"Tony Williams" wrote in message
m...
Since this bit of the thread has drifted into whether or not a gun
should be fitted at all, these are my thoughts on the matter, from
'Flying Guns: the Modern Era' by Emmanuel Gustin and myself, due to be
published in March next year. First, in air-to-air use:

snip good analysis and summary

This trend is aided by the continued development of air-to-surface
missiles, with the latest ones having autonomous homing systems to
provide "fire and forget" capability over long ranges. Another current
development is the GD Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System, which
aims to achieve low-cost accuracy by fitted a laser homer to the
little 2.75 inch (70 mm) rocket. The target is to achieve a CEP of 1 -
2 m at ranges of up to 5 - 6 km at a price of US$ 8 - 10,000;
one-sixth the cost of a Hellfire anti-tank missile.

To nitpick, APKWS is not currently slated for use on fixed wing assets--it
is an Army program intended for use on helos only. Even if it were adopted
for fixed wing use, it still leaves the problem of having to identify the
need for its load-out ahead of time (i.e., pre-ATO cycle). The beauty of the
internal gun on these airframes is that it is an asset that is always
available, regardless of the external loadout, so the grunts who are forced
to make an immediate (or "Oh, ****...") CAS request can count on at least
having that strafe support available if/when things go to hell in a
handbasket. That (immediate missions as opposed to pre-planned) is the kind
of mission that this capability will be critical to--if we are *planning* to
get into a "knife-fight" on the ground, other than in the urban fight, then
we have probably already screwed up big-time.


However, not all conflicts involve front-line opposition; in fact,
armed forces are now commonly engaged on police work, frequently
dealing with guerrilla forces. In these circumstances, rockets and
missiles may represent an inappropriate degree of destruction, with a
high risk of collateral damage. The RAF was embarrassed during
operations against insurgents in Sierra Leone in 2000 to find that
they had no suitable weapon for their gunless Harrier GR.7 aircraft to
attack small groups of rebels operating close to innocent civilians.
Another advantage of using cannon was demonstrated in the invasion of
Afghanistan in 2002. During an intense infantry battle at Takur Ghar
in late May, in which US forces were ambushed and in considerable
danger, air support was called for. The AC-130 was not permitted to
intervene in daylight due to its vulnerability, so USAF fighters were
sent to help. For a part of the battle the Afghan combatants were too
close to the Americans for rockets or bombs to be used, so the
fighters - F-16s and even F-15s - went in strafing with their 20 mm
cannon, as did the Navy's F-14s and F/A-18s on other occasions. Even
RAF Tornadoes were reported to have carried out gun strafing runs on
at least one occasion. It may logically be argued that it is foolish
to risk an extremely expensive aircraft, with its expensively trained
pilot, to being lost due to very low-tech ground fire, but sometimes
the risk needs to be taken to save friendly lives."

Exactly.

Brooks


The case rests...

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/