"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
I hate to be contrarian... all right, I don't. I _like_ being
contrarian. Lessons from the past suggest that getting missiles working
and crews trained is a better path to dead enemies for air-to-air work.
Air-to-ground, guns pull you into IR-SAM range and even for A-10s that
isn't healthy.

Paul, doing away with a tool from your kit without a compelling reason to
do
so, along with having a danged foolproof method of handling the
situations
that said tool could handle, is unwise.

Sure, but insisting on keeping kit because it used to be essential and
still might be useful is equally risky: especially when it can't be
jettisoned.

And I suppose designing that feature in and then doing away with it because
of its (relatively slight) increase in unit cost, as was done with the RAF
Typhoon, is not risky?


As to air-to-ground use, I believe
the resident Strike Eagle driver has already provided a reason for
retaining
a strafe capability, i.e., recent operations in Afghanistan. During
Anaconda
the need for up-close-and-personal support (read that as well within the
danger-close margin) was reported. You can't *always* use your LGB's or
JDAM's, which is why the grunts liked the cannon armed aircraft during
that
fight.

Are there no gun pods? This has always been a capability that can be
bolted onto aircraft as necessary.

Let's see, which would I rather have orbiting about in the CAS stack,
aircraft that are capable of both without requiring special ordinance
request, or a requirement for the FSE and ALO to put their heads together
and route a request for such specialized ordnance to be fitted...? I believe
the former wins.


Yes, it brings the air in within MANPADS range--but that is a risk
those guys are willing to accept when the fight on the ground gets hairy
(and thank goodness for that). Arguing that they can't (or never should)
face such a risk is a bit illogical--if all services followed that
thought
process, we'd stop issuing rifles to infantrymen because in order to use
one
you have to close to within the effective range of the other guy's
weapons.

More like issuing lances to tankers so they can run down enemy
soldiers...

No, you were arguing that use of the gun is dumb because it brings the CAS
platform down lower into the MANPADS envelope. That is not something we
would prefer to have happen, but when the situation requires it, the risk
may have to be accepted. If you are going to argue the necessity of CAS
*always* staying outside the bad guys response envelope, then the "can't
issue rifles to grunts because they will have to get within the bad guy's
engagement range" is the groundpounder's equivalent solution. Neither of
them makes much sense to me.


Sure, just as a modern bayonet is a miserable weapon compared to a
Light
Infantry sword (a proper sword that just happened to have fittings to
mount onto a Baker rifle... beat _that_ for close quarters combat!
Other
than by eschewing melee and throwing in a grenade, or shooting the
enemy, or otherwise cheating...)

One 2Lt Patton wrote the US Army's last swordsmanship manual... doesn't
make swords a useful weapon, whatever the advantages his technique had
over the enemy's _code duello_, if you find yourself trying to use a
sabre against an enemy with a pistol (or, worse, an enemy luring you
into the beaten zone of a machinegun)

But there are tasks for which that bayonet is oh-so-much better than say,
an
M16A2 with state-of-the-art night optics.

True, but how much does a bayonet weigh and what else can you use it
for? I notice that while the bayonet I was issued for use with L1A1 was
strictly and firmly only for fixing to the muzzle and jabbing enemy
with... probing for mines was a grudgingly acceptable alternative. But
Nothing Else! Hence even when I was issued a bayonet I at least had a
good lock knife for utility task.

The other allowable uses of a good stout sharp knife have grown
steadily: I was always amused that the cheap copy of a K-Bar I carried
on my webbing was much mocked at the start of an exercise and much
demanded by the end. Now, bayonets are having their utility as tools
rated as important as their ability to become improvised spears.


But the knife bayonet is a small, light, handy item that can replace
what a soldier would carry anyway (not many of us carried knives to
fight with, certainly not in peacetime, and I'd certainly not have
bothered with both bayonet and K-bar-clone). The analogy for air combat
is nearer to a full-size sword, lance or pike: a large, hefty item that
weighs as much as several magazines for your rifle or a day or two's
rations, even if it's more lethal in hand-to-hand combat.

And can you _guarantee_ that soldiers will never find themselves in
close-quarter battle? Would you have them carry puny knives, or would
you give them mighty swords, spears and/or axes to smite their foes with
as a permanent addition to their CEFO? Okay, they don't fight like that
too often... and it's more weight for them to carry... but there will
always be cases where soldiers find themselves fighting at arm's length,
so wouldn't issuing everyone a sword or axe be useful then?

Well, you always have that nifty wire-cutting feature for the latest US
bayonet in combination with its scabbard (though I am not sure how effective
it really is in that role)...


I saw a fair amount of peanut
butter spread with bayonets; had we had to use our M16's for that it
would
have been rather messy. Now that is I admit a rather extreme example, but
again it points out the wisdom of retaining those tools we have even in
the
face of longer ranged/more lethal options.

Depends on a lot of factors. For instance, the F-15E both kept a gun
that isn't ideal for its primary mission of ground attack (shell too
light, slant range on the short size, rate of fire derated for strafing)
and halved the ammunition supply. It's not a bad decision because it's
quick and saves money, but it reflects the low priority.

Low priority and outright elimination are two different things. ISTR reading
that those 10th LID guys in Anaconda were *very* happy to have strafe
support from F-15E's, A-10's, and even AH-64's.


If you were designing the capability from scratch, would you insist on
the M61? Consider a larger-calibre weapon with more A/G punch like a
KCA? Or go for fuel and/or lightness, and hang a podded gun for 'danger
close' missions?

That depends. Since cost is always a factor at some point, the use of the
M61 may be the best solution (you still retain an inherent marginal strafe
capability at minimal cost, and if you want more punch you can still *add*
those pods you keep talking about). Or maybe use a 25mm weapon, or the
Mauser 27mm. Details are rather unimportant to the current question at hand
(courtesy thread drift), which is, "Gun versus no gun". You say no gun, I
say if possible retain the gun and remain more flexible by doing so.



Trouble is, stories of "F-15E bravely makes strafing passes" deservedly
get headlines. "F-15E really regrets having to call skosh fuel and leave
station" don't: but an internal gun is getting on for a thousand pounds
of fuel, which translates to more loiter time or range. And it isn't
negotiable.

We have KC's that refuel TACAIR. If you are talking the CAS mission, which
we are now doing, then it is reasonable to accept that those assets will be
doing their thing relatively close to the EA. And stop acting as if a
thousand pounds of fuel is the end of the world--that works out to what, a
whopping 125 gallons? If your CAS effort is dependent upon a 125 gallon fuel
margine you are likely in deep do-do already.

Brooks