AAA.

This is coolbert:

One area where U.S. ground forces seem to be lacking is in the area of anti-aircraft artillery [AAA, called "triple A"]. This does seem to be, to the casual observer, an antiquated, even quaint means for ground forces to defend against attacking enemy aircraft. A means that has been superseded by surface to air missiles [SAM].

It is also true that U.S. ground forces, during World War Two [WW2], Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf wars, were NOT subject to attack from enemy aircraft except for on the most exceptional and rare basis.. This sort of thing just DID NOT happen.

It seems the assumption has been made, an assumption that so far has held to be true, that American air power in wartime, whether it was from U.S. Air Force [USAF], or from naval aviation in support of ground forces, would in very quick measure, sometimes almost instantly so, rule the skies and dominate in such a manner as to preclude enemy airforces from mounting ground attack against U.S. ground forces, where ever they may be.

In the minds of the powers at the top of the military, placing any importance to providing AAA for the ground forces must just be seen as small potatoes. Just NOT something that should be stressed. Why so?? After all, U.S. planners must be thinking to themselves, "why spend money on something that will not be needed [AAA]. Our aircraft and pilots will rule the roost, where ever they are!!"

And, one might also add, U.S. ground forces DO currently have what must be seen as ADEQUATE organic defense against air attack by enemy airplanes. The Patriot SAM CAN be used to shoot down enemy aircraft. And the ground forces have the Stinger SAM. A pea shooter MANPAD [man portable air defense] that has proven TO BE very effective. Battle tested in Afghanistan with great success!! A proven winner!! What more would U.S. ground forces require or even NEED??!!

Is there a role for AAA in the current modern military??

I would have to say YES!! Unequivocally so!!

AAA is a complement to SAM's of all varieties.

[During the Vietnam War, U.S. aircraft did prove to be susceptible to AAA. At low altitudes, a lot of U.S. aircraft WERE either downed or damaged by AAA. Or if the U.S. aircraft flew higher to avoid AAA, they were targeted by SA-2 missile fire, or, became less effective in their bombing run by flying higher!!]

[There is an interesting photo in one of Dupuy's books about the Arab-Israeli conflict. This particular photo shows an Israeli tank in 1973 towing a portable ferry to a crossing point on the Suez canal. This tank pulling the ferry has accompanying it additional armor standing overwatch, infantry in M3 U.S. half-tracks, AND self-propelled dual barrel 20 mm [??] AAA. Here is perfectly illustrated the combined arms concept. And it should be kept in mind that the Israeli air force ruled the skies over Sinai in a manner that almost totally precluded Egyptian air attack on Israeli ground forces. Israeli commanders in this case were NOT taking any chances with this ferry, a piece of equipment vital to their planned canal crossing!!]

AAA can be and is effective against low-flying aircraft that may be making ground attack runs. Or is useful against enemy attack helicopters. Complements SAM of the pea shooter type or even the Patriot type. Triple A forces enemy aircraft to fly higher and use evasive maneuver. This of itself makes a ground attack less effective. Having to bomb or strafe from a higher altitude leads to ineffectiveness. Flying higher exposes the attacking aircraft to intercept and downing by Patriot type SAM.

[The main role of the Patriot as conceived was to intercept and destroy incoming ballistic missiles of the SCUD or SCALEBOARD variety. Missiles carrying a nuclear of chemical warhead. Missiles aimed at point targets such as airports, port facilities, or major headquarters. It WAS NOT conceived as being a missile to be used primarily against attacking enemy aircraft. IT CAN BE used in this manner, but is normally NOT employed in this manner or was intended to be used as an anti-aircraft missile!!]

AAA complements SAM units in that it provides targeting NOT always susceptible to counter-measures of the usual variety. SAM systems such as the Patriot rely upon radar guidance. This can be jammed. Pea shooters MANPADS such as the Stinger or the original Soviet SA-7 ARE susceptible to infra-red jamming [usually the dropping of flares from attacking aircraft]. The Stinger is much less susceptible in this regard, but still may be vulnerable to some degree against flare counter-measure. AAA can be guided either by radar OR optical means, visual from the actual gunner/operator or electro-mechanical guided.

[From my reading, the now somewhat older Soviet SA-8 Gecko possessed a dual guidance system that consisted of both radar and an electro-mechanical system. An operator on the ground had some sort of optical device he would hold in his hand and track the targeted enemy aircraft with. Point the optical device at the target and follow it's course from the ground. Additional tracking and guidance for the SAM!!].

[It may also be that the British Blowpipe MANPAD has a similar guidance. Once fired, additional targeting for the SAM can be had by an operator on the ground steering the missile with a handheld electro-optic device. This would necessitate a radio link from ground to the missile. Additional guidance for the missile, complementing the SAM's built-in infra-red sensor.]

In the past, even recently, U.S. ground forces HAVE had their own organic AAA. Ground forces WERE equipped with a Vulcan six barrel 20 mm gun that was radar guided. Mounted on the ubiquitous M113 APC. I believe this weapons system has been deemed sometime ago obsolete and has been sent to the scrap heap.

And in the early 1980's, the U.S. Army attempted to develop the DIVAD system. Divisional Air Defense. Was to consist of a Swedish dual 40 mm Bofors gun mounted on a M48 tank chassis, with a F-16 radar for guidance. So, someone MUST have thought that organic AAA WAS NEEDED for U.S. ground forces. This project went into cost overruns and DID NOT work as anticipated. This project never came to fruition or production, was experimental only, and finally relegated also to the scrap heap.

Since the demise of DIVAD, no further AAA has been contemplated by U.S. ground forces, to my knowledge.

Click here, here, here, and here to see how other nations HAVE been able to develop and field AAA quite successfully. In the case of the Russian Tunguska, this bad-boy features dual guns AND missiles both. Quite a package!!

I guess U.S. aviation superiority and the Stinger are felt to adequate for any possible future contingencies.

Is this a valid assumption??

NO if you are taking into account potential conflicts either now, or in the near or far future with Red China or North Korea. In those circumstances, you will be confronted with a foe that will possess an adequate number of high performance combat aircraft. Almost an abundance of such aircraft in the case of China. An adequate number of combat aircraft that will be able to OVERWHELM by sheer numbers existing U.S. air defenses. Ground forces WILL be subject to attack by enemy aircraft. YOU CAN COUNT ON IT!!

Regardless of U.S. qualitative edge in airframes, avionics, weapons systems, superior piloting, etc., it WILL JUST NOT POSSIBLE FOR U.S. AVIATION TO GUARANTEE THAT GROUND FORCES WILL NOT COME UNDER ATTACK!! As simple as that!!

Has this been taken into account by U.S. planners?? Are the Joint Chiefs of Staff biting their nails wondering about how to handle this problem that may arise?? I doubt it. The hope is, of course, that U.S. combat aviation WILL rule the skies where ever U.S. ground forces are deployed. NOT a whole lot more than is already at hand is required. IS this true?? I would like to believe so!! Is it better to plan better and develop and incorporate AAA into the inventory for the future? Of course!! But will it be done? Probably not!

coolbert.