December 30, 2021
What's Better for Anti-air Defense: Missiles or Guns?
Each come with their own costs and benefits.
by Charlie Gao
Here's What You Need to Know: While missiles are great for keeping things light and mobile, there may be issues with going to completely missiles.
During the Cold War, short-range air defense (SHORAD) was dominated by gun-based vehicles. From the German Gepard to the American VADS to the Soviet Shilka, rapid fire autocannons were the preferred method of taking down helicopters and aircraft at close range.
This started to change near the end of the Cold War, with anti-air missiles being added onto these platforms to increase their flexibility and lethality in combat. Some systems like the American M1097 Avenger downgraded the gun into a secondary weapon, mounting only a single rapid-firing .50 cal machine gun while mounting racks for eight stinger missiles. Others simply added on additional rockets onto existing systems, such as the Gepard A1 in the Bundeswehr. Some were designed from the outset to be excellent at both: the Soviet Tunguska mounted two twin thirty-millimeter cannons, an upgrade from the Shilka, as well as an excellent missile system.
\https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/whats-better-anti-air-defense-missiles-or-guns-198742
