A few months ago, the US Army announced the launch of a program called MDACS, intended to put anti-aircraft artillery at the heart of the American anti-aircraft, anti-missile and anti-drone mix. It was then a question of synthesizing the technologies developed by the US Navy and the US Air Force, for rapid and low-risk development.
We now know more about this new anti-aircraft system. Indeed, the American army intends, for this, to use a 155 mm cannon, mounted on a vehicle on wheels, and armed with the HVP (Hyper Velocity Projectile) shell designed for the US Navy's Rail Gun program. , abandoned a few years ago. And all this, before the end of the decade!
In this section:
Why did the missile win against the anti-aircraft gun?
The announcement made by the Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO) of the US Army is, obviously, surprising. Indeed, until recently, the US Army seemed to swear only by the anti-aircraft missile, and directed energy weapons such as high energy lasers, to ensure, in the years to come, the anti-aircraft, anti-missile and anti-drone defense of its units and infrastructures.
Certainly, it recently admitted into service the M-SHORAD system, designed around a 30 mm anti-aircraft gun. However, since the withdrawal of the M247 Sergeant York, the US Army had relied exclusively on the Stinger, the Patriot and, above all, on the fighter fleet of the US Air Force and the US Navy, to ensure its air defense.
The anti-aircraft gun had, in fact, no longer had a say in the US armies since the beginning of the 70s. It is true that with the arrival of jets, capable of flying much too high, and too fast, for the cannons, the missile seemed to prevail, at least for a time. Paradoxically, with the arrival of the first medium-range missiles, such as the Nike Hercules and the SA-2, and the tactical versions Hawk and SA-6, combat aircraft had to reinvest the lower layers, which logically should have , put them within range of the DCA cannon.
However, rather than turning to this solution again, the US Army favored all-missile systems. Indeed, if DCA guns actually prove effective against planes, or even against missiles, operating at low altitude and at high subsonic speed, their range, on the other hand, represents a serious handicap, when it is necessary to opacify an airspace.
For example, Rheinmetall's Skyranger 30, which today appeals to several air forces, can only protect an airspace of 25 km², whereas a Patriot, with a range of 150 km, protects 35 km² of air space. space, for a single battery, at the delta near the electromagnetic horizon and the relief.
There are 75% of this article left to read, Subscribe to access it!
The Classic subscriptions provide access to
articles in their full version, and without advertising,
from €1,99. Subscriptions Premium also allow access to archives (articles over two years old)
BLACK FRIDAY : – 20% on new monthly and annual Premium and Classic subscriptions, with the code MetaBF2024, until 03/12/24
