安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
The A-10 was, literally, built around the cannon.
However, in the modern battlespace, it is safer for the aircraft to engage targets from altitude, since COIN operations usually do not include an opposing air force; but does include MANPAD threats.
You can't say "it's not useful" and then give an example of how useful it is. :P
Would be interested in a source for that.
It might not outright kill tanks the way it would a T-60 from 0,6 slant range. But you don't have to kill what's inside the tank, really - you can put them out of business none the less.
But do remember that there is no dichotomy between just Battle tanks and Technicals. There's a LOT of stuff in between, including armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles and so on - and those things are still very much susceptible to 30mm love , and there's a lot more of them too. And the difference between the guns is considerable:
PGU-14 API (GAU-8 API round)
Ek = ½ 0,395 * 1 070²
Ek = ½ 0,395 * 1 144 900
Ek = ½ 452 235,5
Ek = 226 117,75 Joules
M53 API (M61 API round)
Ek = ½ 0,1 * 1050²
Ek = ½ 0,1 * 1 102 500
Ek = ½ 110 250
Ek = 55 125 Joules
Said IFV's and APC's are more likely to be in close contact with your forces than battle tanks, too.
Now, on the question of whether the GAU-8 is "better enough" to defend itself on it's own, so to speak? Probably not - it cannot, alone defend keeping the plane in service. Sure. But I would more likely suspect that the problem isn't so much that the gun itself is "obsolete" against armored vehicles, more that a "serious" opponent (say, US vs Russia or China) would have considerably more MANPAD assets embedded than would insurgents.
But given what the US has been fighting since the wall came down, there does still appear to be a job for it - especially given it's superb loitering abilities and lower speeds, making it easier to lay down accurate fires.
These things tend to always be about more than just the aircraft itself, though. There is all the stuff with simplifying logistics, spare parts etcetera etcetera that might make it desirable to replace it with something else purely on a cost-saving consideration - or even without cost-savings, simply just simplifying the supply chain which might itself be desirable; especially when operating counter-insurgency in foreign territory with extended supply lines.
I do suspect there simply is no final word on it - at least not without having insight into the details of supply chains, costs, tests performed (that might be secret in the case of tests against new armor types) etcetera.