Military Review

AGDS / M1: self-propelled anti-aircraft gun based on the Abrams tank

31
Features of the application of modern frontline aviation and its armaments directly speak of the need to create combined anti-aircraft systems, simultaneously armed with artillery mounts and missile systems, and at the same time capable of moving in line with tanks or other combat vehicles. Thirty years ago, the Soviet Union created such a machine, called the 2K22 Tunguska, carrying two 30 mm anti-aircraft guns and eight guided missiles. Foreign countries quickly became interested in this idea and launched a number of their own projects for a similar purpose. Among others, the United States became interested in the subject of anti-aircraft missile and artillery systems (ZRAK).




In the early eighties, several American companies began work on creating self-propelled SCRAs capable of escorting troops on the march. So in the United States appeared complexes AN / TWQ-1 Avenger, LAV-AD, etc. However, all these systems had one feature that significantly limited their capabilities. Due to the use of relatively light base chassis, new anti-aircraft missile and artillery systems could not move and work on a par with the M1 Abrams tanks. Required new combat vehicle with the appropriate characteristics. This is how the AGDS / M1 project (Air Ground Defense System - “A system for protecting against air and ground targets based on the M1 tank”), created by WDH, appeared.

The basis for the new anti-aircraft complex took the standard chassis of the tank M1 with a solid armored and powerful power plant. According to the developers, the use of a tank chassis would simplify the design and production, as well as provide ease of operation both in terms of performance and in terms of technical support. As for the combat module AGDS, it was planned to do it on the basis of the tower of the same tank. It is noteworthy that during the design of the anti-aircraft complex the dimensions of the tower increased, but the basic proportions remained the same. This was done both to facilitate production, and for additional disguise: the silhouette of the SCREEN was similar to the silhouette of the base tank.

In front of the seriously modified turret, on the spot where the Abrams had a gun, they installed two Bushmaster III automatic caliber guns of 35 millimeters. The new guns made it possible to conduct aimed fire at a range of up to three kilometers with a rate of fire of up to 200-250 rounds per minute. It was supposed to use shells with a radio fuse. With the explosion of such ammunition formed at least hundreds of fragments. According to the calculations of the designers, the use of Bushmaster-3 guns with special projectiles made it possible to spend no more than two dozen projectiles on the destruction of one aerial target.

Next to the cannons, in front of the turret, the designers of the WDH company provided a volume for stores with ammunition. Each gun was equipped with two stores. An interesting design of the ammunition system. Two large drum shops (one per cannon) with 500 capacity high-explosive fragmentation shells were placed next to the breech parts of the guns. It is noteworthy that the shells were supposed to be placed in stores perpendicular to the axis of the barrel. During the submission to the cannon, a special mechanism had to orient them in the right way. Above the breech of the guns and near the shops for high-explosive fragmentation ammunition, it was proposed to put two smaller tanks on 40-50 shells. They were intended for the storage and supply of armor-piercing shells, in case of a collision of an AGDS / M1 combat vehicle with enemy light armored vehicles. Thus, a new anti-aircraft missile and artillery complex could effectively destroy and destroy a wide range of ground and air targets that tanks encounter in their combat using their barrel weapons.

Directly behind the cannon compartment, the designers provided for a relatively small manned volume. In the front part of it should have been located the workplace of the weapon operator, in the back - the commander. The use of a large number of various electronic equipment led to the fact that only one operator could manage all systems. If necessary, the commander had the opportunity to take on part of the load and facilitate the work of a colleague. On the sides of the front of the habitable volume, it was proposed to install a part of electronic equipment. In particular, in the left "cheekbone" of the tower it was supposed to place the equipment of the optical-location system, the head of which was to be placed in a characteristic vertical slot in the armor. On the right "cheekbone" they found a place for the radar guidance and its antenna, and behind it fit an auxiliary power unit.

Directly behind the fighting compartment and the workplace of the commander of the machine on the AGDS turret should have been the rest of the electronics, including the missile control unit and the radar of the review. A block of equipment for aiming and pointing missiles was carried out retractable inside the turret. Antenna survey radar station in the parking position had to turn back fit into a special niche.

The WDH engineers chose the ADATS universal complex, created a little earlier, as missile weapons for the AGDS / M1 SPRA. To detect targets, this system could use existing radars, as well as a separate optical system with a thermal imaging channel. After launch, the ADATS guided missile was to be guided with a laser beam. The controlled universal missile of the complex with a length of about two meters weighed 51 kilogram and was equipped with a solid-fuel engine. The latter allowed the rocket to accelerate to a speed of about three speeds of sound and hit targets at ranges up to 10 kilometers and at altitudes up to 7 kilometers. The ADATS missile was to carry a fragmentation-cumulative warhead weighing 12,5 kg, suitable for hitting aircraft and armored vehicles. So, on tests, similar missiles pierced an armor sheet with a thickness up to 900 millimeters.

The layout of the AGDS / M1 anti-aircraft rocket launcher tower
1 - Bushmaster III gun (caliber 35-mm, vertical guidance angles from -15 to + 90 degrees); 2 - radar guidance; 3 - ammunition feeder; 4 - store charging port; 5 - rotary ammunition supply unit; 6 - auxiliary power unit; 7 - remotely controlled machine-gun installation (caliber 7,62 mm, vertical guidance angles from -5 to + 60 degrees); 8 - shooter operator; 9 - the commander; 10 - package of guided missiles in a position to launch; 11 - retractable block sights complex ADATS; 12 - radar circular survey; 13 - electronic equipment; 14 - gas jet reflector; 15 - package of missiles in the folded position; 16 - replaceable barrels for guns; 17 - Shop 35-mm ammunition (500 shells); 18 - ADATS missile block lifting mechanism; 19 - tower polik; 20 - optical sight; 21 - the head of the optical sight.


Proceeding from the desire to make the AGDS / M1 MASTER as close as possible to the tank M1 Abrams, and also intending to increase the survivability of the vehicle, the project authors placed missile launchers inside the armored turret. Two modules for six transport-launch containers with missiles entered next to the walls of the habitable volume and the electronics compartment, in the middle and rear of the sides. Before launch, it was supposed to lift the front of the container above the roof of the tower. In order to avoid damage to the tower structure, the WDH designers have provided two venting channels in its stern. Thus, the rocket's reactive gases could freely go up and back beyond the reserved volume.

All the main armament of the AGDS combat module was supposed to be protected by the armor of the turret. Similarly created and additional weapons for self-defense. On the roof of the turret, in front of the operator’s workplace, they provided for a remote-controlled machine gun turret, closed with a bulletproof armored casing. The dimensions of the casing allowed any available 7,62 mm machine gun with ammunition to be hidden under it. Smoke grenade launchers could be placed on the sides of the turret.

Thanks to a number of original technical solutions, the new AGDS / M1 self-propelled self-propelled gun with combined rocket and gun armament could solve a wide range of tasks and ensure the protection of tank formations from all sorts of threats. Developer Opportunities weapons The new SCRA allowed to attack targets at ranges up to 10 kilometers using rockets and at smaller distances using guns. Under certain circumstances, AGDS / M1 MASTER, thanks to the use of ADATS universal missiles, could play the role of what was later called the "tank support fighting vehicle".

The great advantage of AGDS / M1 over other US anti-aircraft missile and artillery systems projects was the use of a reliable chassis borrowed from the M1 Abrams tank. An armored hull in combination with a powerful engine could give the opportunity to fully operate together with tank formations and effectively protect them from air and ground threats.

The project AGDS / M1 received a lot of positive ratings. By the time the design work was completed (1996-1997 years), it was believed that the Pentagon would be interested in the new development and order the delivery of a large number of combat vehicles. It was assumed that after that will follow new contracts with other countries that are already using American armored vehicles. However, for a number of reasons, the US military limited itself to accolades. Several commanders and defense officials spoke in favor of starting the production of a new car, but it did not go further. Even a decade and a half after those events, AGDS / M1 continues to be an interesting project, which, however, has little chance of reaching mass production. At the beginning of the two thousandth, due to the lack of attention from the main customer, the AGDS / M1 project was frozen and then closed due to the lack of real prospects. The United States Army, in turn, has not yet acquired an anti-aircraft missile and artillery complex, capable of fully working in the same system with tanks.


Based on:
http://otvaga2004.ru/
http://benning.army.mil/
http://secretprojects.co.uk/
A. Sharoni and L. Bacon, "Forward Area Air-Ground Defense", Armor, US Army Armor Center, Fort Knox, July – August 1996
Vasilin N.Ya., Gurinovich A.L. Anti-aircraft missile systems. - Minsk: Popurri LLC, 2002
Author:
31 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 30 May 2013 08: 33
    16
    The explanation is simple, America is not going to conduct military operations with direct contact against a strong enemy. And for the weak, they have enough money without such systems.
    1. datur
      datur 30 May 2013 13: 20
      +1
      logical - but the shell1s = this is their cemetery !! wink
      1. The comment was deleted.
  2. bask
    bask 30 May 2013 08: 36
    +5
    Thanks for the article Cyril.
    Super, as always.
    I enlightened, to be honest, I did not know about the presence of air defense systems (((developments))) among amers. An interesting idea is to install radar equipment in a highly secure tower.
    They rejected the project, it seems to me, due to the fact that the Amer army simply does not have a threat from AIR. Everything is covered by airplanes and air defense systems.
    And before proceeding with the ground operation, all air means of attack of the enemy (aircraft) are destroyed.
    We had a similar project in the USSR, with the installation of 2 S-68 cal-57 mm guns on the T-54 chassis.
    Repeatedly used in the Arab-Israeli wars, in Yugoslavia, both against enemy planes and helicopters and against manpower and lightly armored armored vehicles.
    Now used by government forces against militants in Syria.
    1. bask
      bask 30 May 2013 08: 45
      +5
      -------------------------
      1. bask
        bask 30 May 2013 09: 33
        +2
        ZSU based on the T-55 Marksman (Shooter). Finland.
        The Finnish ZSU T-55 Marksman has a mass of 41 tons (T-55M-36 tons)).
        As the main weapons used two 35 mm Swiss guns Oerlikon. The percentage of defeat targets of this ZSU is estimated as 52.2%.
        In addition to combating air targets, it is also able to effectively combat lightly armored ground targets. For this, 40 armor-piercing ammunition was introduced into the ammunition reserve of the ZSU. The total ammunition load of the ZSU is 500 shells.
        Year adoption 90th.
        1. Mikhado
          Mikhado 30 May 2013 10: 38
          +2
          No, our closest analogue was "Yenisei" with 37 mm machine guns. 57 mm already in the 50s showed their futility for air defense.
          The adoption of a "single" 30 mm caliber resulted in the fact that there is physically nowhere to put a volumetric radio fuse there, so all our complexes have to rely only on a direct hit.
          1. sivuch
            sivuch 13 September 2013 11: 30
            0
            I completely agree about the Yenisei. Surely, those who turned it in 63-64 regretted it very much when anti-tank helicopters with a firing range of 3.5-4 km appeared. And when "smart" fuses for 37mm caliber could appear in the USSR - I have no idea. I think in the 1980s.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. The comment was deleted.
    2. Airman
      Airman 30 May 2013 10: 27
      +1
      Quote: bask

      We had a similar project in the USSR, with the installation of 2 S-68 cal-57 mm guns on the T-54 chassis.
      Repeatedly used in the Arab-Israeli wars, in Yugoslavia, both against enemy planes and helicopters and against manpower and lightly armored armored vehicles.
      Now used by government forces against militants in Syria.

      The installation was called ZSU-57-2, there is no radar, fire is being fired with an aim.
      I think the American air defense system is good, because SAMs are located inside an armored tower and are protected from bullets and fragments, which is inevitable when conducting military operations in combat formations. They are not going to fight on their territory, and to produce a limited series is expensive, because the likelihood that other countries will purchase this expensive and heavy complex in large quantities is unlikely.
      1. bask
        bask 30 May 2013 10: 50
        +3
        Quote: Povshnik
        The installation was called ZSU-57-2, there is no radar, the fire is being aimed

        To upgrade the S-68 with a 57-mm caliber, there are good prospects in the ZSU and in the installation on BMP.
        The C68-57 mm gun, could become the main one in the creation of the cannon ZK, similar to the German one.
        35 mm short-range anti-aircraft artillery system MANTIS, manufactured by Rheinmetall Defense.
        1. Airman
          Airman 30 May 2013 11: 32
          +1
          Quote: bask
          Quote: Povshnik
          The installation was called ZSU-57-2, there is no radar, the fire is being aimed

          To upgrade the S-68 with a 57-mm caliber, there are good prospects in the ZSU and in the installation on BMP.



          Firstly, not S-68, but S-60. Have you ever seen 57 mm AZP? 2 barrels and for the tank, without any radar and other devices, it was hard, and you want to put on the BMP.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. bask
            bask 30 May 2013 13: 43
            +2
            Quote: Povshnik
            Firstly, not S-68, but S-60. Have you ever seen 57 mm AZP?

            1. Come on to you. You and I haven’t passed on to you.
            I saw two ZSU57 on a valid at the training ground, Ashuluk, and stood rusty.
            Quote: Povshnik
            2 barrels and for the tank, without any radar and other devices, it was hard, and you want to put on the BMP.

            Unless I got into a post about TWO BARKS!
            No, I want, but already set: BMP Marder with an automatic 57-mm gun Bofors.

            PT-76 with automatic anti-aircraft gun S-60 caliber 57 / 347SR.

            Why not install on upgraded BMP 1.2.
            1. bask
              bask 30 May 2013 14: 05
              +2
              ,, Object 688 ,, (BMP-3)
              As an armament, a 3,6-ton mass-stabilized combat module was chosen with the installation of a modified 57-mm automatic gun S-60 and a coaxial PKTM machine gun. The gun is equipped with an automatic loader, and ejection of spent cartridges, rate of fire 120 rounds per minute.
              But the series did not go.
            2. Airman
              Airman 30 May 2013 14: 56
              0
              Quote: bask

              No, I want, but already set: BMP Marder with an automatic 57-mm gun Bofors.
              .


              You can put a 100 mm cannon on an infantry fighting vehicle, but an infantry fighting vehicle is not a means of air defense. The efficiency of firing a gun without a radar is 0. The same S-60 complex is used with an RPK (radio instrument complex). It is an air defense system.
  3. Kars
    Kars 30 May 2013 09: 19
    +4
    Here, it seems, more fully describes the attempts to create American air defense systems of the Cold War: rocket-artillery.
    http://alternathistory.org.ua/amerikanskie-sistemy-pvo-vremen-kholodnoi-voiny-ra
    ketno-artilleriiskie
  4. Nayhas
    Nayhas 30 May 2013 09: 31
    +3
    An interesting project and competent layout. Military air defense is a weak spot in the US Armed Forces, the probable US adversaries do not have the means for early detection and destruction of ground targets, so the probability of an air strike from distances of 5-10 km. cannot be excluded.
    1. Mikhado
      Mikhado 30 May 2013 10: 43
      +4
      Quote: Nayhas
      An interesting project and competent layout. Military air defense is a weak spot in the US Armed Forces, the probable US adversaries do not have the means for early detection and destruction of ground targets, so the probability of an air strike from distances of 5-10 km. cannot be excluded.

      I agree, I also liked the idea. You can argue about Abrams, but since it IS, it is logical to use its huge volumes for an air defense machine, with a T-72 such a number simply will not work, alas, and the chassis is tougher. The only plus of our Tunguska on the chassis is a hydropneumatic suspension for more accurate shooting on the move, but in terms of security - alas, it is ridiculous to compare with the American.
    2. Airman
      Airman 30 May 2013 11: 06
      0
      Quote: Nayhas
      . Military air defense is a weak spot in the US Armed Forces; probable US adversaries do not have the means for early detection and destruction of ground targets,
      .


      Yes, now Russia and the United States are "business partners", but the Russians have a good proverb: No matter how you feed the wolf, he looks into the forest.
  5. igordok
    igordok 30 May 2013 09: 56
    +2
    Clarify please. And like reloading a gun. Who, or what, produces it. "The ammunition supply mechanism", in the diagram it is somehow small.
  6. Seraph
    Seraph 30 May 2013 10: 31
    +2
    A lot of us were scared by the US superweapon: SOI, laser hyperboloids on planes, and a bunch of armored vehicles. And where is all this beauty? Purely fantastic
    In reality, the United States is fighting with "hummers", MRAPs, helicopters towed by 105/155 mm and various small arms and grenade launchers (judging by publications in the press and on the Internet). Remote firing I don't count
  7. leon-iv
    leon-iv 30 May 2013 10: 41
    0
    mdya baby talk compared to our air defense.
  8. Argon
    Argon 30 May 2013 11: 21
    +3
    And in my opinion, the situation with the ZRAK in the US Army is the most vivid example of the stagnation of relations between the army, navy, air force (i.e., the customer, in fact, the government) and the country's military-industrial complex, which is essentially 8-10 people, managers (let's call them so ) financial associations. This provision is a systemic "minus" of commodity-money relations in the field of defense. And it lies in the absence, the government, of the levers of "strong-willed consolidation of potentials." (to varying degrees) companies that are competitors. They will not merge voluntarily, since the volume of R&D is quite significant, which means that technical and financial risks are high, that is, there is a high risk of making a profit, and the government cannot make them work. this is not the first such case, and we solved the problem by buying a sample abroad and setting up production at home (we have known such a thing recently). However, in this case, the state incurs certain costs that will not The expediency of such a step is precisely determined by the value of the "dead" expense (is it worth the candle). In the case of the ZRAK there is no analogue (I do not consider our samples for obvious reasons), the base could be "Cheetah", however, the relationship in The military-industrial complex between the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany has been as bad as ever (the Germans reacted negatively to the theft of technology in all joint projects with the United States). I really hope that the development of the Russian defense industry will take place taking into account similar moments. recourseRegarding this machine, it is more similar to the result of an attempt to preserve (optimize) the production of tanks. Excessive weight, a high level of vibration, and no one was involved in the subject of EM and microwave equipment interference.
  9. USNik
    USNik 30 May 2013 13: 18
    +4
    I always admired the ability of Americans to write down flaws in virtues
    The great advantage of the AGDS / M1 over other American projects of anti-aircraft missile and artillery systems was the use of a reliable chassis mastered in the production, borrowed from the Abrams M1 tank.

    Why should an air defense system covering a convoy of BMP and MBT on the march have heavy booking, a gluttonous engine and a weight of about 70 tons? Plus the price of such a "heavy SPAAG" will be obscenely high ...
  10. Dima190579
    Dima190579 30 May 2013 13: 31
    +3
    The Americans have already forgotten what it means to fight with an enemy who has fighter and attack aircraft. They did not have 1941, and there is nothing to remember.
  11. vomag
    vomag 30 May 2013 13: 47
    +3
    yes amers completely agree big masters take a piece of gov *** wrap it in a beautiful wrapper and vparit anyone no matter at least your own stranger. practically obt in the role of air defense system yes but about 57mm I think it’s not so simple here! if you recall the 2 world so guns with 37mm 45mm 50mm 76mm in (depending on the country of the manufacturer) very quickly turned into 88mm 90mm 100mm 122mm etc .... I assume that in a future conflict (world course) all carriers of standard 30mm 35mm 40mm will go to 57mm 60mm 65mm although I can be mistaken
  12. vomag
    vomag 30 May 2013 14: 13
    0
    again, a dumb noble took minus
    1. Argon
      Argon 30 May 2013 19: 16
      0
      Well, why were you so worried, my one minus, well, I do not consider your conclusions to be objective. The growth of ZA calibers in the past was due to an increase in the height of the defeat ("beavers" tried to climb higher), or the absence of aiming systems capable of solving the tasks of over-the-horizon view and anticipation (in this case, they achieved a greater high-explosive fragmentation action of a volley to be able to conduct effective defensive fire) .Currently, the caliber grew due to the desire to place a radio detonator in a projectile when firing at 3000 m or more, if there was no desire (or impossibility) to place a missile I think the caliber of high-temp guns of the ZSU will not exceed 40mm. A further increase in caliber will lead to an increase in the mass of the gun, ammunition, guidance and stabilization devices. I promise you not to put any more minus, I will try to contact the site administration, what would you give epaulets, I do not promise generals I will try captain's, obviously for you the question of ranks is decisive.
  13. USNik
    USNik 30 May 2013 15: 10
    +2
    yes, I completely agree, amers are great masters to take a piece of gov *** wrap in a beautiful wrapper and vparit someone, even his own alien. In fact, in the role of an air defense system, yes, but about 57mm, I think it's not so simple here! if you recall the 2nd world, so guns with 37mm 45mm 50mm 76mm (depending on the country of manufacture) very quickly turned into 88mm 90mm 100mm 122mm etc. .... I assume that in a future conflict (world course) all carriers of standard 30mm 35mm 40mm will switch to 57mm 60mm 65mm although I may be mistaken

    again, a dumb noble took minus

    Someone could put a minus without understanding, or without reading your post.
    And the increase in caliber is caused by the insufficient power of existing shells, in Russia, for example, work is currently underway on 40-45-50-57mm cannons capable of hitting all existing and promising NATO armored vehicles in the forehead.
  14. Genady1976
    Genady1976 30 May 2013 16: 59
    +2
    why did you invent this one right away and that's it lol
    1. bask
      bask 30 May 2013 19: 03
      +2
      Quote: Genady1976
      invent this one right away and sun

      GSh T-34. Wehrmacht trophy technique: no one has ever uploaded such photos.
      Class! good
  15. bublic82009
    bublic82009 30 May 2013 20: 17
    0
    and why is such a heavy machine needed?
  16. evfrat
    evfrat 30 May 2013 23: 38
    0
    Wow, you give, it's nice to read the comments and the article itself. Bravo to everyone.
  17. the47th
    the47th 31 May 2013 16: 35
    0
    It seems to me alone that the high-explosive fragmentation effect of two guns with such a meager rate of fire will be none? The fighter may hit, but there will be problems with the armored attack aircraft. And in general, why should the air defense missile system be on a par with tanks ?!
  18. olosors
    olosors 2 June 2013 19: 30
    -1
    If we compare with the domestic air defense system, then in all respects it is worse