When you look at how stingers and SA7s /18 have performed recently even against higher end rotary and fixed wing targets it’s not surprising these systems are gaining even more relevance. It will be interesting to see how countermeasures evolve with manufacturers watching the war in Ukraine.
What we see in Ukraïne is that drones are used against civillian targets, housing area's, railway stations, powerplants. With systems like Patriot or Hawk or S300 you'll never be able to cover everything. Not due to the price of a missile and not because these systems demanding so much vehicles and operators and very specialised technicians. This is better. Most of the Kamov 52 heli's and jets in Ukraïne are downed by MANPADs Hardly any by S 300 or BUK.
countermeasures for aircraft havent shown any changes due to ukraine. their problem now is the same as it always have been, a war does not lend them new insight, attempting to prevent a missile from hitting you remains the same challenge as it has always been. the only countermeasure development that seem to have been "shaken" a bit by the war in ukraine is ground to air, not air to ground. we see even more development than we already did (which was a lot) in the small-drone countermeasure department, be it via signal jamming, capture drones, various methods of shooting it down. many modern mbt's in the last stage of development have had delays because the war in ukraine showed them that drones are a huge threat to tank and it is a threat you can do something about. as a result we see things like automated anti-drone defense turrets being developed and trialed now, with the idea being tanks will simply destroy incoming suicide drones prior to them hitting the tank, which will help deal with the fact tanks have less armor on top and HEAT etc are effective when delivered by suicide drones. however you wont see anything new coming out in air2ground or air2air defense as a result of this conflict, because this conflict has changed absolutely nothing when it comes to how aircraft are engaged. same problem as before, same problem means same solutions, same problem means no new insight for the engineers trying to crack this nut either.
@@opposed2logic I think it is also a logistical and financial thing. Why would you destroy a 30.000 dollar drone with a missile worth over a million or so, if a heavy machine cannon or machine gun can do the same with less personal and less costs. The best thing is to destroy the drones already on the launchers and to destroy the plants where they are made, together with the people who operate these drones. This also gives air defence more breathing space, but that is difficult here. Israel tought us a lesson in this. They don't want to use expensive Iron Dome missiles on Hamas sewer pipes, so they try to destroy the launchers, workshops and launchcrews.
Almost all of these MANPADS missile systems use mechanical scan (typically a rosette scan that nodes to either side and rotates). To avoid seductive interference by flares they tended to use 2-3 photo resistors sensitive to two infrared bands and a UV band. The two infrared bands essentially allow temperature measurement and the UV band the exclusion of flares and probably sunlight. Recently the photo resistors have been replaced by photo diodes that offer speedier response and precision eg the Polish Pioron and the Russian SA-24. They can also be interfered with by a flasher with pulses of infrared that are contain slight ofsets to the mechanical scan frequencies. The Stinger was supposed to get an upgrade to a focal plane array similar to AIM-9X and IRIS-T but they didn't spend the money. Since these use imaging sensors they can not be fooled by flares or modulation pulses. The Japanese Keiko is the only missile that uses this technology. -I suspect that counter measures may try and use lasers to burn out or interfere with the seeker. Easier said than done. MANPADS may start using MMW active and passive 'thermal' radar.
Awesome video, as usual. Spent 3 1/2 years as an Avenger platoon leader and Battery XO back in the mid 90s. It was an excellent system, but had a few problems. Weight was the biggest. Despite being on an upgraded heavy duty variant of the HMMWV, we were pretty much always over max payload. So the idea of extra ammo on the system is out of the question. The two Soldiers, their gear, food and water is pretty much it. The bustle rack attached to the rear was the result of our Soldiers not having enough space for personal gear. The .50 cal is the M3 version and has a much higher cyclic rate of fire (1100 rounds per minute if memory serves me right.) One of my favorite memories was on a range where we contracted for small remote controlled aircraft for target practice (basically drones) to fly at night. The Battery commander offered up a case of beer for anyone who shot one down. After many failed attempts I told my gunners to turn off the auto targeting system and walk the tracers onto the target (use the force, Luke). They shot down every plane the contractor had brought, and my Commander held up his end of the bargain!
What's interesting is that we built 1100 Avengers, each of which has two pods taking 4 Stingers each. Which means you need 8,800 stingers to load every Avenger once. And the inventory of stingers the US has is said to be around 4200.
It wouldn't matter if more could be made, everything we've got is getting packed up and shipped across the Atlantic. So no matter how much more could be made, or how quickly, there's still going to be a domestic shortage. That doesn't even factor in that necessary chips come from across the Pacific.
@@edmoran869 everyone hates America during peacetime but everyone can only think of America during war time to come to their aid. If the delicate global balance of power between human right signatories and non democracies which seek to quell it is not a consideration, the world does not deserve any aid from the US after witnessing all that is said and done against the country during peacetime. No, not an American or plan to be one. Just saying things as it is. There are worse terror to come if anyone truly believes that the US is imperialistic and its allies are mere puppet states!
Germany has come up with a programmable ammunition for air defense. A radar takes the range to the Target and just before the ammunition is fired programs the ammunition to explode near the target. The ammunition fragments around the target shredding it without necessarily needing to hit it. This kind of air defense uses relatively cheap ammunition that's cost-effective against the low-cost spotting and suicide drones that are going to be common in the battlefield of the future. This saves your relatively more expensive and less common air defense missiles for larger threats such as aircraft and helicopters.
The damage drones are able to do these days just by spitting for artillery makes the missile worth spending on the drone, although agreed ammunition would be better but 20mm and up is the smallest size that can be fitted into.
@@montys420- German MANTIS system which is being referred to here is using 35mm-Shells and they developed a 30mm-Version which can be mounted on AFVs alongside MANPADS-missiles
This sort of setup combined with something like Rheinmetall's or Boffor's 30mm programable air burst ammo and you combine it with the land based CIWS systems and you have something capable of giving nice close in support against drones, helicopters, cruise missiles and low flying aircraft. It is a bit of a case of everything old is new again.
Rhienmetal’s AHEAD is exactly this. Goes on trucks, tanks, and boats to defend them against most things at most speeds including missiles, jets, and drones. 1100 rpm revolver cannon.
I was thinking the same, although my choice would be the M230LF chain gun that is also used in the Stryker A1 M-SHORAD. It´s not that much bigger than a .50cal and should do the work just fine!
I'm qualified on that system and it was a lot of fun to operate. Easy, accurate, a bit of work to load but no big deal. There are many variants now, or test beds. Should be interesting.
@@williampayton9515 yeah it had eight Stinger missiles that you had to load into each rack manually a stinger is somewhat awkward to handle and of course you have to do it in the right way it is somewhat technical and odd things happen with missiles
@@ChristopherSloane lol. I know all about it. Part of the initial fielding team to 3rd ACR. Nothing about Avengers was hard. Absolutely nothing. Try changing track shoes and road wheels in 3 feet of mud. Lolololol
@@williampayton9515 I'll trade you that for 4 years of infantry in the 25th ID that's what I did before I went to The Avengers system with a National Guard unit
Why is The Avenger making a comeback? Because it’s The Avenger, duh!! If there was never any chance that it would make a comeback and it was going to fall down and die at the first opportunity then they would have called it “The Quitter”.
the Avenger is not a very good system. But NATO tends to have weak ADA systems and the US only have Patriot batteries which are static and Avengers (we are in the process of adding a new SHORAD system but its in low-rate production.) realty is this is all we have to give.
@@Jadefox32 not even that. its more that when the cold war ended there was nothing but limited wars for nearly 30 years. NATO had taken ADA seriously during the Cold War
Former Bradley M6 Linebacker crewman here, both the avenger and linebacker have proven the flexibility and reliability of the stinger, and the networking ability between the two made it easy to overlap fields of fire and increase the coverage of the air defense network. and the ability to "shoot 'n scoot" from the superb mobility makes it harder for the enemy to get a clean shot after a missile is fired, making crew survivability a lot higher. Now its been a while but I know the M6 could shoot while moving and I'm fairly certain the avenger can too, which makes life interesting for enemy aircraft. Now I will admit a bit of bias here but one big advantage of the M6 is that it blends in with the rest of the Bradly's, exterior wise the differences are hard to distinguish from the TOW equipped M2 & M3's, just a slightly different shaped missile pod and maybe an extra antenna. however the avenger beats us in mobility and deployment speed. Still love them both.
At 10th Mountain in the 90s, it was great having those things attached to us in the infantry. Yes they might be anti-air, but the thermals on those things were amazing, and having a thermal guided .50 cal in your perimeter is even more amazing.
10:52 Man that's crazy! A 3 star on the ground in the dirt learning about his boys. That's an amazing sight, Lt. General Hodges is an impressive human being.
I worked on this at Boeing (Seattle) early in my career. It had a GAU 50 gatling gun at that time. The FLIR suppliers engineer played with the camera in our parking lot looking at a shirt pocket and just the shirt, there was an insulation variable for the body heat because of the 2nd layer of fabric.We engaged in a shoot off with 2 or 3 other systems. We were so far ahead that the Army made us wait some time till the other competitors could build something to compete with. We originally started this as a self funded R&D project. After the army saw it they made us wait till others could build a demo unit. The networking feature was added after i moved on.
I remember seeing one of those at an airshow as a kid. The operator let us kids look through the scope as they aimed it around. Super cool, like something out of G.I. Joe.
I worked on the Avengers in the 1990s. They didn't have radar then and from all of the footage you put up they don't have it now. You also did not mention the Laser Range Finder which really helps the .50cal. AFIK the Avengers were used as sentry post at bases and IED disposal in Iraq and Afghanistan. The FLIR camera when it works, works well and at a decent range. Avenger may be one of the most potent .50 platforms due to the accuracy of a well boresighted gun. The modular replacement concept was a good idea because we constantly had to swap parts out. The turret its self, has ZERO protection unless since the 90s, they've added kevlar or something to the inside. You could punch a phillips head screw driver right through the turret wall. All in all, its from the lowest bidder and shows that at closer inspection. PS. The Avenger mounts up to 8 stinger missiles. Not four. I've heard that its been used as a testbed for directed energy weapons too!
We actually lined the insides of the tub(turret) along with doors n cab of the humvee with 1/2" sheets of Kevlar we ordered while in Afghanistan n Iraq due to the fact that u could put a bayonet into the turret originally smfh
Hell no! The BSFV M2A2 (non ODS) was just fine using the dismounts. The M6 launcher gets dicked up, and your protected asset is left out to dry. 14R/ 14S SFC retried (93-2016)
There is no point in doing so the Bradley is on its way out as an IFV and to my knowledge the Bradley linebacker wasn't that effective admittedly it's a pretty simple conversion
Matsimus - as an ex polish military guy who was in Iraq, Afghanistan and recently in Ukraine (obviously not as an official Polish force) I love your content. Kudos, love you brother. Although I would suggest making a video on the Polish Piorun. Once you do the research you'll be quite surprised. Being polish i may be biased though.. :D
I never realized it before now but the 'ANTQ1 fire distribution center' Avenger turret is likely based on the .50 caliber "Quad mount" from WW2. That quad mount was WAY ahead of its time and driven by electric motors and battery's stored under the operator. I think they just modernized it for the avenger because the dimensions are very similar. Basically I think its the gun pod on B-17 bomber with Stinger missiles.
"it's a system to fill in the SHORAD gaps, it's only temporary" *in use since 1988* A UD military commercial could easily advertise the US air defense by saying "filling in the air defence gaps since 1988 (because we as a superpower couldn't come up with anything solid)"
I was always a little confused why they didn't look to replace the Avenger sooner since it seemed to fill a gap in the US air defence inventory. I kinda *understand* why they didn't with cost cutting measures and general NATO/US air power doctrine significantly de-emphasising it, but it always made sense to me to try to have something highly mobile, relatively light weight and capable ready to go 'just in case' and maybe to forward deploy to set up denial zones, bonus points if it can deal with missiles at ranges greater than C-RAM since such a system could be really valuable then
I think the major reason is that CAS isn't nearly as much of a threat today compared to before, and modern CAS generally uses guided munitions with a decent standoff range.
I totally agree, I've always wondered why the US generally deemphasized this sort of capability in general. I know that the overall US air defense doctrine is built around us having air superiority in any engagement, but what about before air superiority is achieved or what if it takes longer than expected? Sure would be nice to have something more than just a few Stingers for AA assets until we can clear the skies.
It doesn't fit US doctrine by the late 90s early 2000's - the post Cold War era. The US isn't going to have theater wide command without an air force to provide air battlespace dominance. You see the US shift from a layered defense approach of MIM-23 Hawk (High Altitude) + MIM-72 Chaparral (Mid-Altitude) + VADS (Close-In) in the Cold War era to Patriot (High/Medium Altitude) and just giving every vehicle chassis and weapons locker a Stinger (Low Altitude) in the counter-insurgency era because it assumed full spectrum (air and data most relevant here) dominance from the getgo. I think MSHORAD is the Army's attempt to meet the needs of the modern battlefield, and the Avenger is making a comeback because the Stinger is just a very good and reliable platform.
@@Riceball01 I'm guessing in that sort of conflict they expect to be fighting in europe in a NATO allies country, and nato allies do have lots of weapons like this to use much closer to where they are needed? that's all I can think of as a reason, but surely these things would be very useful protecting small areas of US troop concentrations overseas.
The normal countermeasures for a combat aircraft include flares, chaff, and ECM or Electronic Counter Measures. Dodging and notching depend on piloting skill to physically evade a threat. The Stinger's success largely depends on the timing and learned instinct of the man launching it. When that bird stops popping flares and thinks he is in the clear is the time to shoot. They have a limited anount of flares and will exhaust their supply. Videos from Ukraine show soldiers sometimes firing multiple Stinger's at the same target. Some misses are caused by an out-of-range target and an enthusiastic amateur. It is a very effective missile. Javelin missiles are effective on choppers too but at much greater expense. The Starstreak missile from the British arsenal is unaffected by countermeasures but must be driven to the target be the gunner keeping the objective painted manually from his sights. The Stinger's infrared system is FAF. Better and cheaper in the field but the stinger won't dent a tank while the Javelin is the tank's nemesis.
Avenger is neat, but I think the future is less about a specialist vehicle integrating everything as a tidy package. I mused recently that a company of IFV's has roughly the combined rate of fire of a CIWS. If you just upgraded sensors, comms, and compute, you could use the existing 20-30mm chain guns of a group of IFV's as a surprisingly good organic air defense. The gun of a Stryker or Bradley won't elevate to 90 degrees. But that's not even a fatal flaw -- being directly overhead one vehicle means you are not directly overhead the other dozen vehicles nearby. Let the IFV's get data link from any friendly radar in the area, or do some sensor fusion to estimate distance using multiview geometry methods using normal or IR cameras, and you might not even need a vehicle with a radar in the unit. I really think the future is integrating distributed networks, so every gun in an area shoots a quick burst at small drones. You only need SAMs for fast jets and higher altitude stuff that can be handled by less numerous area air defense.
You then run into practical application problems. Not saying I disagree, but I think that your solution only solves part of the problem. If your IFV’s are fighting in non-ideal conditions, say urban environments, medium heavy forests, hillside or mountainous terrain, then all of your vehicles would generally lack target capability. If all of your vehicles are marred in between buildings, then none of them can provide cover for one another, and unfortunately urban-combat environments for these systems don’t seem to be going away. Secondarily, you would then have to consider breaches in the link. Radio frequency jamming, direct cyber attack, etc can all leave your groups vulnerable as soon as they no longer have viable access to the network. I agree that internetworked systems are definitely the future and will absolutely provide a whole new level of protection and cohesion, but leaving out “islands” of defense for your systems to anchor around will leave you vulnerable when systems fail.
Yup, that exists. Rheinmetall + Oerlikon SkyRanger / Mantis systems. Slap a 30 or 35mm autocannon onto a truck, Boxer APC or Lynx IFV and use time fused frag ammo as the worlds longest range shotgun. Add a bunch of missiles and you could have the best and most affordable layered air defense in the world.
Yes... but no... but yes! To elaborate: ADATS is dual purpose system. Main mistake was that all platforms treated it like SAM only and so it was mounted on SPAAs. Instead you should treat it as TOW-2 replacement(albeit a massive and very costly one) that allows you to mix both normal M3 IFV Bradley and SPA Linebacker into the same vehicle. Yes, it'll be very costly. Or use it on that proposed Stryker tank hunter in place of Hellfire 2 missiles. Meanwhile pure SPAA role should be filled by stealing one of those naval SAM systems and putting it on chassis akin to how Tor/Crotale do it.
One day we'll see a common missile interface that'll let you swap out the box launchers for different kinds of missiles. Kind of like a mobile NASAMS. Also, isn't Avenger just the pod on the back and not the Humvee? I thought part of its charm was supposed to be that you could mount it on anything, kind of like a CROWS but manned.
Matt, I’m so glad you got to do the whole SV90 tour. It seems to have reinvigorated you! I was honestly worried about you after a post you made a few months back. I, along with many of your fans, wrote notes of support. I don’t think any of them did what that SV90 trip did for you!!! I hope you are feeling better, and never forget that you have nearly 400,000 people that care about you!!!!!
Man thank you so much that means so so much to me! I appreciate you so much. You didn’t need to do that!!! Thanks again! Have a wonderful 2023!! UBIQUE
There is a similar system for the JLTV that would be simply perfect, the Boeing Maneuver SHORAD. The JLTV is a platform that can accept even bigger armament like the Longbow Hellfire. While the stinger is perfectly adequate for shorad it is nice to have the ability to mount something more powerful. The only problem is that the .50 cal is not up to the task: we all agree that a drone or an helicopter engine hit by a .50 will go down, but it would be extremely hard to do it and t that range the vheicle would probably be already in very high danger. A light 30mm autocannon with proximity fuse ammo, on the other hand, would be perfect for it. Yes, it would have less ammo, but it would have far higher chances to kill the threath with few shots.
I had a buddy that was a first sergeant for an avenger battery. He deployed to DC a few times but was retired for most of the time I knew him. He went to eastern Europe, If memory serves it was Romania after he retired. He liked to joke he was a PMC for a while training them. Made a killing in like 6 months. Came back home and worked at lens crafters lol. Good times, noodle salad
The Avenger needs modification to be optimised for the counter-UAS role. FIM-92 is very expensive for counter drone work. I would suggest replacing one of the Stinger pods with a 4-round pod containing the BAE systems APWKS laser guided 2.75" FFAR rocket and a laser designator. They have already tested the APWKS with a proximity fused warhead for Counter-UAS use. This solution is substantially cheaper for use against drones and can reserve the Stingers (or a replacement) for use against more sophisticated or fast moving targets. It also provides a backup ground attack capability because an 2.75" (70mm) folding-fin attack rocket (FFAR) fitted with APWKS can be used against any target and weights almost exactly the same as a FIM-92. I also feel that the .50 cal is a little underpowered for anti-drone work. May be replace it with a lightweight 30mm chain gun like the M230 type used on the AH-64 and Styker SHORAD? It weights approximately 60kg whilst the .50cal weights 38kg. Ammo capacity may be reduced, but it could fire proximity fused HE Frag rounds. Another alternative would be fitting a development of the XM307 Advanced Crew Served Weapon which fired high velocity 25mm grenades. The grenades were already fitted with programmable airburst fuses and would be effective against large and small drones. You can also swap out the XM307's barrel to convert it to the XM312 .50 cal heavy machine gun. That gives you a second option if ammo supply is a problem. These modifications would make the Avenger a cost effective anti-air and counter-UAS platform with a strong secondary ground combat capability.
It’s worth noting that the .50 cal on the avenger isn’t any ordinary M2HB but a Gau-21, similar to what’s mounted in the doors of Black Hawks or other choppers. The rate of fire is around 1000 rpm as opposed to 600 allowing for better target acquisition of highspeed aircraft-so MG is in fact optimized for an AA role.
Greetings from Huntsville Alabama and Redstone Arsenal! Avenger was one of our toys as was Javelin, TOW, and a bunch of other fun toys Ukraine is using. I think this war should be Trademark Patent Pending Redstone Arsenal....
@@barrosamuec3883 Well due to conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan the US didn't put much emphasis on Anti Air Warfare due to the fact that US always had air superiority
We are currently putting focus into training with more advanced vehicles. Therefore, the US usage of the Avenger will be drastically decreasing over the next few years.
Clever move by the US to update their stock, even as an interim system; Ukraine shows there is always need for a cheaper and efficient system, even as a backup, to bolster or shore up your anti air zone.
Ideally the vehicle is not manned in case of return fire from aircraft. You string a command unit from it away from the vehicle and control the pod remotely.
The stingers are decently capable anyways, alternatively, think about the air superiority of the USAF: "......Entering the 21st, the US Army field A-D weapons are mainly composed of stingers on bradley: the M6 linebacker, stingers on humvees: the avenger, and stingers on foot: infantry AA team. Rather than making them shoot down something while being attacked by, it is more safe to assume that their purpose are to not shoot down something whilst being blue-on-blue'd by a friendly A-10."
Yes, Piorun has a couple of vehicle mounting options, although all are a bit different from the Avenger. The one that's most similar to the Avenger is called _Poprad_ (after a river in Poland) and it consists of the _Żubr_ (Wisent) 4×4 vehicle (more like the L-ATV than the Humvee) with 8 missiles, Grom or Piorun. 4 missiles are in the remote control turret with an optical and thermal tracker and 4 are stored as a reload. Each battery is equipped with a _Soła_ radar. Some of them were also exported to Indonesia where they're mounted on the 6×6 LR Defender. There's also the _Pilica_ (another river) system, but it's used by missile defense forces (or however they're called here) to defend bases or critical infrastructure, and the _Biała_ (white) which is our modernized ZSU-23-4 Shilka. There was also a system called _Kusza_ (crossbow) which was a very simple rotating mount for 2 missiles equipped with a sight. Conceptually identical to the Mistral Atlas, it was mounted on light vehicles like the Hilux or even a 6×6 version of Polaris Ranger 800. It was marketed towards our Territorial Defense Forces, but gained no interest.
Based on their design. I would match them up with light and moble artillery. They seem like better as apart of a "moble support maneuver" unit made up of archer artillery, moble mortar units and other secondary line of fire. In unconventional war, I would out fit them with a weak radar and the smaller AA system meant for drones, as well as basically making a drone and guided munitions luancher/recovery squad to manage the local airspace. This combined with the idea of a local network of AA can provide a well entrenched AA network with plenty of overlap. You then create a AA defensive onion of sorts with short range, medium, and long range coverage.
SAS was first to use the stinger in combat , they shot down a Argentine pucara (the pilot survived and later met the SAS officer) and the operator had to read the instrutions as it was straight out the box and had been given to him to test by his delta force friend.
I worked for an optical manufacturer for many years. Only myself and a coworker were cleared and allowed to apply a coating onto the stinger windows. Just before I left the company someone realized that the coating specifications were wrong. After decades! The last I saw the windows were being stored until someone could figure out what to do with them. Oh, and the material that was used for the windows is hydrophobic, meaning that they had to be stored with dessicant and in special containers, which meant that for months or however long it took, they were absorbing moisture. Luckily, the coating was over almost the whole surface of the windows which would help protect them.
I am really interested in which timeframe we will see a Stinger replacement and in which direction it will be going. I hope it will be a much more affordable system, leveraging commercial off-the-shelf parts as much as possible. We don't need a super-duper missile so expensive that nobody has it, we need a system so affordable and plentiful that everybody can shoot down any air threat at any time.
We need it to be unavailable to cash-strapped enemies. Remember how stingers donated to Afghans fighting against Russia ended up being used by al Q against US supporting planes in Iraq. Artificially high price can contribute to that goal.
If the defense procurement across europe wouldn't suck so badly, we could already have the Rheinmetall + Oerlikon SkyRanger / Mantis systems. Slap a 30 or 35mm autocannon onto a truck, Boxer APC or Lynx IFV and use time fused frag ammo as the worlds longest range shotgun. Add a bunch of missiles and you could have the best and most affordable layered air defense in the world. Could. Because of course german politics messed up.
These units are a must for the forward deployed units. Mobile and cheap, there is no reason not to have them. I wonder if they can adapt a 50 cal minigun as an adjuct to these units. Like you said, group a few of these together and you have quite a kill zone for low flying enemy aircraft. And the 50cal could take out mortar shells and rockets giving the lads protection from incoming.
Canada could definitely use a LAV based shorad, as spotting drones make even old arty quite a bit more effective. I would imagine Matt’s 105mm would put a decent drone to good use.
Hello. I love how unbiased your content is. I remember watching a top ten show netflix and almost always the number 1 weapon or vehicle was American, even when the number 2 was vastly superior.
Mounting these turrets on a old/refurbished M113 could be a nice stop-gap offering some extra protection to the crew, with decent speed and mobility, not to mention a very reliable vehicle with spare parts available everywhere Choosing the Brit. StarStreak missiles (maybe even adding a Brimstone Anti-armor launcher) could be a longer life sustainability course to follow for CAF. Even opting for a 25mm gun instead of the .50 cal; we have the guns & ammo, as that would be superior in the anti-drone/area defense role offering greater hit probability and range, less logistical headaches than opting for a 35mm gun. I mean, we can dream...!?
People have been getting slightly ridiculous about drones. Yes they see having abit of a moment, but so does everything until counter measures come in, and it doesnt seem like it will be so hard to develop measures against relatively very slow moving, low altitude weapons which are controlled remotely. Theres a lot of options you can explore- cutting ths signal to the drones, jamming tech, high rate of fire IR aimed cannons, cheaper multi role rockets like the british martlet, interceptor drones (I even saw an idea for one that sprayed some sort of destructive vapour cloud over enemy drones) and another idea i saw was a mini portable flak gun. I.e it was a small manpad sized launcher that fired a shell up at the drone with a timer or other type of sophisticated fuses and blows up near to it spraying jagged metal into it. It's quite similar to when planes first came into warfare, their progression from observation to bomber and attack roles and the processes to counter them.
My AIT class at Ft. Bliss, Tx in 1991 was the first class to be offered Avenger slots (We were 16S, Stinger Missile Gunners. Don't remember what the Avenger MOS was.). 10 of our students chose to go Avenger filling the available slots. I think I can safely (not breaking any rules) say that the Avenger platform increased the effective range of the FIM-92 being a stabilized platform with FLIR slaving. Somewhat amusingly I guess, the ADATS was in the next building over in Prototype stage. Got to tour the system with the General Dynamics guys that were working on it at the time. I might have got pictures I may or may not have been allowed to take, but the GD guys didn't complain so probably safe. Also got to watch an Avenger do a rolling engagement on a Streaker radar-guided drone the range lost control of at Sea Range in S. Korea (2ID). Was pretty cool and a BIG boom because the Streaker was still full of fuel. Don't know the range, but it was far enough there was a very definite delay between smoke and boom.
Fun lil fact about this system. The first clip you used was from an Exercise with the Lithuanian air force, and a few months ago news came out that Lithuania might get this system but then then sadly went missing. Now we have to wait several years until we get new nextgen M-shorads come out from Germany :'(
COnsidering the amount of "loitering munitions" AKA kamikaze drones being used in Ukraine is no surprise short range AA systems are making a come back. AA defence is like an onion with different layers, long range, medium range, short range, point blank, militaries want to have systems for each range to increase protection edit: so having something like patriot, gepard, avenger, if one fails there's another layer
Some insight into the cost: Oman in 2011 looked into buying 18 avenger systems and all the associated hardware [incl. 20 Humvees, s250 shelters, radars etc ] for US$1.2 billion [roughly 50m a unit] for comparison a single S-400 unit is approx US$300 Million and does not include other associated hardware. edit: Just to clarify, I'm not saying the Avenger system is a replacement for s-400, just comparing costs. E.g Stinger missiles $38,000 US vs 9M96E $200,000+
I think newer systems are already in limited use with airborne and special operations units, I can't remember names but it's basically a JLTV with an Israeli looking missle system on the back... I've also seen some with CIWIS pods, not sure about caliber, although the latter could just be prototype/test and evaluation builds...
I was a USMC 7212 Stinger/Redeye Gunner from 90-94. Your info on the dates the Avenger came online with the USMC are wrong. The USMC was experimenting with the LAV-AD (Air Defense) in 92-93 and it was proposed that it would stay with the Light Armored Infantry (LAI) Battalions with either Stinger Gunners cross training to LAI or LAI personnel cross training to be gunners. The LAV-AD was the hot topic because the Avenger, it was known as PMS (pedestal mounted Stinger) at the time, was overloading the standard M998 hummers suspensions and making them to top heavy. There was a concern of them to top heavy and being prone to turning over on grades. The PMS system itself was heavier that the max cargo weight of the M998m, and even with reinforced suspension springs the vehicles were hard to control on rough terrain. Then there was the issue of the experimental .50cal MG on the system. There were several hicups with its development and integration in the system. The fielding of the PMS was also delayed by the intention of that they wanted to be able to mount other weapons than just Stinger missiles on the system, such as the 2.75in and 5in FFAR rocket pods to give the system a ground attack capability. That never worked out. There were also problems with the FLIR system as they wanted it to work IR and UV. All in all the first PMS/Avenger pedestal units were not delivered to the first Marine Corps unit, which was 2nd Low Altitude Air Defense Bn at MCAS Cherry Point until mid January 1994. Prior to that all USMC stinger gunners were Man Portable (ManPad) only. I know this for a fact because that was my unit and I was there when they were unloaded from the trucks in the driveway to our motorpool.
Hmm... it seems like a good system for point defence. The main problem with cruise missiles and drones is: If you use a mio USD missile to swat a 20000 USD drone or missile. Whom is going to run out of money first. The Gepard and Patriots are very expensive to operate, and that means they can only be afforded in a few places, such as the capital - leaving the rest of the country open to harrassment from cheap drones dropping hand grenades down in trenches (quite WW1 style of close air support). You would typically send in a swarm of cheap drones to saturate the ground based air defences - which would leave the path open to the more expensive and accurate cruise missiles.
Yup, this system both mounted on humvees or, better yet, install the turret with a small diesel generator in a modified standard shipping container for defending critical infrastructure could be a good idea, then plonk a Finnish NEMO mortar container within the Avenger containers envelope and you'll get 12cm mortar support out to 8km too
@@kreb7 Consider the cost of a Gepard - they cost about 3 tanks. Leo 1. And the electronics are 30-40 years old and spare parts is an issue. The Gepard is designed to follow heavy armour advancing - which means they use diesel like a swede drinks snaps - trust me that quickly turns ugly. They are presumably like artillery pieces that need a truck pr. piece.
Having several cheap shortrange systems deployed at the battlefield is better than one expensive medium/ long range system. If you only have one and it's taken out, you don't have any coverage at all. If you have several, and one is taken out, you still have some coverage, and by moving the rest about you might cover the "hole" that the one taken out left.
One place where Stingers struggle is in cheap low observability aircraft, and if Russia retrofits their fleet (sorry, I’m a nuclear sailor not an airman, I’m assuming this is the right term) they’ll be able to generally ignore these (except for the .50, that can engage in the visual spectrum and cheap & fast stealth is ineffective there). For those unfamiliar (and without going into the classified), low observability is easy to acquire - it just tends to wreck your aerodynamics by either reducing lift from your lifting bodies (winds, rotors) or dramatically increasing drag (everything else). But many aircraft could easily be modified for many of the missions we hear about that would make them effectively invisible to all but the narrowest bands - and those they do reflect tend not to be in use in aviation (or at least, they weren’t 20 years ago, and there are good reasons they aren’t used so I doubt that’s changed).
It doesn't struggle against LO aircraft because that's not it's mission. Avenger was designed to protect static assets like logistic points, wheeled convoys and support units following behind manuever forces. Army Heavy ADA and the US Air force are supposed to defeat other air threats. Avenger is fine for what it's designed for.
I think armies should get more bofors40mm L70 guns. It has a range of 12,500 m. 50 cal, 20mm, and 30mm have about 2000m range. A popular drone used in Ukraine, the DJI has altitude of 3000 m. Seems like only 40mm will hit it at max altitude.
in the videogame Command and conquer generals theres a version of the Avenger thats equipped with dual high energy lasers as well as anti missile lasers. anyone think this avenger could be real
The lasers, yes, but the power requirements would be impractical at this point. Maybe as a 'deployable air defense' like a patriot. Love the game though!
lasers are not nearly as good as you think they are. they use a lot of power to do less than you could do with a more conventional weapon. someday they'll be good, but it won't be anytime soon. the Airborne Laser Laboratory was a 747 dedicated nose to tail to a single laser that couldn't burn a hole in a beer can at 5 miles.
How does Avenger compare to the German Ozelot system? Same missiles after all... but Ozelot has an IIR sensor to detect targets, plus can be mated up with a search radar AND integrated into air defense networks...
Some questions: 1) You said 4 missiles, so you mean 4 per side because it looks like it has 8 missiles to me 2) Does the M2 50 cal fire proximity ammo? 3) Are these being supplied to Ukraine? 4) Will that be authorised through Presidential draw down? 5) Is it as cool as STARStreak? (No, obviously! 🇬🇧🤣👍) 6) Can it operate completely passively? Optical and IR only? 7) You say 3 minutes to reload, is that per missile, per box or per weapon?
