Comments by "" (@RedXlV) on "Are conventional Anti-Aircraft guns obsolete in modern warfare?" video.

  1. With regards to engagement range, that's why I don't understand how nobody ever bought OTOMATIC or DRACO to supplement the smaller autocannons. A OTO Melara Super Rapid on a tank or 8x8 armored car chassis can go anywhere you need SPAA, while having about double the effective range of the smaller guns and a much larger blast radius. You lose out on rate of fire and ammo capacity, but that's why you'd have it in a mix with a larger number of (probably about a 3 to 1 ratio) of 35mm Oerlikon or 40mm Bofors vehicles. For drone swarms, it could whittle down the numbers by detonating shells in the middle of the swarm 8km away, then the faster-firing guns start wiping out the remnants as they get closer. And in the counter-insurgency warfare that's so common now, they'd be equally valid for shooting down individual IED-carrying suicide drones or demolishing concrete structures to support infantry. And against helicopters, again the superior range would be beneficial. Most AA guns don't have reach anywhere near as long as a helicopter-launched ATGM (hence guns normally being secondary to missiles when it comes to taking down helicopters). An OTO Melara 76mm gun does.
    2
  2. Retiring the Vulcan should've involved replacing it with even more reach, like the GAU-8/A Avenger. I'd have gone for basically a land-based Goalkeeper. Incidentally, China has recently done exactly that with their copy of Goalkeeper. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_730_CIWS#/media/File:HQ-6A_Air_defense_artillery_20170902.jpg
    1