So they only used the bombs when it was a factor of outright
survival--understandable IMO.

Still hardly a persuasive argument why the guns are indispensible. Why
wasn't 20mm able to adequately suppress, deter or destroy the enemy?

Large dispersion from long slant range by crews who hadn't strafed since the
F-15E school house. That isn't the only reason, but it goes a long way
towards understanding why the strafe passes didn't work so well.

APKWS is currently planned for use only on rotary assets, beginning in
2006
IIRC.

Again, is that because it is physically impossible to adapt it or
develop something similar? Has analysis shown that it would be
ineffective? Or is it "not in the plan, we just strafe for danger
close"?

Who is to say whether it will be employed on fixed-wing aircraft. 2006
isn't here yet.

You seem to forget that the min
separation factor for 20mm is *25 meters*

Which tells you much about its lethality, no?

No, it doesn't. With the dispersion rate of a group of 20mm rounds, you
have a lot higher likelihood of hitting what your aiming at and minimizing
collateral damage. Bombs can get ugly in a hurry with troops in contact,
hence the much larger radius of .1% probability of incompacitation of troops
farther from the bomb impact.

, while for bombs that minimum
jumps to between 145 and 500 meters (depending upon whether you are in a
protected or open position).

And those are the only options that can be considered?

What do you suggest? Since this discussion has digressed from best dogfight
gun to why you need (or don't need) a gun for close air support, I'd love to
hear what you have to say about the A-10 and pilots who practice with their
gun for CAS on almost every sortie.