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
|
|||
|
|||
"Red" wrote:
I have to add one thing to this discussion. The R.O.E. will always require visual I.D. Why? Because somewhere there is always someone with stars on his colar, (or who wants stars on his colar) that is deathly afraid that someone will screw-up. That once was arguably true, but with technology that makes ID virtually certain (if we ain't there yet, we're darn close), the guy/gal with stars on their collar who wants more of them will choose beating the enemy to covering his/her posterior. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (ret) ***"When Thunder Rolled: *** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam" *** from Smithsonian Books ISBN: 1588341038 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"José Herculano" wrote in message .. .
All...I was wondering: have there been any guns-only air to air kills by US aircraft since SE Asia? As an aside, what are the thoughts of those who have been in combat? Are guns on board nostalga, or, are they a practical weapon? 2 kills by A-10 over helos on DS only... but: a) The Israelis have got air-to-air gun kills with both F-16 and F-15; Add to this several gun-kills scored by (US-built) F-4s, F-5s, and F-14s in Iranian service, during the war with Iraq, in the 1980s. As a matter of fact, the first kill ever scored by an F-14 was against an Iraqi Mi-25 (export version of the Mi-24 "Hind"), shot down on 7 September 1980, by 20mm gunfire. Iranian F-4s also scored their last known kill of that war (and thus for all the Phantoms ever) with the gun: an Iraqi Su-22M-3K, in May 1988. Tom Cooper Co-Author: Iran-Iraq; War in the Air, 1980-1988 http://www.schifferbooks.com/militar...764316699.html Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Red
writes The R.O.E. will always require visual I.D. Why? Because somewhere there is always someone with stars on his colar, (or who wants stars on his colar) that is deathly afraid that someone will screw-up. That's because going off recent events, someone will screw up, particularly annoying when there's no enemy air activity anyway. -- John |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
In article , SKSvilich
writes All...I was wondering: have there been any guns-only air to air kills by US aircraft since SE Asia? As an aside, what are the thoughts of those who have been in combat? Are guns on board nostalga, or, are they a practical weapon? Sea Harriers over the Falklands made kills with their guns: 1x Pucara 2x A-4 1x A.109 1x C130 (hit by AIM 9L, finished off with the gun) In addition one Puma was destroyed by the wake of a Sea Harrier. It makes sense to stick at least one gun on to me. -- John |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"SKSvilich" wrote in message ... All...I was wondering: have there been any guns-only air to air kills by US aircraft since SE Asia? As an aside, what are the thoughts of those who have been in combat? Are guns on board nostalga, or, are they a practical weapon? Thanks in advance. Stefan Humble Cessna Driver .... maybe Israeli fighter jock(s) have scored with a gun but they are tightlipped about their air ops. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On 8/9/03 9:32 PM, in article , "John
Halliwell" wrote: In article , Red writes The R.O.E. will always require visual I.D. Why? Because somewhere there is always someone with stars on his colar, (or who wants stars on his colar) that is deathly afraid that someone will screw-up. Not true (in training and in the fleet). That's because going off recent events, someone will screw up, particularly annoying when there's no enemy air activity anyway. But perhaps it should be. Consider the OIF Patriot battery operators. Funny how we hear/see all this press about our dudes dropping bombs on Canadians in Afghanistan, but don't hear about the Patriot operators (or folks that gave them the OK to shoot) that shot a Tornado and a Hornet. --Woody |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"JDupre5762" wrote in message ... All...I was wondering: have there been any guns-only air to air kills by US aircraft since SE Asia? As an aside, what are the thoughts of those who have been in combat? Are guns on board nostalga, or, are they a practical weapon? Duke Cunningham will tell you that if his Navy F-4 had a gun he might have got three more kills in his famous day of fighting when he made ace. While not air combat there were guns only strafing runs made in Afghanistan during a fight over a downed helicopter. While air to air and air to ground missiles are now far more reliable than during Vietnam and far more capable than during Desert Storm I think history shows us that whenever we think that some weapon is obsolete along comes a conflict where that weapon is needed. Often the weapon is not used in its original form but a good use is found for it. In regards to combat aircraft guns there might come a time when the combat arena is so circumscribed that beyond visual range weapons will not be practical due to the chance of "collateral damage". Then only visual range weapons could be used and the gun takes on a new importance. Imagine if in the Balkans one of our opponents (I can't remember whose side we weren't on!) had put up a decent aerial opposition, would we really have been launching a lot of long range weapons in one of the most heavily air traveled areas of the world? As in Afghanistan in a future conflict at the extreme of range for some aircraft might make it necessary to use every weapon they brought along right down to the guns when all other ordnance was expended. Not because they could not loiter in terms of fuel but because it would take too long to return to base and reload. The gun will never again be a primary or even secondary weapon but as a tertiary one it will have its uses and you can never be sure when that will be. John Dupre' .... it is my understanding that naval versions had a gun but the air force did not but was later retrofitted with one. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Woody,
Would have helped to have a gun on an Intruder I agree that having a gun would have been a good thing during Preying Mantis (taking out oil platforms). I can't agree that the Intruder would have been the right bird for guns. During 1988 the A-7 was still lurking about, so it's not as if we didn't have gun assets available. I presume the A-6E COULD carry rockets (as its predecessor Intruder variants could), and so augment the gunfire from the Thalidomide Crusader. Then there's the old conundrum about what tradeoffs you'd need to make, to retrofit a gun into any aircraft not already "gun-ready". With the Intruder, this would most likely have meant a pod. The expression, "sailors and pods don't mix very well", was already gaining currency during the early 1970s with the intro of the EA-6B to the fleet. Since the A-6's primary mission was all-wx attack a gun - at best - would only have been a "nice to have". Owl sends. -- Mike Kanze 436 Greenbrier Road Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259 USA 650-726-7890 "Vegetarian (vej ' i târ ' ee en), n. Amerindian term meaning "lousy hunter". "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ... [rest snipped] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
B-17s Debut, RAF Wellingtons Bomb & Fighters Sweep at Zeno's Video Drive-In | zeno | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | October 30th 04 06:20 PM |
B-17s Debut, RAF Wellingtons Bomb & Fighters Sweep at Zeno's Video Drive-In | zeno | Home Built | 0 | October 30th 04 06:19 PM |
Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ? | championsleeper | Military Aviation | 77 | March 3rd 04 04:11 AM |
US (Brit/Japanese/German/USSR) Use of Gun Cameras in Fighters?? | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 3 | July 17th 03 06:02 AM |
Scrambling fighters | John Doe | Military Aviation | 7 | July 2nd 03 09:26 PM |