wrote in message
oups.com...
The article at:

http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2007/0707strafing.asp

includes the following:

"We're using the gun quite a bit in the Iraq and Afghanistan
operations.
The fighters are using lots of 20 mm off F-15Es and F-16s and 30 mm
off A-10s to hit ground targets. Why is that? For individuals, the gun
is
probably one of the most accurate weapons, with the least collateral
damage. That 20 mm will end the bad guy's life, but stray rounds will
just drive into the ground, and that's it.

In Iraq, the adversary uses both road networks and riverine networks.
There have been a number of occasions where boats have been
identified
carrying insurgents on the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, and we've
used
20 mm and 30 mm guns to destroy those boats. A moving target is hard
to hit with a bomb. With a gun, it's no big deal. In one instance, the
enemy
was getting ready to move people somewhere to do something later that
night, but we removed them from the fight.

The same thing happened in Balad, where we found people going to get
roadside bomb supplies. We have been using the gun against single
persons
who have been planting improvised exposive devices. You'll have an
individual
with a truck, and a couple of other individuals; you'll see them get
out and
move around, trying to dig a hole, and you'll bring in an F-16 or an
F-15E, or
maybe an A-10, and you'll use 20 or 30 mm and go kill them. If you
have troops
in contact, or you have individuals in buildings, you do the same
thing."


Discussions about aircraft guns usually center on air-to-air usage,
but
nowadays, that's a secondary mission. With the primary usage of
aircraft guns being strafing. For how long has this been true?

Strafe can be a worthwhile employment of the gun, evidently done with much
success in the ongoing pair of conflicts. Can be somewhat hazardous in the
daytime if the bad guys have the capability to shoot back (a risk/reward
thing). Pretty functional at night with goggles, etc.

R / John