From: Jeremy Peter Howells, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The gun on a modern fighter plane is an effective air-to-air or
air-to-surface
tool.
The Harrier pilots are apparently bitterly regretting the loss of their
30mm
Aden cannon on the latest version of that aircraft. And even F3 fighter
versions of the Tornado practice ground attack (often with the cannon).
The
30mm Aden on the Harrier was used against helicopters in the Falklands and
against the jets in air to air combat (I believe more than one kill was
claimed
and certainly both sides were using guns as well as missiles), and against
an
Argentine spy trawler and other surface targets.
Ask almost any fighter pilot if he wants to keep his gun(s) and I'll
guarantee
the answer - yes! Even the American's latest fighter and bomber aircraft
have
cannon, about the only one that doesn't is the S3 Viking of the US Navy
which
was originally intended as an anti-submarine platform.
The comment about the AIM-9 Sidewinder missile is not quite correct -
Britain
normally deployed the AIM-9B at that time for training and routine
interception.
However, the AIM-9L was held as war stock and its those we deployed for the
Falklands. For the uninitiated the AIM-9B an only be fired from behind a
target
(a tail-chase weapon) while the AIM-9L has a all aspect capability
(anything
including head-on).
Casper Weinberger was awarded his Knighthood for other services, political
and
logistical, during the Falklands War - some even suggest the Americans had
warmed
up a Tarawa class Assault Ship/Carrier for us in case we lost a carrier.
The
Americans also agreed to top up our NATO war stock of AIM-9L's (we paid)
from
their own reserve stocks, provided use of American controlled
communications
satelites assigned to NATO and a host of other 'services'.
The 'dedicated role' aircraft either fighter, bomber or strike aircraft is
something only the very rich nations can afford and even the US Navy has
its
F14 Tomcats practicing ground attack.
To refer to the JP233 airfield denial weapon as ineffective is missing the
point - it was designed to close an airfield and keep it closed for several
hours or even days and even today it would be effective (except its
regarded
as banned as it distributes anti-personel mines as part of its load). To
do
the same with conventional bombs on runways and taxi-ways was reckoned to
need
a minimum of three times the aircraft for approximately the same effect
(the
figures I saw said 12 Jaguars with 1,000 lb bombs were 'replaced' with 4
GR1
Tornadoes with JP233's). Their use is dangerous to the attacking aircraft
which must fly low across the airfield, however medium or high level
attacks
against such a target would be suicide in the Eastern European war in which
their use was envisaged - the Germans deployed a similar device for their
Tornadoes but designed to be used against armoured vehicles.
Regards
Jerry
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
