5 ms·
As programmers we are well trained to find the source of a problem, not treating the symptoms. The source problem is a lack of fire support for troops. This doe
by GarvielLoken 8y ago
As programmers we are well trained to find the source of a problem, not treating the symptoms. The source problem is a lack of fire support for troops. This does not require an airborne weapon platform, fire support can be delivered by cannon and rocket artillery. And coincidentally this area is lacking in the US armed forces.
The Paladin is based on a chassi from like the early 1960s and can only do three rounds per minute or one round per minute sustained up to 22km. In comparison the Panzerhaubitze 2000 that can fire 10-13 rounds a minute continuously up to 30km. The 2016 Russian 2S35 Koalitsiya-SV can do 16 rounds per minute up to 40km, even the older 2S19 "Msta-S" manages 6-8 rounds per minute up to 24km. Not to mention the modern wheeled based systems like the Archer or the CAESAR which would be ideal for rapid redeployment against threats in a low intensity conflict.
And then we have rocket artillery systems, here the USA actually have a modern piece that is good in low intensity warfare, the M142 HIMARS. But compared to the Russians the US basically doesn't have any long range rocket artillery systems available for fire support.
But if you insist on having a CAS platform then forget about the A-10. Ask the Russians if you can buy some SU-25 Frogfoots. It's the best CAS in the world.
- dmurray 8y agoIs rate of fire really a blocker for US artillery? Can't they just bring more guns?
- GarvielLoken 8y ago1 rpm sustained fire is extremely low. That's like a magnitude worse than the other modern alternatives. All others also fire atleast twice as fast and for almost 150% of the distance. Also sense the gun is that bad it creates a self reinforcing effect, why would you want more of it if it's bad?
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago>Ask the Russians if you can buy some SU-25 Frogfoots. It's the best CAS in the world. \laughs in CIA supplied MANPADS\
- GarvielLoken 8y agoHaha! It's a good joke. Don't know why you are being downvoted. Now the other guy could could afford to get some of those downvotes instead.
- greedo 8y agoSustained rate of fire isn't as important as you've implied. First off, you'll either burn out your barrel, or run out of ammo. Two, most fire missions in high intensity combat will be shoot and scoot, where each system fires 2-3 rounds then moves to a secondary fire position to avoid counterbattery fires. In low intensity combat situations where relocation isn't a requirement (Iraq/Afghan), firing rate is completely unimportant. And you're also ignoring ATACMS. HIMARS is nice for the Marines, but ATACMS is great for high intensity warfare. And the SU-25? Junk. It wouldn't survive 30 minutes against anyone with a decent AD (though neither would the A-10). Everyone underestimates how lethal modern combat will be against any and all aircraft.