The US actually does have something comparable to the Shilka. It's arguably better in fact, but for some reason it's being phased out with no direct replacement, and they never made as many as they made Shilkas.
The VADs is an M113 with a 20mm Vulcan and radar mounted on top, and seems like it should have been made a core part of US Army doctrine, but never was. Probably because missiles more expensive and make defense contractors more money.
I don't think the VADs is really comparable to the shilka in armament or performance. The ZSU-23 guns have more than twice the range and as far as I'm aware the Vulcan on the VADs is not radar aimed. Plus it's built on the M113 chassis, which is a terrible all around vehicle.
The Shilka also has a descendent in the Tunguska, which has much longer gun range and missiles was well, and again I'm not aware of a vehicle that fills a similar role in the current US armory. America seems extremely confidant that it will gain 100% aerial dominance, and otherwise relies on missiles.
The m113 is a fine vehicle. It's dated now, but it's perfectly good at what it does. It's basically a more capable, lightly armored truck.
I was not aware of the Vulcans shorter range compared to the Shilka, the ballistics on the round make it look like it should be about the same, maybe slightly better. Although it is a lighter round.
The point is, as a sort of quickly thrown together thing it looks pretty good on paper. The US Army should have developed it further, made a better replacement with a purpose built chassis like the Shilka, as they already had something comparable to see the utility and figure out what they would want in a replacement. But instead they abandoned the whole concept for expensive missile carriers, which seems like a huge waste to me.
The US actually does have something comparable to the Shilka. It's arguably better in fact, but for some reason it's being phased out with no direct replacement, and they never made as many as they made Shilkas.
The VADs is an M113 with a 20mm Vulcan and radar mounted on top, and seems like it should have been made a core part of US Army doctrine, but never was. Probably because missiles more expensive and make defense contractors more money.
I don't think the VADs is really comparable to the shilka in armament or performance. The ZSU-23 guns have more than twice the range and as far as I'm aware the Vulcan on the VADs is not radar aimed. Plus it's built on the M113 chassis, which is a terrible all around vehicle.
The Shilka also has a descendent in the Tunguska, which has much longer gun range and missiles was well, and again I'm not aware of a vehicle that fills a similar role in the current US armory. America seems extremely confidant that it will gain 100% aerial dominance, and otherwise relies on missiles.
The m113 is a fine vehicle. It's dated now, but it's perfectly good at what it does. It's basically a more capable, lightly armored truck.
I was not aware of the Vulcans shorter range compared to the Shilka, the ballistics on the round make it look like it should be about the same, maybe slightly better. Although it is a lighter round.
The point is, as a sort of quickly thrown together thing it looks pretty good on paper. The US Army should have developed it further, made a better replacement with a purpose built chassis like the Shilka, as they already had something comparable to see the utility and figure out what they would want in a replacement. But instead they abandoned the whole concept for expensive missile carriers, which seems like a huge waste to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker#SHORAD
I guess this thing is the interim stopgap air defense platform.