"F-35 Test Flight Deemed a Success"

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Repeat after me: "STRAFING IS STUPID!"

There are RARE occasions when strafe is a necessary alternative. But
they are very much the exception.


"A fighter without a gun...is like an airplane without a wing."
--Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.


Jack

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 10:04:24 GMT, Jack wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Repeat after me: "STRAFING IS STUPID!"

There are RARE occasions when strafe is a necessary alternative. But
they are very much the exception.


"A fighter without a gun...is like an airplane without a wing."
--Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.


Jack

Very good, Jack. But please note that strafing is NOT using a gun in
air-to-air.

And, one should also note that when Robin went to war in SEA, he chose
to go in the F-4, which at that time was sans gun. He did OK and if
you talk to him about it, he'll tell you that the "God-damned AIM-4"
was a lot more of an issue than his lack of a gun.

We've got no disagreement about putting a gun in every fighter that
has any possibility of being engaged air-to-air.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 10:04:24 GMT, Jack wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Repeat after me: "STRAFING IS STUPID!"

There are RARE occasions when strafe is a necessary alternative. But
they are very much the exception.


"A fighter without a gun...is like an airplane without a wing."
--Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.


Jack

Very good, Jack. But please note that strafing is NOT using a gun in
air-to-air.

And, one should also note that when Robin went to war in SEA, he chose
to go in the F-4, which at that time was sans gun. He did OK and if
you talk to him about it, he'll tell you that the "God-damned AIM-4"
was a lot more of an issue than his lack of a gun.

We've got no disagreement about putting a gun in every fighter that
has any possibility of being engaged air-to-air.




Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Cheap, reliable, last ditch weapon...a must in almost every military
tactical A/C..maybe even the V-22

On 23 Dec 2006 09:24:11 -0800, wrote:

We've got no disagreement about putting a gun in every fighter that
has any possibility of being engaged air-to-air.


Ed Rasimus


Cheap, reliable, last ditch weapon...a must in almost every military
tactical A/C..maybe even the V-22

ROTFLMAO. The real question would be which way to point it on
installation.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 23 Dec 2006 09:24:11 -0800, wrote:

We've got no disagreement about putting a gun in every fighter that
has any possibility of being engaged air-to-air.


Ed Rasimus


Cheap, reliable, last ditch weapon...a must in almost every military
tactical A/C..maybe even the V-22

ROTFLMAO. The real question would be which way to point it on
installation.

We used to rag our A-7 buddies that they needed to install the AIM-9
pointing rearward to be most effective.

Ditto on the gun.

My old boat school roommate was passing through yesterday enroute to
Christmas with his mom in FL. He's a project engineer at Fort Worth for
F-35C. Slow (despite 40K thrust), weight issues, maintenance/logistics
issues (the engine is so big it won't fit into the ship's jet shop!?, is too
big to fly a spare aboard?!?). OTOH, the cockpit is PERFECT for the
Nintendo-savvy next generation aviator.

R / John

John Carrier wrote:
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 23 Dec 2006 09:24:11 -0800, wrote:

We've got no disagreement about putting a gun in every fighter that
has any possibility of being engaged air-to-air.


Ed Rasimus


Cheap, reliable, last ditch weapon...a must in almost every military
tactical A/C..maybe even the V-22

ROTFLMAO. The real question would be which way to point it on
installation.

We used to rag our A-7 buddies that they needed to install the AIM-9
pointing rearward to be most effective.

Ditto on the gun.

My old boat school roommate was passing through yesterday enroute to
Christmas with his mom in FL. He's a project engineer at Fort Worth for
F-35C. Slow (despite 40K thrust), weight issues, maintenance/logistics
issues (the engine is so big it won't fit into the ship's jet shop!?, is too
big to fly a spare aboard?!?). OTOH, the cockpit is PERFECT for the
Nintendo-savvy next generation aviator.

R / John

Sounds like the 'Bug' in the late 80s.

Ed Rasimus wrote:


We've got no disagreement about putting a gun in every fighter that
has any possibility of being engaged air-to-air.

Careful wording, that. What matter the medium in which your target
operates, to a true fighter pilot? We wouldn't want to give the
impression of air-to-air arrogance. Would we?


"CAS is continuing to morph into a stand-off delivery game.
The troops-in-contact provide accurate coordinates or laser-
designation and the stand-off platform dumps iron on the
cross-hairs. It isn't as glamorous as snake-n-nape at 50 feet,
but it is much more accurate and effective." -- E. Rasimus

Oh sure, very glamorous indeed, but not much use when bad guys are not
only in the wire, but on your side of the wire. And that brings up the
question of whether 30mm might not be a little too heavy for this
particular scenario?

Strafing as a mission may suck today, but it always did -- even when it
was just too much damn fun to ignore. But as a capability and a skill,
it must be respected and won't go away. You can do things with a gun you
can't do without it, I'm sure you'll agree. And those are very important
jobs -- CAS jobs -- the kind that keep our people fighting or bring them
home when they can't.

T-I-C and SAR assets won't always have laser-designators and GPS. If
they had all that stuff working they might not be in so much trouble in
the first place.


Jack

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 16:01:33 -0600, Jack wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:


We've got no disagreement about putting a gun in every fighter that
has any possibility of being engaged air-to-air.

Careful wording, that. What matter the medium in which your target
operates, to a true fighter pilot? We wouldn't want to give the
impression of air-to-air arrogance. Would we?

I'm hardly from the age of air-to-air arrogance. I was more in the
Jack-of-too-many-trades era. As a true Neanderthal I vociferously
protested against the idea of specialization--one in which the
aircraft has more capabilities than the operator. Yet, that's the way
we've gone and I'll freely admit that it has turned out to be a better
AF.

My contention has always been that air-to-air is something a fighter
pilot does on the way to and from the target.


"CAS is continuing to morph into a stand-off delivery game.
The troops-in-contact provide accurate coordinates or laser-
designation and the stand-off platform dumps iron on the
cross-hairs. It isn't as glamorous as snake-n-nape at 50 feet,
but it is much more accurate and effective." -- E. Rasimus

Oh sure, very glamorous indeed, but not much use when bad guys are not
only in the wire, but on your side of the wire. And that brings up the
question of whether 30mm might not be a little too heavy for this
particular scenario?

Agreed, in principle, but rare in practice. We don't see fixed
position fighting very much these days with the concomitant
requirement for "danger close" employment. It might recur or might
not. And, the gun will be available although not the first choice.

Strafing as a mission may suck today, but it always did -- even when it
was just too much damn fun to ignore. But as a capability and a skill,
it must be respected and won't go away. You can do things with a gun you
can't do without it, I'm sure you'll agree. And those are very important
jobs -- CAS jobs -- the kind that keep our people fighting or bring them
home when they can't.

I'm not sure I agree if we are talking ground attack that there are
things that can be done with a gun that can't be done better with
another weapon--except for maybe writing your name in the snow.

The new generation of small bombs are going to be very nice tools for
killing Abdullah in the bedroom next door.

T-I-C and SAR assets won't always have laser-designators and GPS. If
they had all that stuff working they might not be in so much trouble in
the first place.

It will be a very rare detachment that doesn't have GPS or laser
capability. When you can buy a Garmin to fit in your shirt pocket from
Cabela's, there's no reason not to have one in the infantryman's kit.
And, they do.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ed - for OIF and OEF the "morf" is back to close direct fire. Small calibre
guns and rockets without warheads may have more merit. Concrete bombs were
considered but they skip and bounce sending a high speed hockey puck down
streets. For another war it will go back to standoff and precision but we
need to re-figure all this



"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 16:01:33 -0600, Jack wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:


We've got no disagreement about putting a gun in every fighter that
has any possibility of being engaged air-to-air.

Careful wording, that. What matter the medium in which your target
operates, to a true fighter pilot? We wouldn't want to give the
impression of air-to-air arrogance. Would we?

I'm hardly from the age of air-to-air arrogance. I was more in the
Jack-of-too-many-trades era. As a true Neanderthal I vociferously
protested against the idea of specialization--one in which the
aircraft has more capabilities than the operator. Yet, that's the way
we've gone and I'll freely admit that it has turned out to be a better
AF.

My contention has always been that air-to-air is something a fighter
pilot does on the way to and from the target.


"CAS is continuing to morph into a stand-off delivery game.
The troops-in-contact provide accurate coordinates or laser-
designation and the stand-off platform dumps iron on the
cross-hairs. It isn't as glamorous as snake-n-nape at 50 feet,
but it is much more accurate and effective." -- E. Rasimus

Oh sure, very glamorous indeed, but not much use when bad guys are not
only in the wire, but on your side of the wire. And that brings up the
question of whether 30mm might not be a little too heavy for this
particular scenario?

Agreed, in principle, but rare in practice. We don't see fixed
position fighting very much these days with the concomitant
requirement for "danger close" employment. It might recur or might
not. And, the gun will be available although not the first choice.

Strafing as a mission may suck today, but it always did -- even when it
was just too much damn fun to ignore. But as a capability and a skill,
it must be respected and won't go away. You can do things with a gun you
can't do without it, I'm sure you'll agree. And those are very important
jobs -- CAS jobs -- the kind that keep our people fighting or bring them
home when they can't.

I'm not sure I agree if we are talking ground attack that there are
things that can be done with a gun that can't be done better with
another weapon--except for maybe writing your name in the snow.

The new generation of small bombs are going to be very nice tools for
killing Abdullah in the bedroom next door.

T-I-C and SAR assets won't always have laser-designators and GPS. If
they had all that stuff working they might not be in so much trouble in
the first place.

It will be a very rare detachment that doesn't have GPS or laser
capability. When you can buy a Garmin to fit in your shirt pocket from
Cabela's, there's no reason not to have one in the infantryman's kit.
And, they do.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 03:00:47 GMT, "Ski"
wrote:

Ed - for OIF and OEF the "morf" is back to close direct fire. Small calibre
guns and rockets without warheads may have more merit. Concrete bombs were
considered but they skip and bounce sending a high speed hockey puck down
streets. For another war it will go back to standoff and precision but we
need to re-figure all this


It's always good to get input from first-hand observers. The way
things have evolved in the current unpleasantness there is a lot of
unstructured urban close-quarters battle going on. That doesn't lend
itself to CAS but does indeed respond to direct fire. And,
particularly with organic rather than on-call assets. Having the
weapon on the Hummer, Bradley or Abrams is what's going to be used.

Only if the situation allows for a fall back do you get the
opportunity to use the various indirect fire options.

But, there's always the need to plan for the future engagement rather
than the last and in the process to include sufficient adaptability to
be responsive to changing requirements. (That's staff talk for having
high tech, brute force, sophisticated and crude, large and small,
precision and volume ordnance included in large enough numbers to be
available at a small enough price tag to fit in the budget.)

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com