4 ms·
And the purpose of that gun is no longer valid as it won't take out modern tanks. Also if you are fighting modern tanks you would get shot down by MANPADS. The
by cc81 7y ago
And the purpose of that gun is no longer valid as it won't take out modern tanks. Also if you are fighting modern tanks you would get shot down by MANPADS.
There is a reason why CIA never seemed to give away anti-aircraft weapons while they throw anti-tank weapons at Syrian rebels. Despite manpads would be so valuable against the old Syrian air force.
- burfog 7y agoWith current ammunition the gun will not quickly and reliably take out modern tanks. Guided ammunition has been done for 12.7 mm ammunition. The A-10 carries 30 mm ammunition, so it would be no problem to supply it with guided ammunition. Mission kill can be achieved by splitting a tread, pitting the surfaces of the sensor lenses, or ripping off an antenna. Even the most modern armor will fail when repeatedly hit. MANPADS are not a serious threat. That is just FUD.
- greedo 7y agoFUD? Tell that to the VVS squadrons flying SU-25s in Afghanistan. These were extremely robust aircraft similar in many ways to the A-10. Facing the Stinger, they had high casualties, forcing them to bomb from higher altitudes and use PGMs instead of strafing and dumb bomb attacks. This was 36 years ago. MANPADs have gotten better in this period.
- burfog 7y agoOne was taken down by 12.7 mm ammunition. Clearly the Su-25 was not an extremely robust aircraft. It even has turbojets (hotter exhaust than turbofans) that are completely visible from the ground. A bit of armor around the pilot doesn't make an aircraft equivalent to an A-10.