Jophiel wrote:
Well, a theoretical need for the capacity. Really, you could shelve it and just play the odds. Chances are we won't need to blow up an armored column in the next X years. If the dice roll against us and we need to do so, we still can, even if it costs more. Either way, tanks will blow up. So you weigh a 70% chance of saving $X versus the 30% chance of needing to spend $X+$Y. Percentages completely made up, of course.
Well, it's "attack a ground based target in the next X years" rather than specifically armored columns. Basically anything thats not a large bunker
Timelordwho wrote:
You keep trying to replicate the warthog, mounting GAUs onto illfiting platforms.
If the goal is to drop armor collumns you could build a drone that mounts a recoiless rifle, and fairly cheaply have a force of them to rip up heavy armor. Prefferably you'd make them modular so you could swap them from scout, anti-tank and anti-infantry roles.
So, trade 1,500 shots per weapon for a single shot tube? The GAU-8/A is an incredably effective weapons platform, with a low failure rate, it works well, it's cheap to manufacture, and we already have lots and lots of parts for them. It, along with the armor is the primary reason the A-10 is the most effective ground attack aircraft we have ever built. Sure you can slap the entire missile load of an A-10 onto an F-16 or a F-35, but the gun is what makes it effective. Recoilless rifles are not really reloadable mid air at this point. You could probably design one that would work, but it doesn't exist today.
PunkFloyd, King of Bards wrote:
The real reason behind the obsolescence is because if they continue to make them they will have to have airbags and anti-lock brakes.
And Seat belts!