M247 Sgt York Division Air Defense (DIVAD) System

Подписаться 52 тыс.

Просмотров 60 тыс.

50% 1

The M247 Sergeant York DIVAD (Division Air Defence gun) was born of the Army's need for a replacement for the ageing M163 20mm Vulcan A/A gun and M48 Chaparral missile systems. With the Soviet Mi-24 Hind attack helicopter being fitted with the longer range AT-6 SPIRAL Anti-tank missiles and twin barrelled 23mm cannon, and the Mi-28 Havoc nearing deployment, the M163 and M48 systems would be out-classed in a future conflict. In addition, the Soviet's ZSU-23/4 SHILKA Quad 23mm A/A gun combined a radar with a proven gun fitted to an existing chassis resulting in a highly successful and lethal design.
The new self-propelled anti-aircraft gun system was to be based on the M48A5 tank chassis, using as much off-the-shelf equipment as possible. Two designs were submitted, one from General Dynamics using twin 35mm Oerlikon cannon (as with the West German Leopard) and the other from Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation which utilised twin 40mm L/70 Bofors Guns. In May 1981 the Ford Aerospace entry was selected and designated M247 Sergeant York, featuring the twin 40mm guns mounted in a new box like armoured turret with both tracking and surveillance radar fitted atop, these could be folded down to reduce overall height. The gunner was provided with roof mounted sight incorporating a laser range-finder. the commander having a panoramic roof mounted periscope and fixed periscopes. The radar was a modified version of the Westinghouse APG-66 system used in the F-16 Fighting Falcon.
With the first production vehicles being delivered in late 1983 many problems remained, the most serious being the radar's inability to track low flying targets due to excessive ground clutter. The radar could not distinguish between a hovering helicopter and a clump of trees. And when tracking high flying targets, the radar return from the gun barrel tips confused the fire control system. Turret traverse was also too slow to track a fast crossing target. The ECM (electronic counter-measures) suite could be defeated by only minor jamming. And the use of the 30 year old M48 chassis design meant the vehicle had trouble keeping pace with the newer M1 Abrams and M2/3 Bradley's, the very vehicles it was designed to protect.
These problems proved insurmountable, and in December 1986 after about 50 vehicles had been produced the entire program was terminated.

Опубликовано:

20 сен 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 63

@earlebarker1359 3 месяца назад

My father was an engineer on this project. He designed the feed system for the bofurs twin 40’s. When I was 5 or 6 he took me to work with him and I got to climb all over the tank, it was awesome! RIP Donald Barker.

@MauryMarkowitz 8 лет назад

Ironically, this video shows the M246 shooting down the Huey. The H246 was the failed entry for the Sgt. York contest. It was based on systems that were already widely used in the SPAA role in Europe, and likely would have worked in the US as well. However, I suspect there is some editorial license being used, as the explosions around the Huey are *around* the Huey, and I believe one of the main reasons Ford went with the 40mm was that they had a proximity fuse for it while the 35 lacked such a system (at that point at lease). So the images are either of the 40mm hitting the Huey, or they did indeed have a prox fuse for the 35 as well.

@ledichang9708 6 лет назад

They went with 40mm because the Army was cheap and we had tons of 40mm Bofors barrels laying around since WW2.

@ares7522 6 лет назад

*M247

@TBoy205 5 лет назад

I didn’t see an m247 shooting a huey. it looked more like a gerard

@dalh598.1 11 месяцев назад

Think that was a Gepard. It was a general education on SRAD's, so I think it just showed an M247 first, and a Gepard turret 2nd. Both of which were competing against each other in SRAD trials

@Herberberber 5 месяцев назад

OMG. This was from a VHS tape that my dad got for me when I was like 7 years old. I would watch it soo many times.

@markymarko7 4 месяца назад

Same here. Sick af! Thanks dads!

@pavlovsdawg3912 11 лет назад

I was a Vulcan crewman stationed with the 4/1 ADA air defense ( 5/62 ADA regimental) unit Biggs Army -Airfield Fort Bliss that field tested the Sgt. York ( DIVADS ) in 1985. I arrived at Biggs as the field test detail personnel deployed back to Bliss from Fort Hunter-Ligget, Ca. Although the Sgt York Divisional Air Dense (DIVADS ) was considered a failure the whole battalion received a presidential citation for its part in field testing of the " Sgt. Junk "

@jakobthompson5413 Год назад

Interesting stuff

@XxermandxX 6 лет назад

Welcome to War Thunder! :)

@Zzenosg 6 лет назад

:_)

@ares7522 6 лет назад

Finaly ^^

@Esyve 7 месяцев назад

Deam bro ,5 y agoo

@XxermandxX 7 месяцев назад

@@Esyve im so fucking old

@Esyve 7 месяцев назад

@@XxermandxX FR

@XX-sp3tt 5 лет назад

In reality, the M247 Sergeant York couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, let alone an aircraft. It's targeting systems first act upon being turned on was to swirl around and target the VIP benches, thankfully it still needed the crew to actually chose to fire.

@jds6206 2 года назад

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

@barkon 14 лет назад

Funny, the Gepard seems to work. Why couldn't we make the York work? We should probably make something else to name after Sgt. York; his legend deserves better.

@DIVeltro 4 года назад

The main problem of the York was the total fixation of using off the shelf systems... especially the radar. I would think that if the radar from the gepard was used it may have had more success. That, and if the politicans stayed out it.

@jds6206 2 года назад

"Systems Integration" was one major dagger to "Sgt York".

@Gennadiy1964 10 лет назад

Thank you for your explanation

@chimichangapoops6244 9 лет назад

Yeah. The M247 was notoriously shitty. I had extreme amounts of problems that were quite frankly ridiculous. It apparently couldn't shoot a hovering helicopter but it could shoot a outhouse..... It wasn't supposed to shoot the outhouse, but it did anyway. It also almost killed a lot of spectators at a showing of this vehicle.

@BuzzDyou 13 лет назад

I was there, the DIVAD system in itself was flawed from the very beginning. I would point most of the blame at the TI (Texas Instruments) "off-the-shelf" procurement. This thing was supposed to be able to find up to 48 aerial objects, determine of which were enemy, and start firing at the most threatening, shoot-it-down, then proceed to the next "enemy target" so on... I was also at Ft Bragg, NC when they were test-firing, on the range, it was pretty bad ass. The Bofors twin 40's,awesome!!

@c4blew 12 лет назад

@1138thz Actually Raytheon proposed pretty much that! They opted to use the dutch version of the Gepard (PRTL) adapted for the M48 chassis! The XM246 seen in the Video (0:00-0:05 and 0:29-0:32) was pretty similar to the Gepard aswell! It also used the 35mm Oerlikon Guns except that General Dynamics mounted them side-by-side and used the radar and fire control systems of their Phalanx CIWS! It was way better than the Ford entry in testing but due to obscure reasons the XM247 won...sadly!

@exnbcnco 11 лет назад

I was at Fort Bliss in 1985 assigned to assist in the testing of the Sgt. York system. And I can tell you it was a total hunk of junk that Ford Aerospace engineers produced.

@BullyThunder 2 года назад

If war thunder was this much realistic 🤣

@sheriff0017 Год назад

The requirement stipulated the use of the M48 chassis. Even the lowest risk option, which was the Raytheon proposal to drop a Gepard turret in the M48 chassis, would not have fulfilled the purpose. The whole point of armoured self-propelled air defence systems is to defend armoured formations. This means keeping up with them. The M48 simply couldn't keep up with the M1 Abrams and M2/M3 Bradley combination. You might well say "go with a purpose built chassis, or use the M1, or M2, but that would have been far more expensive. The only reason to specify an existing chassis was saving money.

@dannyzero692 5 месяцев назад

They failed at the basic requirement which was the speed, everything else is just a death spiral for the program.

@bonecrusher9008 11 месяцев назад

Oh how I wish we could see how this system would be updated today if we went through with it’s development.

@gajustempus 12 лет назад

@StiviGun1 Current plans are to put the turrent onto either a smaller variant of the Leo2 chassis or the Puma - the last one is more likely from the reports I heard. K.O.-criteria is the ability to airlift via A400M

@Lloyd3legs Год назад

Having worked on the program what is lost is the totally experimental aspect of the program was for land systems. High risk high reward skunk works. The Army knew it Congress knew it we knew it

@karlrasur8356 Год назад

Rip to those test pilots

@gajustempus 12 лет назад

@StiviGun1 there's alot good stuff from russia - I personally LOVE the freight planes - heavy cargo and able to start and land even on sand and soil. Unmatched advantage The Tunguska looks a bit like our Gepard. A variant is also fitted with a Dual Stinger missile launcher. Yet I think the more you put onto a single mobile platform, the harder the logistics get, the more the enemy destroys and the more can break down...

@porschedude996TT 12 лет назад

Another problem was there was a comb filter in that Ford designed that Honeywell wanted for other systems they made. There was a certain amount of information that was required to integrate the system properly, but Honeywell held off with the information that was contaractualy required and screwed Ford. Three problem and it is a strike out.

@metalrod23 15 лет назад

This is the weapon that confused a fart fan in a portable toilet for a target-and blew the shit out of it .

@jascha3514 3 года назад

Does any one know the name of background music? thanks

@Herberberber 5 месяцев назад

its from a vhs tape in the 90's

@gajustempus 12 лет назад

@StiviGun1 why? That's what we have our Roland for :) C-RAM is for close-range defense, Roland for middle to wide range. If you use specialized weapon platforms, you get experts on every level - whilst if you take an "universal" platform, you receive a vehicle like the "Bradley"....not too bad in every role, but also not good at any either :P

@gajustempus 12 лет назад

@StiviGun1 whilst the gun positions APPEAR to be a flaw, they're quite nicely positioned in practical use. Gepard is proven on several battlefields :) And looks a bit later in the video - the turret is able of doing a 180° in less than two seconds. However the entire thing is - though modernized and optimized all the time - around 40 years old. That's why the new guns are introduced. And: Whilst these are fixed, there're mobile variants already - like on frigates built today.

@1138thz 13 лет назад

@metalrod23 At Aberdeen the M247 was known as the 'turf master' early in the program. It always had a problem locking on to a target...so they started hanging radar targets on the targets to help it out. Maybe they should have just bought a license to build German Flugabwehrkanonenpanzer (Gepards). Hell they could have just planted the German turrets on M48 hulls and added rotary shocks to road wheels 1,2 & 6 to help it keep up with M1A1 tanks and M2 Bradleys (they'd be too lame otherwise)

@DoctorCreepy 5 лет назад

During testing the Sgt. York locked onto a house fan this thing was nothing but trouble.

@gajustempus 12 лет назад

@StiviGun1 the CONCEPT itself is quite okay, yeah. But the realization was....well, we see what's happened. The parts weren't cheap either - all the most expensive you could buy. As for traverse speed: Have you ever seen other DIVAD-tanks like the German Gepard? The turrets move more than TWICE as fast. oh and besides: The York may have fired on ground targets - but it didn't even hit them...

@kamyarchristopher228 4 года назад

In 1983, when the war between Iran and Iraq lasted for eight years. During the war, one of these defenses was within 100 meters of our home. When the Iraqi MiG fighter aircraft came to bomb our city The sound of the firing was so horrible that our neighbor, a pregnant woman, had an abortion out of fear, and her baby died and she died. We live in Iran.

@nuclearphoenix177 4 года назад

Anyone got the video where it aimed at on lookers?

@gajustempus 12 лет назад

AND - if you'd like to compare the York to something developed at the same time here - take a look at this here: watch?v=2-kM1qLxp9g yet it will be replaced by this sweet thingy here within the next few years: watch?v=eEIGKkr68HQ

@upyr1 16 лет назад

should have built thisone

@porschedude996TT 12 лет назад

The Chassis was a piece ot crap. It was the slowest vehicle in the convoy. I should have been based on a faster tracked vehicle. The problems were only a few and the Army was part of the problem. There was a problem with the main computer with heat load. The original designer ended up being the manager of engineerin and would not allow a change to the unit. It was all about ego. To be continued.

@gajustempus 12 лет назад

@StiviGun1 erm....the ENTIRE concept? I mean - the chassis was too slow and HEAVY, the guns were bent due to bad storage, the radar originally designed to work in a PLANE, unable to recognize its own guns or even ground echoes, the turret movement was too slow and unable to move manually, the ammo used was just a bad joke (40mm - as used here - can't penetrate modern armor. No, not even helicopter armor!) This thing is pure FUBAR. Throw away and start over from scratch

@conradshor5783 10 лет назад

The people responsible for this piece crap (sgt yorkie) worked at Frankford Arsenal. They included Walt Ryba and Joseph Lehman and others.

@WASPfreak 14 лет назад

The sergeant york was not made to work because they tried to cram too much technology into it, resulting in spectacular and embarassing failures.

@TheSFCRetired 10 лет назад

Was not a good system. To start with, they used the chassis of a older tank. We had two at Redstone Arsenal for a short period of time. No one was impressed with them. And then 60 Minutes did one of the most hilarious shows about the system I've ever seen. Immediately afterward, the system was killed and the project officer, a BG (if I remember) was not-so-subtly encouraged to retire.

@Gennadiy1964 10 лет назад

As I understand, you are a military man. I would like to know your opinion. Recent fighting in Syria and Donbas demonstrated the immense capacities of such systems as antipersonnel and anti-light armor weapon. Wouldn't it be wise instead of scrapping Sergeant York, using it in such a capacity?

@TheSFCRetired 10 лет назад

Sgt. York is very old news. It was scrapped back in the eighties. The U.S. and other countries now have weapons systems that are far superior to the Sgt. York in both anti-light armor and anti-personnel roles.

@ledichang9708 6 лет назад

Russians were using de-radared Shilkas for that job. That's a piece of hardware at least twenty years old even counting from Afghanistan.

@jds6206 2 года назад

DOD is rife with other systems which are "DIVAD" by another name.

@genwitz 3 года назад

How are the military and mushrooms similar? They are both grown in the dark and fed a lot of crap.

@AudieHolland 13 лет назад

Or they should have simply stolen and copied the plans to the Soviet-built ZSU-23-4 "Shilka" which made mincemeat of low-flying Israeli fighter planes during the Yom Kippur War of 1973.