In case anyone is interested

[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 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.

Brad....you are now reverting to tedious semantics, (a sign of fighting a losing battle )
FACT: There is not one recorded instance of an air-to-air gun kill this century even though major wars have been raging continuously since 2001....it's now 2014.
FACT: If guns were so imperative and decisive they would still be seen on modern bombers, (a fact that you have so far conveniently ignored, even though I have now referenced this most relevant point twice).
Gun-armed fighters are clearly a superseded concept with no relevance in the 21st century asymmetric war space....the gun is just dead weight and a waste of jet fuel !!!
To quote Matt Hall, " if you are close enough for guns now...the fight is already over ". Now who do I believe here???
Squadron Leader Matt Hall.. esteemed and combat-experienced F/A-18 and F-15E fighter pilot or Brad, self-appointed arm-chair/keyboard authority on, well, pretty much everything so it would seem !! ....geez, that's a hard one, I'll get back to you
TOR

[_BlackHawk_]

Just because there hasn't been a gun kill in 17 years, doesn't mean that the weapon isn't useful anymore. The British Army hadn't had a bayonet charge in 20 odd years before Lance Corporal Brian Wood won a Military Cross for leading one in Iraq in 2004. Those interceding years didn't lead the British Army into deleting the bayonet from the soldiers kit. Sure, missiles are much more reliable and they will be the first choice for a pilot, but it's been shown that they are not 100%. In those cases, a pilot needs a weapon to fall back on and the gun is that weapon. As for bombers, the nature of bombing has changed. No longer are bombers required to fight their way into a target WW2 style and in their case, deleting the guns is probably a good call, but B-52 tail gunners did claim 2 kills in Vietnam, not to mention the 24.5 MiGs that fell to F-105 20mm gunfire and they have armed aircraft like the Nimrod with sidewinders for self defense. So a defensive capability for a bomber has not totally gone the way of the dodo.

I'm also prepared to make a big call and say that in the age of stealth, guns will maintain their importance in air combat. In a fight where aircraft are designed to reduce their heat signature and be invisible to radars, you might have to settle things the old fashioned way.

[tor lives]

As for bombers, the nature of bombing has changed.

Exactly my point!!! and you clearly get that, but the nature of air combat has also changed at the same rate Brad, and this is what you don't seem to be grasping or comprehending. Guns and indeed pilots are simply not necessary in the
Gen 5/Gen 6 and beyond fighter. The F-35 will be the last fighter with either of these what will be superfluous pieces of equipment...that's just the way it is mate. Your nostalgic affection for the airborne gun and it's achievements is respected, (and indeed looks good on a model), but the gun truly has passed it's "use by" date in the modern war arena.
TOR
PS: as to guns in the stealth era....the F-117 or B-2 didn't seem to need them

[_BlackHawk_]

Why do people feel it necessary to tell me I'm not comprehending or grasping the discussed topic, simply because I disagree with them? It's insulting, to say the least. I can read, I do understand what you're saying and I have a BA in History and European Culture with Honours in 20th Century Revisionist History.

I know exactly what you're saying Ray and I think you're wrong.

[tor lives]

Why do people feel it necessary to tell me I'm not comprehending or grasping the discussed topic, simply because I disagree with them? .

Bit of a pattern forming here hey Brad
You are not disagreeing with me mate, you are disagreeing with the facts as they stand, (and hey... that is your call, but an illogical position to take in my view).
Your academic achievements are duly noted Brad but, believe it not, you are not the only one with an education mate. Others around you however don't see the need to play that card as a last-ditch futile attempt to win an argument.
TOR
PS: and if it is not patently obvious to all, I think you are wrong ....but I can live with that.

[_BlackHawk_]

I haven't disagreed with your facts, but I am disagreeing with your position that a gun in an aircraft is no longer required. Somethings only useless until it's required. I could apply your argument to say, a car seat belt.

FACT- I've never had a car accident. Therefore I can delete my seat belt from my car.

It's called a logical fallacy. I don't actually doubt the facts you presented at all, but I'm not convinced that they mean you can delete the gun from a fighter. In the future, it may be required.

[tor lives]

I could apply your argument to say, a car seat belt.
FACT- I've never had a car accident. Therefore I can delete my seat belt from my car..

So allow me to apply your argument then Brad
FACT: the Model T Ford was a perfectly good car, if it ain't broken why change/fix it??? . In the future we could need it's simplistic reliability. We should therefore still all be driving them .
FACT: The DC-3 was the perfect airliner. There was never a need for a Boeing 777 cause the DC-3 had proved it's worth in the past
FACT: What was wrong with the Commodore 64????? we don't need these current gen ipads and laptops, the Commodore 64 was just fine!!!

Get the point Brad???
TOR

[_BlackHawk_]

It's not my argument, it's your argument. I'll give you another example of your position;

FACT - I've never been nutted while batting in 16 years and 199 games of cricket. Using your (not mine) argument, I shouldn't need my protector anymore....

In any case, I guess we're just going to have to wait until WW3 to find out who's right.

[tor lives]

It's not my argument, it's your argument. I'll give you another example of your position;

FACT - I've never been nutted while batting in 16 years and 199 games of cricket. Using your (not mine) argument, I shouldn't need my protector anymore....

From what I can tell you never needed one in the first place mate , (joking of course...come on, I couldn't let that punch line go ).
YOUR argument is now going around in circles Brad, so we will leave it at that mate.
TOR

[hrtpaul]

I hope for the sake of the guys on the ground, they don't delete the gun http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxvmrmLYbls