![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jake McGuire" wrote in message om... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message et... Well, if you don't even *have* a gun, that is not going to be a problem, is it? Of course, neither will the CCT (or its supported ground combat element) get the CAS effort they want either... As to the value of the guns, it is interesting to note that one of the comments that came out of the Anaconda participants was, "Every light division needs a supporting *squadron* of AC-130's." Pie in the sky statement that may be, it points out the value those ground folks placed upon aerial gunfire support. It points out the value that the ground troops placed on AC-130 support. Which is naturally much more effective than fighter strafing support, as the AC-130 has more, larger guns, on trainable mounts, with dedicated gunners, and a very long loiter capability. This is not the same as a fighter that can make two or three 20mm strafing passes before he's out of ammunition. Well, you kind of snipped away the related bit about the scenario where you are well within danger-close and under a significant MANPADS threat during daytime, which sort of eliminates the AC-130 from the running. The point was that the groundpounders found the guns a better starting point for CAS during that operation than PGM's. Are you claiming that the 10th LID and 101st AASLT DIV folks did not like getting that 20mm strafe support they received from the F-15E's and F-16's that day? OFCS, the separation range mentioned in a couple of the reports (one from a participating Viper pilot and one from a CCT guy on the ground) was *seventy-five meters*. Do you want any kind of bomb going off that close to *your* patrol if there is another method entailing less risk of fratricide available to be tried first? I wouldn't. There is a good point buried in here - namely that minimum friendly-target distance is an important figure-of-merit for CAS weaponry. It might also be true that the M61 is the best existing fighter-mounted weapon by that standard. It is hardly buried, if you bothered to read the previous messages in the thread--it (being within danger-close range) has been a key point. Your mistake is to assume that this is always going to be the case. The Small Diameter Bomb and the Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System both address this issue, and address it very well. And if they don't do a good enough job, then it's always possible to develop something better. Your mistake is drawing the wrong conclusions based upon different platform requirements, for starters. APKWS is a Hydra-based (or Hellfire based) solution (neither is scheduled for USAF use), and just like the option of using a gun pod, requires specific load out. In other words if your existing CAS support package does not have it onboard when they show up, or are routed in based upon urgent need, and the separation between forces precludes use of larger PGM's, the ground guys are out of luck. OTOH, if they have their trusty internal cannon the ground guys will get at least some form of support. SDB is admittedly going to have a smaller danger close margin than the current minimum 500 pounders, but even a 200-250 pound bomb is going to have a danger close margin that exceeds 75 meters. So if we have (God forbid) another Anaconda situation (and you know as well as I do that there *will* be someday another force inserted somewhere that will find the enemy in an unexpected place, in unexpected strength, and find itself fighting for survival), and our CAS stack is made up of Typhoons and STOVL F-35's sans guns, you think that is OK? Depends on what weapons they're carrying. If they have a pair of 2000 pound JDAMs each, probably not. If they've each got 12 SDBs and 38 laser-guided 70mm rockets, then that's a very different story. And in that case, having STOVL in the case of the JSF or another 15 minutes on station or another 4 SDBs in the case of the Eurofighter are both probably more valuable than the three or four strafing runs you get from a gun. Hydra is a rotary delivered weapon, and unless they change their plans to make it a fixed wing package it is a non-player in the conventional CAS arena (we are not talking helos here). SDB is still going to have a danger close margin. So you are back to the question of whether or not you want to remain flexible enough to provide gunfire support when the situation precludes use of the bigger stuff. Since the gun also serves as a secondary air-to-air weapon, IMO retaining it for the foreseeable future is a wise move. Brooks -jake |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AIM-54 Phoenix missile | Sujay Vijayendra | Military Aviation | 89 | November 3rd 03 09:47 PM |
P-39's, zeros, etc. | old hoodoo | Military Aviation | 12 | July 23rd 03 05:48 AM |