In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

If "lack of guns" is the real problem, surely gun-armed fighters are
a complete and satisfactory answer?

It's not a simple question of "lack of guns."

It's "relying on missiles 100% and not having guns when they're really
bloody useful."

In other words, guns solve the problem?

They don't "solve the problem," they give you another tool to solve any
of a number of problems. Like shooting down enemy planes, shooting down
enemy UAVs without firing off missiles that you might need later, or
shooting at things on the ground.

Not according to the facts they
don't: in fact they're pretty damn marginal (and not cheap either).

Still a contention not proven. Your "facts" so far have been "guns are
useless, so there."

We learned that lesson over 30 years ago,

And of course, nothing has changed since then. (Well, the M61 hasn't...)

And neither has the Mauser, or any of the other major guns. Or the
problems they can be used to solve.

Once the missiles have demonstrated ~80% lethality in actual combat
against real enemies doing their best to survive, then perhaps there's
more evidence to support the analysis. Oh, I forget - they did that
twenty-one years ago.

What major war did we fight in 1982?

Maybe you're thinking *31* years ago, in which case you yourself noted
that the Sidewinder only manage a bit less than 50%, and the
radar-guided missiles didn't manage near that much.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.