POTD: Finnish Flak! The ItPsv90 Leopard 2 Marksman

@Deaf Smith Who knows, if gun-based SPAAGs get good enough software and fire control to intercept incoming missiles and other ordnance, they can stop missiles on the cheap, and if you have a SAM "umbrella" forcing enemy airborne targets to fly low to avoid the SAMs' radar, guns on SPAAGs become viable again.

@Mazryonh Already exists. Boxer Skyranger is a ground mobile C-RAM. It works with Airburst ammunition so it doesen't need to score a direct hit on a artillery round to intercept it, it just creates a dense mist of subprojectiles.

@Jonny Airburst ammunition might be good enough for knocking drones and fragile missiles out of the air, but I doubt it would be enough to stop a massed artillery bombardment. The AP ammunition used by larger-caliber naval CIWS might be enough to pierce and prematurely detonate a heavy artillery shell (maybe not the 16" shells used by the Iowa-class battleships), but I doubt that the tungsten balls used by airburst ammunition would be enough to get past the thick, hardened steel skin of large AP projectiles.

@Mazryonh Even the lighter subprojectiles used in the 30 mm have no issues penetrating a 155 mm artillery shell.

@Jonny Aren't large-caliber AP artillery projectiles are largely hardened steel or other penetrating metal by weight, with a small bursting charge? Getting through all that to prematurely detonate one of those projectiles with tungsten balls (a spherical shape has low sectional density after all) sounds dicey to me.

There's also the matter of destroying armoured aerial vehicles like attack helicopters and the A-10 Warthog (or foreign equivalents). In those cases, I'd have more faith in the abilities of conventional CIWS AP ammunition rather than airburst ammunition to put those down.

@Mazryonh Absolutely sufficient. A 35 mm KETF blinding test against a MBT didn't just leave the MBT without any optic functional after just two rounds, but also left up to 6 mm deep penetrations in the armor. Mind you this was the anti-infantry version with more, but lighter subprojectiles (351 @ 1.5g each). The AA version has fewer, but heavier subprojectiles developed exactly because of the concerns you mentioned (152 @ 3.3g each). Attack helicopters and ground attack aircraft wouldn't be a problem even for the 30 mm. A single 30 mm AHEAD round detonating 20 m from the vehicle will have a subprojectile density of 12 per m² at the aircrafts position. Now imagine a 4 round burst, and what that would do to the engines. No need to penetrate the cockpit, the aircraft is done for.

@Jonny Seems to me like you're quoting from the promotional materials. Anyway, I looked over some schematics for some 16-inch Iowa-class battleship AP rounds, and those have several inches of hardened and heavy steel to act as a penetrator, effectively armouring the internal explosive payload (which has a much smaller volume than the HE version).

I find it hard to believe that small tungsten spheres would penetrate far enough into a 16-inch AP shell's solid steel surface to set off the fuze, especially since to my knowledge the tungsten spheres can't carry things like an incendiary payload to set off explosive payloads or onboard fuel if the target is a plane or helicopter. If and when artillery, drones, and missiles can be effectively stopped by AHEAD-type airburst rounds, our enemies may simply switch to bigger artillery rounds that are effectively armoured against tungsten balls.

The AHEAD round's mechanism of action you describe sounds like trying to destroy an airborne plane's or helicopter's engines with a lot of Foreign Object Damage, and/or their control surfaces. AHEAD may be sufficient for thin-skinned missiles and drone swarms, but I think I'd rather rely on more traditional higher-caliber rounds (such as from a 30mm GAU-8 or 40mm Italian "DARDO" CIWS) with the ability to quickly switch to armour-piercing incendiary payloads to more quickly inflict catastrophic kills on tougher planes and helicopters by setting off their ammunition/weapon stores and fuel tanks.

Tungsten is also a rare metal and is probably best used against tanks; hardened steel penetrators are much cheaper, as should steel-based flak rounds with proximity fuzes. Foreign Object Damage is Foreign Object Damage, whether from a tungsten or steel sphere.

@Mazryonh As long as the guidance software and hardware (radar and what have you) are sophisticated enough.

Shooting down low flying munitions is always going to be a challenge because the terrain clutter and it comes back again on how advanced the radar and guidance mechanism in discriminating the noise returns from the surrounding terrain and gain accurate data on the target's velocity and vector.

@Guest I would think that whoever figures out how to get fire control and sensors good enough to reliably shoot down ordnance with SPAAGs might make a pretty penny. SPAAGs are underappreciated, given their unsung versatility. They can devastate infantry (even in cover proof against small arms), shoot up high-angle positions, handily destroy light and medium vehicles, even blind tanks with lucky hits to their sensors and radios, in addition to their AA capabilities.

Besides, using guns is almost always going to be cheaper and quicker to reload than missiles, especially when intercepting ordnance or shooting down low-flying targets. On another note, missiles used against airborne targets can be decoyed or shot down, but SPAAG gunfire cannot be, only evaded or stopped with enough armour.

@Mazryonh The US Arrmy is experimenting with laser weapon systems. Plus the threat from drone swarms is real, but disposable suicide drones are pretty easy to kill if you can hit them.

@mig1nc Laser has thr potential to be cheaper per "shot".

Some anti drone laser technology has been battle proven but maturity is yet to be achieved especially in more adverse combat environment.

Current problem is the lethality, range, and time to heat up the target so the target is damaged enough to fall from the sky

Also weather, cloud, fog, and range affects laser weapons negatively as they can "diffuse"/defocus laser and reduce their lethality massively.

But i dont know all the specs and data from antidrone laser testing these days so maybe the tech is progressing well.

@mig1nc Laser weapons have been "in development" for decades now. I wouldn't expect a breakthrough any time soon.