't this be seen by some as re-inventing the M60A3 / shillelagh all over again?
 

PMN1

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
767
Reaction score
124
smurf said:
Thanks for that one, PMN1. Very interesting

It came from here

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/4112/t/The-Last-War-Chapter-73-.html
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
678
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Ford Aerospace M247 Sergeant York DIVAD (Division Air Defense)

http://www.primeportal.net/artillery/brent_sauer/m247_sgt_york_divad/
 

Attachments

  • m247-1.gif
    m247-1.gif
    6.5 KB · Views: 563
  • m247-2.gif
    m247-2.gif
    6.5 KB · Views: 555
  • M247_DIVAD.png
    M247_DIVAD.png
    88.5 KB · Views: 561
  • M-247 Sergeant York DIVAD ddOCT91 NWC B-Niedermeier-31.jpg
    M-247 Sergeant York DIVAD ddOCT91 NWC B-Niedermeier-31.jpg
    19.8 KB · Views: 117
  • m247_2.jpg
    m247_2.jpg
    21 KB · Views: 1,182
  • syork1.jpg
    syork1.jpg
    23.6 KB · Views: 104

batigol

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
47
Reaction score
37
Found some footage of the M247 and a bit of the General Dynamics entry near the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfELF24mvwg
 

cluttonfred

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
1,390
Reaction score
114
Website
cluttonfred.info
When you consider how effective the old M42 Duster was in an infantry support role, the old Bofors 40mm still seems like a good choice for the DIVAD role. It's surprsing that armored vehicle armament seems to have diverged to either small-caliber chain guns at one end or big tank destroyer guns at the other end, leaving few options in the middle range. It's also surprising that there aren't more IFV or light tank designs with integrated air defense, anti-armor and ground support roles.
 

lastdingo

Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Messages
587
Reaction score
26
Website
defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de
They should have bought the Gepard turret for old M60 hulls. OTS and NIH, of course.
Instead: FAIL.

F-15s and F-16s created the illusion of ensured air superiority in the 80's and weakened the calls for effective battlefield ShorAD.
If only they had known about the HMS and the IRST's and R-73's qualities of the MiG-29...
 

Sea Skimmer

ACCESS: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
394
Reaction score
38
An M60 hull would have been as pointless as the M48 hull was, neither had any hope of keeping up with the M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley cross country. If the system could not do that then it had absolutely no point, rear areas could be effectively defended by a towed system like Skyguard at a fraction of the cost and with more barrels shooting. Indeed a serious counterproposal to DIVAD was simply to issue large numbers of US forces with very cheap (193,000 dollars I think) Rh202 twin 20mm cannon. Totally optical aiming, but most communist aircraft had no all weather attack capability anyway. The Su-24 would have been unlikely to intensively bomb front line targets.

This innate problem with DIVAD meant that solving the technological problems concerning the fire control and cannon system were meaningless. It was always going to be a slowpoke and the effective range of 40mm gunfire is far too low to defend a battalion task force from anywhere but within that battalion. That’s why it ended up canceled. The cold war ended before any of the follow on concepts using M1, M2 or M993 hulls could turn into hardware
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
290
Lastdingo -F-15s and F-16s created the illusion of ensured air superiority in the 80's and weakened the calls for effective battlefield ShorAD

What do you mean in the 80's?
Its still a major problem with the U.S military - there is still to much faith and reliance put into total air superiority by fighters alone!!

It has always amazed me how the Soviet's could come out with something so simple and effective as the ZSU-23-4 Shilka, which the U.S Army tried and failed to emulate with it's DIVAD program. Whilst the Soviets went on further to develop and field the 9K22 Tunguska, which surpasses even the excellent German Gepard, while the U.S Army still lacks an effective SPAAG! Crazy :mad:

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:

Sea Skimmer

ACCESS: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
394
Reaction score
38
I remember reading some stuff in I think it was ARMOR magazine, suggesting the US Army ultimately decided not to pursue the SPAAG concept any further on the specific grounds that some 300 mechanized 25mm cannon mounted on Bradley’s in a division could provide sufficient close range protection. It would be spray and pray fire, but an awful lot of it. For any significant range Stinger was thought to be more effective. SPAAGs are great, but only when you already have a lot of other ADA assets to force the enemy to attack low and close. Otherwise a simple Lynx helicopter with TOW missiles can pick the thing off for way outside its effective range.

Personally I think the real crime with US air defense is not retaining and upgrading Chaparral with AIM-9M missile. This was proposed around 1994, along with upgrades that would allow Chaparral to fire and designate Hellfire missiles to make it duel role. AIM-9M might only go 5 miles but that’s sufficient to match the range of enemy anti tank helicopters and keep fixed wing aircraft at a respectable ceiling.
 

DanielStarseer

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
59
Reaction score
15
There was for a time in the US Army the M6 Bradley (Linebacker), where there was a quad Stinger pod instead of the normal twin TOW launcher as on other Bradleys,
intended as an ADA system to keep up with Abrams-Bradley armored advances.
And it was demonstrated (can't recall if it was Hughes, or after Boeing or ATK took the Chain Guns under their roof) that the 25mm could be modified to fire at 400 shots per minute over the current 200, by means of a more powerful gun drive motor (that's still quite low, by modern standards of AA guns...),
and a new proximity-fuzed 25mm round was considered at one point, but its warhead lethality radius was probably rather weak against most airborne targets (a 25mm AHEAD-type might have some potential...).


To my knowledge, any of the M6's have been re-capped into the more common TOW-equipped variants, and the 400spm Chain Gun was never integrated into fleet-wide production Bradleys.

Looking at where Boeing has been with its latest Avenger variants
(Stinger pods on the Humvee as light mobile AA),
they've in the past few years,
in addition to keeping its M3P 50-cal,
demostrated various weapons fits to include the LW25 Chain Gun that fires the 25mm smart grenades,
Javelin and Hellfire missiles (maybe Spike was even in there...),
and somewhere I coulda swore I saw a mock up of one of the turrets showing AIM-9X's (I assume they were AIM-9X's, cannot recall exactly),
but so far my web scouring hasn't yielded those pics or the website they were on (AUSA stuff?)).
Hell, they even trialled lightweight laser weapons capable of cooking-off IEDs from a safe distance,
and shooting down some small UAVs.

Anyhow, the new multi-option armament system pretty much could be considered a seriously-product-improved Chaparral: it was originally air defense, but has since been tinkered with to provide additional surface fire support (US air superiority hasn't given the Avenger crews much purpose in the air defense roles...).
And for all the bigger the turret really is,
it could possibly make for an interesting, somewhat lightweight multi purpose launcher system for smaller naval vessels (the tricky part being, without an expensive and complex auto reloader, the ship would require mostly manual loading of the various missile types once the turret has fired off its ready rounds).

(any of you folks remember what/where these newer Avenger pics are, many thanks...)
 

Sea Skimmer

ACCESS: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
394
Reaction score
38
Yeah they’ve had mockups with two AIM-9 mounted above the Stingers, looked top heavy. Several different lasers have been tried out now too, replacing one Stinger pod. Something that that is going to be in service soon simply because then you can kill IEDs, or in a future war unexploded cluster bombs or similar hazards, all day long while waiting for air threats to appear.

Manually reloading on a ship isn’t a very big deal, they’ve been manually reloading heavier Sea Sparrow launchers from the 1960s until now and it’s still being mounted on new construction. But the existence of RAM and Sea RAM would make it kind of pointless on a new hull. IIRC Taiwan still does mount Sea Chaparral on a few ship, the only naval use of the system I am aware of besides a few Brazilian river monitors (more like river SAM boats). Upgrading that with AIM-9X would make the ships considerably less worthless.
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
203
Raytheon modded their six rail SL-AMRAAM launcher recently to shoot AIM-9X.
 

cthippo

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
I remember reading about OTO Melara working on a SPAAG version of their 76mm compact shipboard gun mounted on an OF40 tank chassis. Did that ever go anywhere?
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
203
cthippo said:
I remember reading about OTO Melara working on a SPAAG version of their 76mm compact shipboard gun mounted on an OF40 tank chassis. Did that ever go anywhere?

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,696.0

Please next time use the search function or Goggle to ask none research related questions.
 

DanielStarseer

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
59
Reaction score
15
Sea Skimmer said:
Yeah they’ve had mockups with two AIM-9 mounted above the Stingers, looked top heavy. Several different lasers have been tried out now too, replacing one Stinger pod. Something that that is going to be in service soon simply because then you can kill IEDs, or in a future war unexploded cluster bombs or similar hazards, all day long while waiting for air threats to appear.

Manually reloading on a ship isn’t a very big deal, they’ve been manually reloading heavier Sea Sparrow launchers from the 1960s until now and it’s still being mounted on new construction. But the existence of RAM and Sea RAM would make it kind of pointless on a new hull. IIRC Taiwan still does mount Sea Chaparral on a few ship, the only naval use of the system I am aware of besides a few Brazilian river monitors (more like river SAM boats). Upgrading that with AIM-9X would make the ships considerably less worthless.


Actually, I was thinking ships more the size of Cyclones and Swiftships: small coastal types that are cramped for deck space (typically only having room for one A/B position weapon and one X/Y position, more or less),
vessels totally lacking the ability to mount a SeaRAM type system.
These multi-weapon turret installations could add some considerable extra firepower, moreso than just pintle HMGs and maybe one RWS autocannon.

And I don't know the maximum effective range of the 25mm smart grenade Chain Gun the Avenger mount trialled, but those airbursting shells might also add a nice benefit against close-in surface threats (exposed personnel).

And provided those lasers work well enough at sea level/maritime conditions, they could prove effective at disabling small hostiles without outright destroying them, like how some snipers shoot at outboard motors,
a benefit being that crosswinds and gravity don't interfere with the shot...that could be very useful against piracy (think long range sniping during hostage crisis, or some pirate perp waving and pointing his RPG menacingly, then suddenly his RPG warhead cooks off in his face).

The ability to launch a Javelin, Spike, or similar small-form ATGM type (2000-4000m range) would be useful against any hostiles deciding to try to outrun the coastal patrol via hit-and-run tactics.

The MANPADS feature would offer more precise engagement against a growing number of UAV systems: it's only a matter of time before more hostiles gain that ability to fly even small ones as kamikazes.
We wouldn't necessarily need an AIM-9 or RAM to defeat those, though: Stinger/Mistral-sized is fine.

Granted, all these missiles can be man-portable launchers, but attached into shipboard radar and optics could give them greater detection and engagement ranges than just by human eyes.
The stock Avenger system did feature a Slew-to-Cue mode, wherein it could be informed by offboard sensors (like FireFinder or other radars) and slew into position to prep to engage an inbound target before it was even on top of you.
 

Firefly 2

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
461
Reaction score
8
Sea Skimmer said:
Yeah they’ve had mockups with two AIM-9 mounted above the Stingers, looked top heavy. Several different lasers have been tried out now too, replacing one Stinger pod. Something that that is going to be in service soon simply because then you can kill IEDs, or in a future war unexploded cluster bombs or similar hazards, all day long while waiting for air threats to appear.

Hmmm, Your post reminded me of this:
http://defensetech.org/2010/12/03/the-avenger-gets-a-serious-upgrade/

This should belong in another thread, though, as it is absolutely unrelated to DIVAD.
 

DanielStarseer

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
59
Reaction score
15
Firefly 2 said:
Sea Skimmer said:
Yeah they’ve had mockups with two AIM-9 mounted above the Stingers, looked top heavy. Several different lasers have been tried out now too, replacing one Stinger pod. Something that that is going to be in service soon simply because then you can kill IEDs, or in a future war unexploded cluster bombs or similar hazards, all day long while waiting for air threats to appear.

Hmmm, Your post reminded me of this:
http://defensetech.org/2010/12/03/the-avenger-gets-a-serious-upgrade/

This should belong in another thread, though, as it is absolutely unrelated to DIVAD.


Yeah, thanks, that's the turret I was thinking of.
And I only mentioned it here because of the Chaparral comparison....effectively, this is about as close as the US Army is going to get for a mobile (on the move with advancing battalions brigades units of action) air defense system, the modern equivalent of the failed DIVADS.
 

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
196
Reaction score
118
Two pictures of the XM246, from General Dynamics.

Taken from http://strangernn.livejournal.com/233562.html

It's in Russian though, and I don't habla that...
 

Attachments

  • Divad2.jpg
    Divad2.jpg
    29.4 KB · Views: 621
  • Divad1.jpg
    Divad1.jpg
    71.8 KB · Views: 698

suntan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

the DIVADS ie Sgt York was finally canned for 2 reasons firstly at a high level demo it famously engaged an outhouse on the firing range and then at a very high level demo they lost control of the system while firing, and it's never good to have brass diving for cover. there was in any case so much controversy about the system and how it was to be deployed and nobody really wanted it.

However further to the comments gun systems and especially hybrid systems as developed by the russians are exceptionally effective ie. Shilka - decimated the Isreali AF, the Tunguska and Pantsyr systems are extermely effective giving a good overlap off missile range and close-in cover form the gun systems, a study of these systems has shown they are to be avoided at all costs by attack helicopters and given that were optimised to operate in the european environment not really in open flat desert they would have posed a serious threat to anyone engaging large tank formations.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
143
suntan said:
Hi all,

the DIVADS ie Sgt York was finally canned for 2 reasons firstly at a high level demo it famously engaged an outhouse on the firing range and then at a very high level demo they lost control of the system while firing, and it's never good to have brass diving for cover. there was in any case so much controversy about the system and how it was to be deployed and nobody really wanted it.


It also was faced at the time with increasing Congressional demands to cancel something, so it became the sacrificial lamb-- it wasn't deemed worth the political capital to save it.

Ironically, most of the problems had been solved by then, and many of the completed units ended up being used by the Navy (sans guns of course), to track aircraft on the weapons ranges. The Navy was quite happy with them as they worked very well, until the limited supply of spare parts ran out and they became unsupportable.
 
C

CostasTT

Guest
There was also the towed DIVAD proposal, the only reference to which I have is the photo below, scanned from a magazine by a friend of mine. Unfortunately, I can't remember where he found it.
 

Attachments

  • towed DIVAD 40mm.jpg
    towed DIVAD 40mm.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 1,475

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
290
Hey thanks for sharing CostasTT !!
I can not say that I have heard of the 'Towed' component of the DIVAD system!Can I ask where you found this information about the 'Towed' Light DIVAD ?

P.S I have a book I saw the other day in my collection which speaks of the DIVAD program.............In it it states that the General Dynamics XM246 DIVAD proposal was far more superior in performance than the Ford Aerospace XM247 design! I will hunt this book and info down tomorrow!!

Regards
Pioneer
 
C

CostasTT

Guest
You are welcome.
To answer your question, a friend had the photo in an old magazine and he scanned it for me. Unfortunately, I can't recall the details - which magazine, etc - as eight years have passed since then.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
290
P.S I have a book I saw the other day in my collection which speaks of the DIVAD program.............

Ok, I have found the book.... its 'The New Maginot Line', by John Connell, published 1986.

Of interest is the following -
"In the initial competition for the lucrative $4.5 billion contract, two firms emerged as front runners, General Dynamics (XM246) and the Ford (Aerospace) (XM247). The two, each of which had built a prototype DIVAD, held a shoot-off, and this was won hands-down by General Dynamics. According to a Pentagon report, Ford hit half as many targets as the General Dynamics, and the longest range of the Ford hits was only just over half the longest range of the General Dynamics hit (in all, General Dynamics shot down 15 helicopters, Ford only eight).The army, however, decided to opt for Ford"


Wow work that out????

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:

moin1900

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
456
Reaction score
24
Hi everybody

Here a good article about SGT.York.
http://sill-www.army.mil/ada-online/pb-44/_docs/1984/Winter/winter%201984.pdf

The towed 40mm gun was known as LADS.
Ford Aerospace Light Air Defense Gun System.
It could be mounted on a HMMWV or light armored vehicle, or towed.
The article contains a little drawing of the gun.
http://sill-www.army.mil/ada-online/pb-44/_docs/1982/7-9/july-sept%201982.pdf
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
786
Reaction score
219
Just a minor itch I'd like to scratch. If the DIVAD had gone into service as planned, could the turret have been subsequently fitted to an Abram's chassis? The hull on the Abram's doesn't look deep enough to me.

Regards.
 

moin1900

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
456
Reaction score
24
Guided 40mm projectiles

Guided projectile flight control fin system
Ford Aerospace & Communications Corporation 1984
http://www.google.com/patents/US4565340

Maybe someone knows more about the development of rocket assisted 40mm projectiles for DIVAD ?
 

RAP

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
690
Reaction score
428
...
 

Attachments

  • Divad.png
    Divad.png
    912.9 KB · Views: 580
  • sryjs.png
    sryjs.png
    985.4 KB · Views: 534

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,670
Reaction score
4,285
General Dynamics DIVADS from Facebook group 'General Dynamics - Pomona Division Alumni'
 

Attachments

  • 40932375_1967974333224307_2571999353702973440_o.jpg
    40932375_1967974333224307_2571999353702973440_o.jpg
    371.2 KB · Views: 389

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
290
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
 

Similar threads

Top