Salute!
Some intersting takes by folks here on the value of dumb eggs versus golden eggs. Ditto for strategic and tactical employment practice versus demonstrated and hypothetical enemy capabilities, as well as the real deal. And how many times and places have these folks actually been there, shot at and had to repeat to get the job done?
I have to agree that the training required to effectively employ the dumb ord is expensive and must be continuous. I also stipulate that sim training is 90% of what is required for the high-tech smart stuff.
Some thots and actual experience about these matters..........
- I am the last one that would like be forced to employ the F-35 to stop the enemy from crawling over the fence. Hence, some nations have a mix of delivery capabilities of relevant munitions, and that includes ground force arftillery and air platforms that include helos, drones and 3/4 th gen planes.
Plenty of low intensity scenarios can be met with appropriate responses using dumb bombs and fairly recent artillery systems. But! BUT!
We do not want to lose the capability that airpower provides to engage the enemy beyond the range of the arty or short-range drones or whatever ...
- Plenty of low-intensity scenarios require dumb bomb drops help prepare for helo insertions of even extractions. I did both in actual combat, and even had the job of escorting the rescue party back to safety. You do not have to drop below 20,000 thousand feet to hit within 20 or 30 meters of where FAC wants.
The existing fire control computers and airplanes will deliver a dumb MK-82 within meeting "qualifying" scoring requirements. And they did that over 40 years ago!!
and then there's more, huh?
Gums sends...
P.S. Will try to find folks that had similar real world experience. Meanwhile, I quote, close as possible.... From U.S. Senate testimony of the SecDef ( McNamara). Claims about the new F-111 tactical plane.
Juist what experience in these matters, if any, do you have, sir?