M247 'Sergeant York' | WORST AIR DEFENSE EVER!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ต.ค. 2024
- The M247 Sergeant York DIVAD (Division Air Defense) was a self-propelled anti-aircraft gun (SPAAG), developed by Ford Aerospace in the late 1970s. Based on the M48 Patton tank, it replaced the Patton's turret with a new one that featured twin radar-directed Bofors 40 mm rapid-fire guns. The vehicle was named after Sergeant Alvin York, a famous World War I hero.
The Sergeant York was intended to fight alongside the M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley in the U.S. Army, in a role similar to the Soviet ZSU-23-4 and German Flakpanzer Gepard. It would replace the M163 Vulcan Air Defense System and MIM-72 Chaparral, ad hoc systems of limited performance that had been introduced when the more advanced MIM-46 Mauler failed to mature.
Despite the use of many off the shelf technologies that were intended to allow rapid and low-cost development, a series of technical problems and massive cost overruns resulted in the cancellation of the project in 1985.
Hope you enjoy!!
💰 Want to support my channel? Check out my Patreon Donation page! www.patreon.co...
Matt’s DREAM: www.gofundme.c...
👕 Check out my Merch: teespring.com/...
📬Wanna send me something? My PO Box: Matthew James 210A - 12A Street N Suite
#135 Lethbridge Alberta Canada T1H2J
🎮 Twitch: / matsimus_9033
👋DISCORD: / discord
📘 Facebook: www.facebook.c...
🐦Twitter: / matsimusgaming
⛔️ (DISCLAIMER: This video is for informative and entertainment purposes only. The views and opinion come from personal experience and not that of others or other organizations. This content and information is there to provide information from public accessible sources.)
#military #M247 #tanks
It's not the vehicle that was the worst in reality, it was the program, controversy and lies that this vehicle was doomed from the start being involved in. Sad to see two awesome bits of military equipment coming together to make a poorly made and designed weapons platform. What do you think? Is it really that bad? Or was it just given a bad name? Let me know below!! I would love to hear from you!! Matt J
Hey mat
Make a video on me
(btr82)
I would suggest contacting the ADA museum curator at Fort Sill. I meet him while at BOLC-B aka ADA officer school. He actually worked on the York system and is a treasure trove of information. He knows what happened with the shuttering of the program in great detail.
Matsimus Liberals can’t call soldiers baby killers any more, so they attack EVERY weapons system with the same lies. And every weapon system put into production has proven them wrong.
The only place where this thing was effective is Warthunder.
Can it really work in game if all of its statistics are outright lies or guesstimations
@@goddepersonno3782 Yeah it works amazingly solely because of the proximity fuse ammo it gets. And Warthunder DEFINITELY spoofed some of its stats for the game, most notably the turret traverse rate. Its traverse is just as fast as most other high-tier SPAA's in the game.
It also has 90mm+ of penetration on its AP shell which allows it to just tear through anything from the side in under a second. It is also amazing at breaking cannon barrels
Until it gets detracked.... does it still get hullbreaked by the tracks? Well that's Gaijin entertainment for you.
The Combat Commission If you hit the turret it hull breaks, the tracks don’t
@@nrfcooltheepic2250, still makes it a bit better than most 8.0 Radar SPAAs there... Where the 40mms beat even Oerlikon 35mm guns in effective range....
The size and weird hullbreak issues are the only strong drawbacks it has
Real Sergeant York: Look at how they massacred my name.
Faking a turkey noise and... THIS THING WILL TURN TO YOU! 🤦♀️
@@RebeccaCampbell1969 what
With the Godfather's theme playing in the background.
He should have an IFV named for him.
450th like
It just goes to show that corruption in military contracts has been going on for many, many years.
Hell, the H.M.S. Terror is one such example.
William D Smith ACU pattern is worst of them all IMO
How about that - mysterious alteration of test data and inflation of success rate! Who could have done that? Time for the FBI to step in.
What's even more funnier is that the same companies with the help of the US government love to pressure other countries to buy their expensive junk.
Just look at the F35 and the countless problems that has popped up because of that. Not to mention is uber expensive price.
Look up LCS classes,and Zumwalt-class.Also the F15X.The early end of F22 production.
"Beware the military industrial complex." Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Dwight was part of it.
No...beware of the fools in it.
Beware of government spending
What many people don’t know and what is kind of covered from the American people is that, Dwight mentioned the Congress in that same warning.
The military industry taking over Congress and thereby the highest political legislative instance of the U.S. ‼️‼️‼️
@@charleswest6372 beware of the ones running the economy
So bad that planes would fly near it to be safe.
And that's actually a valid tactic. Flying Nap on Earth are preferrable if the pilot wants to avoid ground radar detection iirc.
arya31ful eka maybe, but AA guns are more effective against low flying targets. NOE flying is generally to evade SAMs, because they’re more dangerous and, nowadays, more prevalent. It’s also to evade detection in general to avoid interception and the possibility of the target being moved.
But in WWII, fighter-bombers, attack aircraft, and bombers (admittedly they were more vulnerable to flak no matter what) were generally safer flying higher rather than lower.
@@arya31ful actually that was RAF doctrine right up to the point it was tried. In the first gulf war. The attrition rates from accidents when flying near Mach 1 at 15 meters were far higher than the US being shot down by SAM flying at 10,000 meters. The RAF switched to high level and the loss rate halved. A SAM is actually pretty easy to evade if you see it early on. Even an AMRAAM can be evaded pretty easily if you know where it is. The only missiles that are super agile and cannot be easily evaded are things like ASRAAM and latest generation Russian A-73.
@@gordonlawrence1448 Now that's new. My understanding is flying NOE makes it harder for ground radar to pick up the target because of ground clutter thus making radar guided weapons less useful, while also makes heat-seeking SAM and AA guns more difficult to acquire the target because of shorter reaction time because the target pases through their "engagegement dome" so quickly.
That's all i knew.
@@arya31ful There is a little more to it than that. EG your aircraft is flying down a valley then SAM/SPAAG is not going to be able to detect it at all as they use Radar frequencies that only operate line of sight.. So you could be in the next valley 5 miles away and you would not be picked up. Ground clutter is really only an issue for pulse doppler radar on fast moving platforms. EG part of the detection process is that the return frequency is marginally different to the pulse frequency. If the target is not moving, and you are not moving there is no doppler effect. Ground attack radars work differently to air to air radars in terms of frequency, opulse repetition rate and passive return signal filtering. With modern (anything past about 1980) radars they usually have the circuitry for both and the amps/antennas are picked so that they will work with both (and the ATG frequency is usually a harmonic of the ATA radar. That said some clever git worked out how to do both on the same frequency for some multi-mode radars.
Sargent york : im a Big bad anti air system
The real Sargent Alivin C. York : aint that cute
@@syaondri I dunno all HMS York really did in World War II was just get bombed and then beach herself on Crete.
Lol right
@@syaondri Yeah but compared to her sister she sort of did nothing.
Funny thing is that Alvin York was ashamed of what he did during the war.
@@flare9757 I'm honestly not surprised.
was i the only one expecting to hear "The missle knows where it is" in that intro
@UCnDp0uraIJhmK31Q-7OsxFQ The dudes voice from the intro reminds me of that video
@@MrMurica lamo the guy you were talking to deleted his comment.
yea you prolly are, but I know what you mean. I still have chronic migraines when I think about that video.
Its now copyrighted so better delete your comment
Ah yes the tank that tried to lock onto a group of people
Random Pineapple no it was a porta potty the shitter shooter
@@800dbcloud3 No, it was both.
Do you suppose they got nervous when the guns started to swing their way?
Don't forget it also tried to shoot the shit out of a latrine!
I call it the Terminator Tank.
Ford Aerospace: It doesn't work 'cause it was washed
Soviets: Hmmmm... Soapy water rounds
I am 100% sure they where thinking that seriously.
Hey guys, Chris Fix here
*”ALL BATHROOM FANS MUST PERISH!”*
-if the M247 could talk.
More like " the offisials top brass are the real enemies"
Talk about a clean bathroom.
*Armored Scubbing Brush*
That tank can detect corruption !
This thing was probably made to scare the enlisted from skating in the head.
The 40mm L/70 was not obsolete by the 1970s it had seen continuous development since 1948 for instance the fire rate had been increased from 240 rpm to 300 rpm.
Also as 1960s turned into 1970s it got proximity fuzed ammunition and to this day 40mm remains the smallest caliber to have this.
In fact the 40mm L/70 is still in production in its mk4 variant which is electric instead of hydraulic
If anything, autocannon are going back to the 40-57mm range anymore. Anything less is becoming... problematic... in terms of kill capability.
100% correct. These guns are more closely related to the modern Breda DARDO fully automated type used in shipboard mounts and not the manually operated WW2 type. I don’t think the US has ever deployed the DARDO in any significant numbers other than maybe for trials. The Sgt York was a failure of project development, management and systems integration. Contrast tis with the Shilka: adequate gun, radar/FC and vehicle properly integrated into a very effective weapon system for its time.
@@TheTrueAdept That's ironic as the original requirement when the 40mm calibre was chosen for what became the Bofors 40mm L/60 was that it should be fatal for the target with one hit.
@@zenonsplawinski9436 The main problem with the 40mm L/70 in a vehicle is that it's very high.
That's why in the Cv90 it's inverted and fed with a hydraulic loader from below !
But it also has the 3P programmer which can program the shells before they are fired to for instance pass through the top of a forest before activating the proximity fuze and hit a helicopter behind it.
If i remember correctly i think this is how the 35mm Oerlikon competitor approximates a proximity fuze they have an automated system that tells the shell when it is fire at which distance it is to blow up. Which means you need to predict the target location and have good range data.
@@AdurianJ True given the circumstances. The problem is that more places are armored against anything less than 30mm these days, and that is causing problems. Sure your average townhouse in Smalltown USA or Village Europe aren't going to be laughing off 25mm rounds, the situation is that most places AREN'T those locales and they've armored their buildings to resist most autocannons either due to conscious design decisions (basically everywhere NOT Europe or 1st World) or due to design requirements (skyscrapers). Add to the fact that the 'Griffin III' has 85+ degree elevation capability for its 50mm autocannon... that is telling on what is in for the future.
The 40mm sensor-frag round was pretty effective in doing its job (killing aircraft), and you can add HE rounds so you can better support the infantry. This very same system would be later used in the 'Trinity' prototypes which were essentially a LAV with a 40mm AA system slapped onto it.
How it is made - SPAAG: Shilka, Gepard, Tunguska
How it must NOT be made - Sgt. York
Type 87: Let me in, LET ME IN
We should have just bought a system from a foreign manufacturer.
@@richsmith4207 West German (NATO) Gepard entered service in '76.
Gun+missile Tunguska in '82, but that was Soviet.
ZSU-37-2 Yenisei (the Shilka's big brother) was everything the York wanted to be, except it worked 20 years earlier (in 1962). It didn't enter service due to the appearance of short range SAM's (Strela, Osa).
Dang, This a blast from the pass, we called it "DIVAD" as well. I helped build this machine 1980, it was govt trying to come up with a counter part to the Soviet ZDU-23
ZSU 23 & the ZSU 23-4 (ZEUS).
"What was news to me touched on our supposedly spectacular Sgt.York Anti-Aircraft gun. It says there when the Sgt.York proved incapable of hitting airplanes, we test fired it at hovering helicopters. When it failed to hit hovering helicopters, we fired it at stationary targets and it missed those."
"According to this: one missile locked on to a ventilation fan in the latrine! And destroyed the latrine. Were we testing firing at latrine's that day?"
Good ol' Pentagon Wars.
Underated comment.
@@danny.z5392 no, just a perpetuation of the BS that the Reformers keep spewing.
This was the reality:
Tom Farrier Retired USAF rescue helicopter pilot; current aviation safety contractor (UAS) said:
In 1982 I participated in both cooperative and non-cooperative tests at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland, flying an Air Force CH-3E helicopter against a Sergeant York. I would have been dead many times over had it been shooting live rounds at us instead of just video.
The Sergeant York was the front-runner in a program intended to provide the Army with a sorely needed “division air defense” (DIVAD) weapon system. It was based on a novel concept: re-purposing M48 Patton tank chassis’ with a new turret incorporating twin Swedish Bofors 40mm cannons and two radar systems - one for area surveillance (the rectangular antenna) and one for targeting (the conical antenna, an off-the-shelf application of the F-16′s radar).
A firing control system integrated the two radars, with on-board software prioritizing targets based on the threat they were assessed to pose to the system itself. (For the late ’70s /early ’80s, this was cosmic.) If the operator elected to allow the system to engage targets hands-off, it would slew the turret around at a nauseatingly rapid rate, taking on each in turn automatically.
On the next-to-last day of the test, my aircraft was joined by an Army AH-1 Cobra and OH-58 Kiowa and two Air Force A-10s. My H-3 was part of the test profile because its radar signature was essentially the same as that of an Mi-24 HIND assault helicopter of the day, which was heavily armed with both anti-tank missiles and rockets. We all converged on it simultaneously from about 6000 meters. My aircraft was the first to die, followed by the two A-10s, then the Cobra, and finally the Kiowa. It took less than 15 seconds to put plenty of hypothetical rounds into each of us.
I spent a depressing amount of that week watching myself get tracked and killed on video. Trying to “mask” behind anything other than rising terrain simply didn’t work; the DIVAD radar got a nice Doppler return off my rotor system if any part of it was within its line of sight, and it burned right through trees just fine. I couldn’t outrun or out-maneuver it laterally; when I moved, it tracked me. I left feeling pretty convinced that it was the Next Big Thing, especially since I’d come into the test pretty cocky thanks to having had a lot of (successful) exercise experience against current Army air defense systems.
So, what happened to the program itself? I think it was a combination of factors. First, the off-the-shelf concept was cool as far as it went, but the Patton design already was a quarter-century old; the DIVAD was awfully slow compared with the M1 Abrams tanks it was supposed to protect. It would have had a lot of trouble keeping up with the pack.
Second, The Atlantic Monthly published a really nasty article (bordering on a hatchet job) purporting to show the program was a complete failure and a ruinous waste of money. One of its most impressive bits of propaganda was an anecdote about a test where the system - on full automatic - took aim at a nearby trailer full of monitoring equipment. Paraphrasing, “It tracked and killed an exhaust fan,” chortled the author. (See The Gun That Shoots Fans for a recounting of this.)
Yeah, it did. It was designed to look for things that rotate (like helicopter main rotor systems) and prioritize them for prompt destruction. If any bad guys were on the battlefield in vehicles with unshrouded exhaust fans, they might have been blown away rather comprehensively. (My understanding at the time was that said fan was part of a rest room in one of the support vehicles and not a “latrine,” but why mess up a good narrative, right?)
To my knowledge, neither ventilated latrines nor RVs full of recording devices are part of a typical Army unit’s table of allowance, so I really doubt there was much of a fratricide threat there. However, the bottom line was that this particular piece of partisan reporting beat the crap out of a program that I believe the Army needed, but already was facing a few developmental issues, and helped hasten its cancellation.
(The New York Times opinion piece linked to above was equally laden with innuendo and assumptions. It made a fair point about possible anti-radiation attacks it might have invited… but there are radars on every battlefield, and there are means of controlling emissions. It compared a late-Fifties era Soviet system - the ZSU-23-4 - with one fully twenty years newer in design. It asserted that it couldn’t hit fixed-wing aircraft, which to my mind and personal observation was arrant nonsense. The only issue it raised that I agree with was possible NATO compatibility problems with the unique 40mm caliber shells the Sergeant York’s guns fired. Funny - the Times pontificated that it wouldn’t be cancelled, too. Oops.)
Third, the hydraulics that were used in the prototype were a 3000 psi system that really couldn’t handle the weight of the turret in its Awesome Hosing Things mode. One of the only times I actually got a score on the system was when I cheated; I deliberately exploited that vulnerability. I flew straight toward the system (which would have blown us out of the sky about twenty times over had I tried to do so for real) until directly over it, then tried to defeat the system from above.
If memory serves, the system specifications called for the guns to elevate to more than 85 degrees if something was coming up and over; it then would lower them quickly, slew the turret 180 degrees around, and raise the guns again to re-engage. It was supposed to be able to do that in perhaps ten seconds (but I’m here to tell you it did it a lot faster than that). So, I had my flight engineer tell me the moment the guns dropped, at which point I did a course reversal maneuver to try to catch it pointed the wrong way. What the video later showed was:
Helicopter flies over.
Traverse/re-acquire movement starts.
Helicopter initiated hammerhead turn (gorgeous, if I say so myself).
Guns started to elevate to re-engage.
Clunk. Guns fall helplessly down; DIVAD crew uses bad language.
The hydraulics hadn’t been able to support the multiple close-on, consecutive demands of movement in multiple axes and failed. Like I said, I cheated. The Army and the contractors already knew about this problem and were going to fit out production models with a 5000 psi system. That might have had some survivability issues of its own, but the Army was perfectly happy that we’d done what we did - it proved the test wasn’t rigged and underscored the need for the production change.
Finally, the Army itself honestly appraised the system based on its progress (and lack of progress) versus their requirements. Wikipedia provides a passage that encapsulates this end-game well: “The M247 OT&E Director, Jack Krings, stated the tests showed, ‘...the SGT YORK was not operationally effective in adequately protecting friendly forces during simulated combat, even though its inherent capabilities provided improvement over the current [General Electric] Vulcan gun system. The SGT YORK was not operationally suitable because of its low availability during the tests.’ ”
I guess I’m forced to conclude that the Sergeant York was a really good concept with some definite developmental flaws - some recognized and being dealt with, perhaps one or two that would have made it less than fully effective in its intended role - that was expensive enough for bad PR to help bring it down before it fully matured. The Army was under a lot of political pressure to get it fielded, but to their credit they decided not to potentially throw good money after bad.
On balance, a lot of the contemporaneous criticisms mounted against the M247 really don’t hold up very well over time. Short-range air defense currently is provided by the latest generation of the AN/MPQ-64F1 Improved Sentinel system. Radar emitting on the battlefield? Check. Target prioritization capabilities? Check. Towed (which equals “slow”) versus self-propelled? Check.
I’m glad we never wound up in the position of needing it but not having it. My personal judgment was and is that it probably could have wound up a heck of a lot more capable and useful than its developmental history might suggest, but its cancellation probably was justified given other acquisition priorities at the time.
Bottom line: I repeatedly flew a helicopter against it over the course of many hours of testing, including coming at it as unpredictably as I knew how, and it cleaned my clock pretty much every time.
I read that the 40mm barrels which were used, were old, worn, examples, and so were the M48 chasses. They made the York out of clunkers, literally. Also, the traverse was not fast, instead, it was so slow it invalidated the concept of quick tracking.
The York Concept was great: since "Dusters" (all SPAA, but the M19 and M42 in particular) were most often used against/for ground targets, why not armor them up? A quick traversing, quick firing, AA tank makes a better weapon for fast reaction to enemy soft targets (MG nests, Dragon Teams, RPG units, and the like), than slow traversing, big caliber, MBTs. But, again, the traverse was slow. Check your own clip. That traverse was the same as the M48, not some OP hydraulic supersystem. They set the shot up to make it look like it was "just right". Further, no maneuvering target was ever hit by a York. The RaDAR could not discern between low planes (like CAS planes and choppers) and Ground Clutter.
It was the coolest vehicle ever, concept-wise, but it was a pig in hardware form. Off the shelf is a ploy used by unscrupulous contractors to get past funding prejudice. Ford rooked the feds, scamming them with the "off the shelf" carrot. Like every other such "off the shelf" improvisation (the Curtis P-79 Eagle, and North American Rockwell HiMAT projects comes to mind) it would inevitably end up in a totally new aircraft using zero percent of existing components. Off the shelf is a ploy used by unscrupulous contractors to get past funding prejudice. It never works as planned.
The Cobra developed from Huey components is an exception, but that was in the middle of the Vietnam war and the project was done by a small in house engineering team with no outside interference.
It's amazing what can be accomplished when a program is below the radar of politicians, the bureaucrats and senior management.
That York program sounds like every other shed-made weapon project. But instead of a group of experienced and sane designer it now consists of clueless people slapping old stuff together without real thought.
@@casbot71 It's amazing what can be accomplished when a program is below the radar of politicians, the bureaucrats and senior management. - oh yeah, no doubt.
Your off your head..... If a company produced a..... I give up, humanity is lost! Fuck it your right i don't care
There were some other issues too. For example the Bofors they used were I believe the L43 variant (1.7 meter long barrel) which for the day was shite. There was an L60 and even an L70 variant available which would have given much higher muzzle velocity and therefore more accuracy at longer ranges. The L70 was near an extra 4 feet of barrel. To give you a vague idea the L43 was I think capable of giving you about 2100 fps muzzle velocity. The L70 which could use the updated ammunition gave more like 3400.
This thing tried to pull an ED-209 on the British and American Officers
'You have 20 seconds to comply!'
Quick - somebody throw a porta-potty on it!
Hilariously, Ford apparently tried to pull an OCP on the Army as well.
"We had a guaranteed military sale with Sergeant York! Renovation program, spare parts for twenty-five years - _who cares_ if it worked or not?!"
my inner Russian keeps thinking about a SPAAG with twin 152mm autocannons which projectiles are rocket propelled, filled with vodka and guided by Stalin
the7observer ZSU-23-4 not doing it for you?
152mm thermobaric or nuclear will do magic as aa, the only problem it might wipe out both the target and the thing it should protect 😁
@@andysw3 yes, it works, but hear me out.
*autoloading proximity fuzed 152 mm guns.*
The first incident skynet take over on the machine
Phased plasma SPAAG
On active duty at Ft Bliss 1984-1988. We hosted several social gatherings where West German Luftwaffe officers were in attendance. They looked at the SGT York system like "Are you really serious?!" The idea of using passive radar on a vehicle providing SHORAD support for maneuver units engaged in battle was to them ludicrous. When I explained to a FRG Lt. Colonel about the concept of the active radar also illuminating your own position, his response was classic. "Fire, put the radar into stand bye, and press the accelerator." He said the enemy already knows you are there, so you are not going to be static unless you are trying to get killed. He also wondered why we were not trying to put the gun system on the M1 Abrams chassis. He said if we had merged the Abrams chassis with the gun system off of the German Gephard (Cheetah) air defense, we could have had a game changer. I agreed with him. The problem was (and is), not made here syndrome. At this same time the New Mexico National Guard had an ADA unit equipped with the French Roland system. Contrary to what may have been said the Roland system was effective as hell for the NATO-Warsaw Pact scenarios. At this same time we were conducting exercises trying to prove that the HAWK missile system was a maneuver unit that could provide ADA coverage for NATO ground units. What we did find out was that even under the best of circumstances (Getting on site and having a missile ready in 90 minutes), we were either vulnerable to air attack or the Air/Land battle had passed us by. To this day the U.S does not have any equivalent of the German Gephard, French Roland or British Rapier systems.
"Mom! Mom! I want that anti-air defence!"
Mom: "But we already have anti-air defence at home, sweetie."
Anti-air defence at home:
It replaced a more capable system so it's like your mom threw away your money pokemon cards and got you yu-gi-oh cards to make up for it.
OK, this is what I do know... While attending an air show at Point Mugu Naval Air Station in about 1985, I saw a Sgt. York system on display. The display was attended by two Naval Aviators, involved in some manner with the system. I asked them about what was the real deal behind all the controversy.
One of the pilots commented "If I were flying, and became aware that there was one of these within 15 miles or so of my location, I would get the hell out of there, pronto."
I think the Army decided it did not want the Sgt. York after all, tried to blame the whole debacle on the contractors, and were guilty of sabotaging the system to cover their actions
At the end of the day, so they say, I believe the facts as told by the Naval Officers I spoke to, since they had nothing to gain or lose through hyperbole or naysaying.
Awww Point Mugu miss it
This sounds like the much needed Pentagon Wars 2.
Yes
The f35. Nuff said....
@@903strikerunit Part 3
Pentagon Wars made reference to the York somewhere in the first minutes I think.
@Luke L. development had plenty of problems. went far over budget, and is overpriced yet lacking in promised capability. its a joint strike fighter that isnt good as a striker and isnt good as a fighter. its isnt nearly as stealthy as the f22. can be detected by some current(and near future) sensors at bvr range. stealthy exhaust nozzles were designed with air combat in mind(thus bad stealth for strike missions). faceting and planform alignment isnt as stealthy as the f22, or even the x35 prototype. has poor kinematic capability. poor speed, poor acceleration, cannot supercruise, is not supermanoeuvrable. is not energy efficient too, therefore more fuel consumption, this is made worse by its small fuel capacity, thus you are forced to use drop tanks or aerial refuelling ALOT especially when carrying weapons. sensor capability is lacking. it has a small and weak radar and so bvr performance is lackluster. radar cannot be mechanically steered, so you are forced to use electronic beam steering only. very vulnerable to flanking attacks because of poor steering capability. its ELINT apertures are far fewer than on the f22. f35 will always be forced to rely on networking as its sensors are lacking compared to the f22, or even some gen4.5 fighters. it has poor payload, operational range, and overall striking capability. an f22, or an f15 silent eagle could, in theory outperform it in almost everyway. they would do well for strike missions, and also as fighters. do not underestimate the striking capability of a large high impact fighter that is stealthy at the same time. the f35 cannot perform strike missions safely against a sophisticated defender. the f35 will be forced to use stand off missiles as it isnt stealthy enough, and cannot penetrate deep into target territory. oh but long range stand off missiles are large, heavy, and expensive. the f35 will only be able to carry a few due to its low payload capability. on long campaigns, the f35 will drain the national budget because of its over reliance on stand off attacks. come to think of it. do we really need an f35? an upgraded f22 can do the job FAR better. an upgraded f15 and f16 can still remain relevant with stand off munitions and improved networking capability while being a cheaper option, as they are already available and dont need to be procured. instead of wasting money. wont it be better to make gen4.5 versions of our gen4s, and develop a gen6 that would supplement the f22? a new modern age of dogfights will come when stealth tech becomes more common and engagement ranges come closer and closer. most likely when gen6s come, the f35 will almost immediately become obsolete.
/
/
just kidding. the f35 is wonderful. lockheed and 1 million people say so, therefore it must be true. the f35 is a very good jet. it should not be on pentagon wars 3. countries want to buy the f35. they are totally not forced to buy it because they have invested money on it and have no other choice. if countries are buying it its a good jet. oh yeah, you can ignore all those totally fake reports about how countries are cutting down the number of f35s they want to purchase. its just russian propaganda.
Takes ford to screw up a Chrysler tank. ;)
Back when Chrysler was actually good. How times change.
@@Chopstorm. Sad but true. Imagine if Chrysler got the go ahead to make the TV-8?
Chopstorm Chrysler designed the M-1 and the turbine engine that powered it. Chrysler was forced to give up its defense division during a government bailout late 70’s early 80’s.
@@centurian318 Ok? What's your point.
Chopstorm Chrysler defense knew what they were doing, the military knew it and the government made them give up their defense side to keep from losing it if Chrysler went under.
The toilet destroyer?
Let’s shoot some shit up boys!, omfg I didn’t mean it literally you dinguses
Hey, someone’s gotta do it.
Worked North McGregor Range detail crew in '85 during the testing of the York and it's counterpart the Vulcan against all sorts of targets. Was effective against ground targets and at least one high speed jet propelled drone. The 7 on-board computers and complex systems made this more expensive than an M1 tank. It DID take out an outhouse on the left side of the range just after the 1SG had just used it, couldn't ID the rotary fan on the roof and in front of a gaggle of Politicians to boot. Program was cancelled just days before the first AIT was to start and we prepped and shipped them back to the manufacturer. The Hulls were given to the South Koreans with old 48 turrets.
"When the system was being demonstrate to American and British officers at Fort Bliss it would, upon activation, immediately swing its turret and target the present officers standing on the tribune".
The really worrying thing was the vehicle keeping on shouting "EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!".
You would make a good Dahlek.
OMFG, can't stop laughing 🤣
Lol
The tank was having a mental breakdown and wanted to destroy its creators
This is like a Poor man's gepard.
Should've produced the Gepard under license. A fine example of the U.S. defense industry reinventing the wheel, if it wasn't developed and built in the USA. Several executives probably got paid their $$$, anyway.
@Reverend Krieger Durden Tyler sr The missiles are superfluous. Oto has a radar guided 76mm round for AA/PD use.
Over two dozen of them were at the bombing range east of Fallon, NV in 1993. Some were converted for radio control from the range master who was near the 105mm marking howitzer.
The Shitter Shooter
I think it's nicknames were far more derogatory than "shitter shooter".
The Crapper Capper!
They should have just put a radar system on the M42 Duster
right
Actually the problem was that the chassis that the M42 Duster was built on, the M41 tank, had stopped being produced in 1954, and was designed in 1944. The engine was even older, as it was selected for this tank from older model tanks, so the engine was from 1941, and it was air-cooled and only got 4 MPG while producing 500 hp. When you bring a tank into combat, you don't just bring the tank, you bring its fuel, mechanics, spare parts, etc. They would have to keep a supply chain open just to keep the duster running. Compare this to the Avenger, built on the Hummer, shares the same spare parts and mechanic pool as the hummers its commonly deployed with.
1:40 "I dont need no steenkeen wings!!!" Forget the AA system, buy bunches of that bomber! Lol
Kind of hilarious to me that the “AA” units in the Advance Wars series are the spitting image of this failure...and in those games they can curb-stomp heavy bombers, let alone helicopters. Ah, nostalgia. 🤣
40 years later the US Army still has no AAA in service.
But the two largest airforces in the world are the US Air Force and the US Navy to compinsate
What about the deployed AN/TWQ-1 Avenger and MANPADS? To say t he Army has no AAA capability isn't exactly true. Then there is the Apache, which did shoot down helicopters in Iraq, and of course Air Force, USMC and Navy air assets. It's all about an integrated combat theater.
Don't really need it when you have air superiority.
@@Solar2go AAA is anti-aircraft artillery . We have no AAA.
@@Chironex_Fleckeri There's a whole army brand called Air Defense Artillery - PATRIOTS, THAAD, MANPADS, Bradley, Avenger w/ missiles and a modified .50 caliber for anti-aircraft fire. what more do you want?
When I platoon in armored warfare and my friends pick this vehicle, I only state they are a failure, we get a good laugh, thank you sir for the great and informative video!
Great video. You should do a similar one on the US Army's programmes regarding the Roland 2 and ADATS, both of which had similar outcomes, $Bns spent and nothing really to show for it.
Yes I do remember this fubar of a weapons system. Westinghouse was brought down by this fubar as well as other reasons.
When I was stationed at Ft Lewis, I heard a guy who crewed on one say "They couldn't hit the broad side of a barn if they were parked in it."
God watching this old 80's footage makes me wish we had more games in this era
"Truth is...the game was rigged from the start."
*misses*
Once again WOW! I knew about this vehicle actually built a model of it in 84, knew it had problems but you really opened up a can of worms with this video. Thanks!
Can you do a video about the ZSU-57-2. Please?
Great video!
A testament to the OUTMOST importance of good and reliable electronics in modern warfare!
Always awesome to see a vid from you Matt. I hope you've been doing well, and make sure to give your pup some headpats for me.
By the way, have you done a vid on the F-20 Tigershark yet?
When I was in AIT at Redstone Arsenal Alabama our student company had Sgt. York repair MOS trainees. Sgt. York repair training was cancelled while I was there and suddenly friends were 'out of a job'. Something they noticed about the system was how hot it got inside when the radar was on.
It’s funny how this thing was bad IRL but is a beast in war thunder
Bravo for this video! It hits home for me and my experiences in public service, and these stories need to be told, and retold.
Must see-movie: 'The Pentagon wars' - Its also mentioned there IIRC.
It was mentioned in the film.
As a military officer myself it is absolutely reprehensible that generals do those things, get away with it, then go work for those companies. I am embarrassed for the officer corps when that happens.
When the M-163 Vulcan and M-733 Chaparral makes better sense.
@Brian Coley exactly.
We should have upgraded the m163 pivads by adding stinger pods and maybe an upgraded chassis instead of using the m113 chassis maybe a different armored chassis and a new radar system
@@intelligentgrawlix794 THe problem is that the M163 has no search radar + the gun itself has a low effective range
@@dwwolf4636 yes but it is meant as a close in anti air weapon and yes the m163 has a range only radar it can be improved to have a track radar,and a new gun system,and adapting it would hold a gap before an improvement vehicle is made for close air defense, I did say before to improve the m163 not just keep it as is
I had a neighbor when I was a Recruiter in Cali who worked on this project. I remember it getting cancelled and him losing his job. I was baffled, it was built with mostly proven components.
I think the whole Sergeant York program was the inspiration for the dreadful Dudley Moore/Eddie Murphy film Best Defense.
I saw this at Armed Forces Day at Aberdeen Proving Ground in the early 80s. It looked very cool...until it stopped for the live fire demo...and we waited...and waited. Then the turret did a 360 and fired a couple multi second bursts downrange. The spent brass being thrown up and forward was cool, and I guess they hit he target. Afterward, we were able to snag two pieces of brass and talked with the crew. The general gist was that when it worked, it was amazing, but you often had to sacrifice a small farm animal to the gods for it to happen. There were just too many diverse systems that were never meant to work with each other for it to succeed. Their thought was to buy Gepard turrets for M-1 hulls.
I don’t know about that... there’s the ZSU-37
*Sgt. York enters fray*
*ZSU-23-4 Shilka*: "Moment, Comrade. Hold Vodka for me."
There are several of these in the Nevada Desert in the Navy's Dixie Valley Training Area. The area is currently open to the public and you can ride dirt bikes right up to the Sergeant Yorks and check them out. Pretty cool stuff. The Navy uses them as recon and spotting drills.
How effective was the General Dynamics XM 246 competitor?
Having the radar based on the Phalanx CIWS system sounds promising.
The only issues are that the chassis requirements were limiting and the _march of adversary technology*_ would render the concept obsolete - so in that respect maybe the Sgt York was the cheaper option in the long term as a effective working prototype that could have gone straight into production would have meant that more money would've been spent on rolling out mass production of a vehicle that would soon be missile bait. It's development hell gave enough time and opportunity for the program to be abandoned before full implementation.
As for the chassis, it would've made more sense to base it on the M1 Abrams, even if just for logistics in field, one less type of vehicle to keep spares and tooling for. It can share parts with the M1 and if the chassis part breaks down in an emergency a standard M1 can be scavenged for spares, either one that's knocked out, or even sacrificing a working tank (from among many) to keep their vital AA cover mobile.
It would cost more in construction than using old tank chassis, but in field and just support it would pay for itself.
And using the M1 would have given it more speed and more weight capacity to work with, reducing the compromises that were needed to keep it under the limits imposed by the smaller Patton chassis.
Would a M1 fitted with a Phalanx system have worked? Could a Phalanx (or even a striped down version) fit on a M1?
*It seems a fixture of US military thought that they never expect their adversaries to have the brains to develop counters, even though they have a long warning period due to the public nature of development.
"They Yankees are producing a mobile AA gun with these cannons fitted - design a missile to kill it a outside it's firing range"
[And IMHO Russia and China have been going all in for F-35 killers for at least a decade, _very long range_ infrared detection and missiles, and radars and tactics to counter them.]
It was a phalanx fire control with twin 35mm nato standard guns so it probably would have been more effective seeing as how the radar came from an actual ground to air weapon system rather then an F-16
The point if a layered defense system is that a missile that outranges AAA doesn't outrange SAMs.
I was a commander of a PRTL (dutch gehpart) in 1994, this system worked very well also firing 600/min but 35mm
very impressive seeing a 47ton tank 'recoil' when firing a burst of 10/11 shots which are halfway to the target before the empty cartridges hit the ground..
Ahhh yes classic ford, this vehicle DEFINITELY sounds like it was made by ford “reliability problems, leaky hydraulic systems and problems with starting in the cold 🥶 “ 😂😂 yupp it’s definitely a Ford
FORD
Fix
Or
Repair
Daily
Is that American Ford?
SHOCKTROOPER115 I have never heard of those problems with ford granted I live in Canada and I only ever see there pick ups
Yep, I've been driving my Ford from Ford UK for, what, 11 years?
Faults so far:
1) The cruise control brake detection switch broke
2) A brake caliper seized
3) "1" and "2" don't work on the blower anymore
Only the brake caliper ever stopped me getting anywhere (home) and RAC just opened it, disconnected it and I limped home.
Water got in the electrics after severe flooding and flattened the battery, again, RAC start.
It's as reliable as a brick.
@@richarddavies7127
Found
On the
Road
Dead
Officers: Ahh thats the new anti air system!
M247 Sergeant York: Hasta la vista baby!
I remember these things! What a boondoggle! These got pushed out during the good old days when the Pentagon was spending $10,000 hammers and $200 toilet seats lol.
wasnt the airforce caught paying 5k for cups not long ago?
@@jimboblordofeskimos $1280.
@@Motorman2112 thats one of those jokes that is just sad.
Also happens to be very close to the annual wage in afganistan.
Badum tish.
Research the $10k toilet seat and. The $200 hammer before blindly spewing the propaganda, first was Congress driven and the second by a specific energy requirement to hit a pin on a weapon, for an armorer tool kit.
One of these units ended up with the Navy at NAS Pt. Mugu, California. Stripped of guns it did a great job tracking missiles at the Pacific Missile Range. I remember reading about it in the base newspaper back in the early eighties.
Basically watch the movie "Pentagon Wars"
The Military-Industrial complex and Military officials making a quick buck by risking the lives of soldiers.
@Robin Nilsson yup.
Don't the main character in real life was full of himself he had a plan for something called a blitz fighter essentially a more antiquated a10 that lacked radar and missles and would fly at treetop level to kill tanks with its 30mm in short his plan never would have worked he also intended to install blow out panels on the bradley (which considering they would have had to be mounted on the side would have failed spectacularly) he also wanted the fuel to be stored on the exterior which led to it getting "zapped by artillery" he also campaigned for live fire tests on everything from tanks to navel destroyers and carriers he literally wanted to launch ballistic missles at navy ships
This feels like if you took the M14 in its Assault Rifle years and somehow make it worse, like a automatic Garand that sometimes eject the entire ammunition without a chance to fire it all out.
Should do a video about the Bradley Linebacker
Sounds like the Austin Marina of years ago, a car made of in-stock parts, as a friend once said, "The operation was successful, but the patient died".
Well it was able to track a toilet fan!?! There was some potential. 😁
I know someone that worked on the radar aspect of this project. He said the advancements in helicopter anti-tank weapons basically made it obsolete long before this could be fielded, but overall it was a fun project to work on.
The US version of the Roland was also a joke. The Germans put it in a Marder chassis, and ours was on a massively overpriced 8-ton truck.
We had two versions. One was also on a truck.
I was in the US Infantry Officers Basic Course in the 80's when they showed us the promo clip of the Sergeant York. We were thinking we wouldn't need infantry anymore because this thing did everything for us.
Sergeant York was a Great man and one of my role models this Vehicle is not
@chris younts That wasn't his forte!!
And now, three or four of the chassis are at Sandia National Labs being used as tractors. Except for the one that fell down the side of a mountain. It is still stuck on the mountainside.
The Real Pentagon Wars.
I mean, the Pentagon Wars is pretty much fact based as well, read about the development of the Bradley. The only difference is that Bradley was forced through despite all its shortcomings and eventually became a somewhat decent platform.
Very informative video! Great watch. Sad that things go as they go even within the military. You would think they want the best equipment, but sadly corruption is everywhere.
4:15 is that a cat stalking the sgt york on the top left??
More than a match I would say
When I was in Germany in 84-86 we were in the process of transitioning from the Vulcan to the York, they were constructing buildings and everything but left for Ft. Jackson before complete and heard it got phased out
The Cv90 uses a 40mm L/70 and has an anti aircraft version.
It only has a search radar though and uses the Thermal sight and laser to "lock on"
I mean, CV90 can use anything from 25mm chain gun to a 40mm CTAS I believe...Only one nation put the Bofors 40mm L/70 on it, right?Norway I think?
@@Wanys123 Norway uses 30mm Bushmaster II's on their CV9030's (as indicated by the 30 appended to the designation)
@@steffennilsen2132 So not Norway, got it cheers. There is one of the nordic nations that has the L/70 Bofors on... Dutch have 35mil, Estonians have 30mil I think....pretty sure it's not Sweden either...so Denmark?
@@Wanys123 Well Sweden does field 40mm Bofors cannons on their cv90's, I just wasnt sure if it was the L70, but according to wikipedia thats the case. Denmark uses 35mm bushmaster III's on theirs.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Vehicle_90#Variants
All CV9040s have AA capacity. The SPAA version has a search radar and a lock on radar.
That was a fantastic run down on a very troubled Defense program. As a kid in the 1980's I was excited to see the 'York succeed, but it was a penultimate "Pork Barrel Boondoggle" Extraordinaire. So many things that should have worked didn't. I didn't know about it targeting the observers. That is hilarious! I can only imagine the feeling of staring down live twin 40mm Bofors...can we say "Instant Bowel Evacuation!" 😳Great story! Keep up the great work!
Yep, that's one screw up the US Army will have a LONG time to live down.
The MBT70 is one for the history books too....
You should make a video about the Greek A/A system Artemis30 a total failure of the 80s that ended up only in twin 30mm antiaircraft cannons
Nice Warthunder footage
I remember quite well the demonstration in front of the public and army officers in the early 80's.
I was so interested because I had just watched "Sergeant York" with my dad, and thought this would be really cool.
I also remember CBS news doing a story about it that evening and about how bad it really was.
You couldn't measure the embarrassment for the U.S. Army on that night.
"millimeters in calibre"
No. Calibre is a unit itself, not a description. Millimeters OR calibre.
Commissioned Officers: exist
M247 'Sergeant York': *_[TARGET ACQUIRED]_*
You all need to watch a movie called Pentagon Wars, funny and more truth than fiction.
Hilariously part is that the Bradley went on to be the most deadly vehicle of the US army (in both kills and being Friendly fired).
It becomes even more hilarious as they finally found a possible replacement for the M113....... a turretless Bradley, and thus the development cycle has come full circle
George C. Scott yelled at Peter sellers in "Dr. Strangelove":
"You can't fight in here! This is the war room!"
@@crocidile90 the Bradley started out looking like a m113, it didn't have a turret. They added all that bullshit on and ruined what could have been a good " battlefield taxi".
Back in the early 80's when I was stationed at Fort Bliss as a 19D assigned to L Troop 3/3 ACR, I was on the support detail for the SGT. York. I remember the Ford Aerospace Engineers sitting in their air conditioned vans while the system was being tested on the range. And I remember watching failure after failure on the range, no aerial targets were hit and the engineers laughing about it. It was junk from the start and Ford Aerospace new from day one. But it was fun to watch. Scouts Out!!!
This is material for Pentagon wars 2
My first engineering job (still in school) was working on the XM246 program (test) at General Dynamics Pomona Division. Still have a dummy 35mm round. We thought we had it in the bag. Near as we were told, it really came down to GD already having a huge slice of the US defense budget pie (subs, F-16, Phalanx, Sparrow, Standard, Stinger, etc.) and Ford needed the business. Production units were planned to use M60 chassis as they were about to be very cheaply available.
Waste of money? You have watched The Pentagon Wars right? Lol
Yo that's hilarious man that's like something out of a movie the damn thing tried to target a porta potty while everybody is watching, waiting to be impressed
Ah back during the age when America at least tried to have AA 😆
TheBigManUno Google Stryker shored. I built it
Who needs AA when you own the skies?
@@dazedandconfusedstacker9923 yeah the concepts been around for ages. Don't think it's actually in production though?
TheBigManUno it will be in a few months. It’s got a 30mm auto cannon, and can hold a combination of hellfires, sidwinders, or stingers. It s mounted on a Stryker A1 chassis . In final acceptance testing, should be fielded before this time next year. We fielded a 30 mm Stryker in 18 months from signing to delivery production
Great video, I have the Tamiya kit and will have a look to get it build. The Dutch army used the Prtl a modified German Gepard that would be much cheaper than this waste of money.
Sounds almost like Bethesda and Todd Howard for now, dunno if they will continue to themself in the foot or not
We wanted out own Flakpanzer Gepard, and as you pointed out, instead of getting the better vehicle or buying the Gepard, we had people who wanted a post Army well paying job. I was in the Army during this time and we couldn't believe the absurdity of this program.
Reminds me of the F35 today!
@Andy the Malevolent I believe what he means to reference is how the F-35 was almost a failure.
Andy the Malevolent “combat”. Oh yeah.
In a nutshell: M247 is the one guy in the squad who's always on edge, whenever he hears something odd he just fires wildly in that direction.
I remember seeing a couple of these platforms in a motorpool at Redstone Arsenal in the mid-80s. I think they made a bunch for the instructors to learn on.
Sweet! You got some pics of the one at Camp Robinson. I used to work there.
I was in the Army when this thing first came out, it was my understanding at the time that it used an M-60 chassis not an M-48. Instead of using off the shelf items they should have had the thing designed from the ground up.
Matsimus, Did you ever come across a Quora post from a test pilot that flew against this thing? He had a very different (And fairly popular) Opinion on the york.