The most effective Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) during World War II was the German 88mm gun. After the war, missiles became the weapon of choice for medium and high altitude anti-aircraft missions, leaving guns to low-level self-defense. However, satellite reconnaissance and countermeasures have made larger missile systems vulnerable and ineffective. Large missile systems consist of several components which are difficult to hide and move. Meanwhile, the large missile back blast immediately alerts the pilot to the threat and invites counterattack while the radar system must remain active to guide the missile, which makes it vulnerable to radar homing missiles like the HARM. Most importantly, it takes several seconds to launch and guide a missile, allowing aircraft time to launch jamming countermeasures and make evasive maneuvers.
Modern turreted major
caliber gun systems do not have these weaknesses if computers remotely aim and
fire projectiles at aircraft flying medium altitudes. This has become
important with the introduction of long-range precision air-to-ground
missiles. Aircraft no longer expose themselves during low-level attacks
since they can fly safely above 10,000 feet and use "stand off"
munitions. This allows them plenty of time to escape from surface-to-air
missiles, but no time to escape gun systems. 
M109 Paladin 155mm Howitzer Should Try AAA Skeet-Shooting
Armies need to modified anti-aircraft radar systems to aim and fire turreted artillery guns, leaving crews the simple task of loading the gun. A cheap 155mm gun projectile produces about four times the explosive power of an expensive missile, and aircraft would have no warning before a projectile explodes nearby, and only a few seconds before the next rounds explodes. New heat-seeking projectiles may increase the effectiveness of this concept. In addition, self-propelled artillery systems are more mobile than missile launchers, and have armor protection against cluster bomb counterattacks. Since major artillery units already include counter-battery radar systems, including anti-air radar systems should not be difficult, A a combined system could be fielded, which may also prove effective against large surface-to-surface missiles like the SCUDs or long-range rockets.
This is not a new idea, radar guided naval guns have been around for decades, but armies have limited this concept to smaller caliber rapid fire guns. However, armies now need the longer reach provided by bigger guns. Heavy AAA is needed to protect ground forces on the modern battlefield.
Carlton Meyer editorG2mil@Gmail.com
Feedback
If
you want to make things more effective, sabot a 127mm Navy HE round in a 155mm
carrier. You get higher velocity, longer range and at least three times the
blast effect of a missile. FRAGMENTATION is what kills flying objects.
Make the 127mm sabot of frangible steel, a more powerful explosive filler
and proximity fuze, and things get real dicey for aircraft/missiles. Autoloaders
would be needed, and fixed rounds (think tank round) would make things easier to
work with. With a big, tall turret (GIAT turret is good) and a system to
feed the big rounds into the cannon, a four gun battery could cover a lot of
territory.
Again, ammo resupply and overhead protection are
big needs, but not insurmountable. "Clips" of ADA ammo on
pallets that fit into the auto-loader, placed into the gun by MHE on the HEMTT
would solve that problem. Overhead cover in the form of spaced (6'' to
12" apart) layers of 2" Chobham armor plates, under a 1" aluminum
plate, under a 1" steel plate with reactive armor that extended several
feet around the gun, HEMTT and trailers, with the Chobham draped vertically to
stop side fragmentation, angled back towards the gun/HEMTT/trailer. The
armor also dissipates the heat signature of the vehicles. A FAASV makes
sense for a system like this.
And, if you sabot a hardened missile (think
Copperhead on a rocket motor with a fire and forget guidance system), you keep
every aviator whose not on your side in a state of sphincter retraction. We
ought to consider that one of our future enemies might be thinking along these
same lines.
Larry Altersitz RgrLarry@aol.com