The issue is not whether I like criticism or not - the issue is the desire to remove a perfectly useful and effective weapon from service.
Whilst not as accurate as a PGM, the BL755 is a good weapon and as has been pointed out, the crews make significant efforts to plot where they drop them. Yes, there is a known dud rate for the bomblets - approximately 3% and much reduced since the weapon's inception - but no weapon is 100% reliable 100% of the time. There will always be UXOs. The unfortunate thing is that cluster bomblets are small and can be picked up with the obvious results.
The cluster bomb remains a weapon of choice for use in the CAS role for its effectiveness against armour and soft skinned vehicles and for most of the last campaign many of our jets were tasked with supporting the land campaign. This means finding, fixing and engaging the enemy's fielded forces to effect a degree of attrition prior to our guys getting there, or whilst they are in contact. Whilst a lot of the vehicles were revetted and static, there were those that were on the move and engaged with US and UK ground forces. Yes, it would be nice to 'cleanly' take them out with an LGB (as the USAF did with the 500lb GBU-12) but this may not be an option for the larger Paveway series - anyone who knows better please comment.
We all want to minimise civilian and non-combatant casualties, but what gets my blood boiling is people who want to increase the risk to our own forces by precluding the use of weapons that might hurt somebody should they fail to detonate. I'd like to see you explain that to the squaddies on the front line who want the tank/APC/truck engaging them removed from the battlefield.
CV
Last edited by Chinese Vic; 8th Jul 2003 at 21:42.