In case anyone is interested

[Adam the Akrodude]

Brad, you need to read my post properly. I did not say pull guns out of fighters. I said look at which weapon system has shot down the vast majority of aircraft in the last 30+ years - missiles. Missiles can always be defeated - utter B/S! Lots of bad guys have had to make a silk letdown after stopping a US made A/A missile.
Missiles can sometimes be defeated, not always. It's even harder these days when the opponent can't even see you - first to see, first to kill.

[tor lives]

I thought this topic was about a 1/48 Zivko Edge 540???

Brad, you love your stats. Show us A/A gun kills vs missile kills over the last 30 years. Your thinking is so last century man! I'm not saying a gun should not be there, must be great fun shooting at towed banners! Just saying what weapon systems actually have been doing the bulk of the "work" for a long time.

Rboz - it was an F-15E not an A-10. He dropped a GBU-10 on a Hughes 500....messy.

Adam it's not actually about stats. It's about having the appropriate weapons to use when needed; ie long range, short range and point blank. Same as any infantryman having a rifle, pistol and bayonet. Missiles can always be defeated or decoyed. Ignore the lessons of history at your own peril.

Missiles can always be defeated hey???....you might wanna check in with the Israelis currently involved in the Gaza campaign and get their take on that statement Guess what Brad....Hamas missiles are still getting through which is why the campaign continues to rage as we speak.
Using your logic Ace....we should still have our armed forces equipped with spears, bows/arrows, and swords because they were effective weapons for their time. But their time has passed mate.....just like guns on planes, (how many gun turrents do ya see on a B-1, B-2, or TU-160 these days???) . Get with the times buddy!!!
TOR

[Cap'n Wannabe]

I like civil planes

[_BlackHawk_]

There is always a countermeasure available to defeat an air to air missile. As was said, they call them missiles, not hittiles. Didn't say it would always work and comparing Hamas firing what are probably Katusha's (or something similar) is not relevant to air combat. I know what you said Adam, shockingly I can read, but what I said stands. It's not about statistics, it's about having the options to use when and if needed. I can just imagine a designer at Lockheed Martin pulling out the stats of GW1 and saying...see here, only 1 gun kill during the war by our fighters, so statistically we don't need a gun anymore.

[_BlackHawk_]

The auction has ended too. Nearly 40 bucks for it, not bad I spose, if you really wanted it.

[tor lives]

I can just imagine a designer at Lockheed Martin pulling out the stats of GW1 and saying...see here, only 1 gun kill during the war by our fighters, so statistically we don't need a gun anymore.

Makes sense to me.
As said....how many gun turrents do ya see on a B-1 or B-2 mate, even though they were a "must" on a B-17 or B-29 ????
Brad....think ya lost this one bud, your arguments just don't stack-up
TOR

[_BlackHawk_]

I can just imagine a designer at Lockheed Martin pulling out the stats of GW1 and saying...see here, only 1 gun kill during the war by our fighters, so statistically we don't need a gun anymore.

Makes sense to me.
As said....how many gun turrents do ya see on a B-1 or B-2 mate, even though they were a "must" on a B-17 or B-29 ????
Brad....think ya lost this one bud, your arguments just don't stack-up
TOR

As I said, ignore the lessons of history at your own peril....

[tor lives]

comparing Hamas firing what are probably Katusha's (or something similar) is not relevant to air combat.

Very relevant to this debate though....a missile is a missile Brad. The Hamas reference simply highlights the flaw in your argument that missiles can be resoundingly defeated....as I said, you may wanna get your arse over to Gaza and ask the Israelis if they agree with your theories.....so much for countermeasures.
TOR

[tor lives]

I can just imagine a designer at Lockheed Martin pulling out the stats of GW1 and saying...see here, only 1 gun kill during the war by our fighters, so statistically we don't need a gun anymore.

Makes sense to me.
As said....how many gun turrents do ya see on a B-1 or B-2 mate, even though they were a "must" on a B-17 or B-29 ????
Brad....think ya lost this one bud, your arguments just don't stack-up
TOR

As I said, ignore the lessons of history at your own peril....

OK.....so on Brad's recommendation it's back to spears, bows, and arrows
TOR

[_BlackHawk_]

comparing Hamas firing what are probably Katusha's (or something similar) is not relevant to air combat.

Very relevant to this debate though....a missile is a missile Brad. The Hamas reference simply highlights the flaw in your argument that missiles can be resoundingly defeated....as I said, you may wanna get your arse over to Gaza and ask the Israelis weather they agree with your theories.....so much for countermeasures.
TOR

Huh? That doesn't make any sense Ray. I'm talking about decoying/defeating a guided missile when fired at an aircraft by either chaff, flare, jamming or maneuvering. You're talking about unguided rockets being launched indiscriminately at a country while the target area tries to intercept them with guided munitions. The mere fact that the guided munition doesn't always find it's target, gives some support to my position that guided missiles don't always hit their target, necessitating a weapon on an aircraft for pilots to fall back on when technology is defeated.

In any case, you're using the incorrect definition of 'always' to construct your argument.