• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

NEWS USAF Fighter And Bomber Crews Get Modified M4 Rifles That Fit Under Ejection Seats

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
We've never pivoted away from the high end fight. In fact, that's still what the CVW and CSG spend the bulk of their time training on.
 

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Exactly - why now? What was the epiphany that caused the AF to fund 7-8 figures for this program and stand up an armory modifying 100 rifles per week - not to mention the engineering mods to the seat/seat pak and unit level SOP for qualification, training and administration of said weapons and ammo. Is it a result of gearing up to face a nation state adversary?
The epiphany was probably the Jordanian F-16 pilot getting torched, and it took the bureaucracy this long.
 

ChuckMK23

FERS and TSP contributor!
pilot
You have to think the AF pointy nose/bomber community probably lobbied hard for something like this at whatever their equivalent of Tailhook is.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
If he had used it, YES!!!! He would have sent some unknown number of the bastards to hell, and maybe even caught a blessed bullet of his own that would have spared his family and friends seeing him burned to death. True, end result the same. Net result, not even close.
It's just an opinion. You're welcome to have a differing point of view.
 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
We can certainly differ on the value of the weapon as an option. But I don't see my last post as opinion. Conjecture, I admit. Opinion, no. You seriously think if he had engaged his potential captors in gun fire, they could have taken him into custody alive, without sustaining any causalities themselves, or that they would not have killed him returning fire?
 

Pags

N/A
pilot
We can certainly differ on the value of the weapon as an option. But I don't see my last post as opinion. Conjecture, I admit. Opinion, no. You seriously think if he had engaged his potential captors in gun fire, they could have taken him into custody alive, without sustaining any causalities themselves, or that they would not have killed him returning fire?
I'd assume he flew in to combat with a sidearm. And I'd assume he either did or considered using his sidearm. If that's the case then having that weapon didn't change anything. I'm not sure having a carbine in addition to a sidearm would've changed his fate. That said having a carbine isn't necessarily a bad thing but a few extra bullets isn't going to change much if they want you bad. And I'd wager that an American Aviator alive is worth the trouble to capture. The
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
We can certainly differ on the value of the weapon as an option. But I don't see my last post as opinion. Conjecture, I admit. Opinion, no. You seriously think if he had engaged his potential captors in gun fire, they could have taken him into custody alive, without sustaining any causalities themselves, or that they would not have killed him returning fire?

I'm not sure anyone here knows the details of his capture so I think to speculate on what he could or could not have done with whatever weapons were at his disposal is pretty foolish.

As I noted earlier in the thread, only two of the hundreds of carrier aircrew downed in Vietnam actually used their sidearms in combat. I don't disparage the notion of having heavier firepower but the rarity of their use make me question whether or not the appropriation for this effort could be better utilized.

You have to think the AF pointy nose/bomber community probably lobbied hard for something like this at whatever their equivalent of Tailhook is.

Pretty sure they don't have an equivalent.
 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Yup, all those American aircrew in the battle of Mogadishu were saved by their citizenship. These people want to kill as many innocent American civilians as possible. I don't think wearing a flight suit will save you.
 

Pags

N/A
pilot
Yup, all those American aircrew in the battle of Mogadishu were saved by their citizenship. These people want to kill as many innocent American civilians as possible. I don't think wearing a flight suit will save you.
That's what happened to Durant.

And I didn't necessarily mean a flight suit would save you, just inventive the enemy to take you alive so you can be exploited. the enemy knows that there is more value in exploiting a captured aircrew via the media. This may mean beheading or burning alive. But the exploitation value of American aircrew has been known and used since Korea.
 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
That's what happened to Durant.

And I didn't necessarily mean a flight suit would save you, just inventive the enemy to take you alive so you can be exploited. the enemy knows that there is more value in exploiting a captured aircrew via the media. This may mean beheading or burning alive. But the exploitation value of American aircrew has been known and used since Korea.
Of course Durant made it. And the rest? Somehow he was of value but they weren't? I think you hit on it though. The value you may bring as an American airman is the share you draw on evening TV as they behead you. Not the kind of value to the enemy I hope to be.
 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I'm not sure anyone here knows the details of his capture so I think to speculate on what he could or could not have done with whatever weapons were at his disposal is pretty foolish.

As I noted earlier in the thread, only two of the hundreds of carrier aircrew downed in Vietnam actually used their sidearms in combat. I don't disparage the notion of having heavier firepower but the rarity of their use make me question whether or not the appropriation for this effort could be better utilized.
Of course we don't know all the details. But I am pretty sure if he had tried to fight it out we would have heard about it from Jordanian press accounts lionizing him. But it doesn't matter. I was illustrating a point. And you have not replied on point.

The Vietnam study you note is interesting. But it was another time. Everyone expected they would be taken captive. Still I wonder about the fidelity of the study. We have aircrew we still do not have an accounting for. We don't know their story. And you left out arguably the most dramatic use of armed resistance by Navy aircrew. Ltjg Dieter Dengler conceived and led an escape wherein the guards were disarmed of a variety of M1s, and Chinese rifles. He killed at least three of his captors and escaped. Which makes me think, when does an airman that has been actively killing the enemy become a noncombatant? I understand we don't have a tradition of suicide missions in the American military. At some point it may be fruitless. And I expect that point varies with the individual. But simply landing under a parachute or crash landing on the battle field does not automatically mean you are relieved of the fight, whether ISIS or a Geneva Convention adhering enemy. Is Petty Office Neil Roberts so different than any one of us? Dropped out of a -47. He was alone, out numbered, knew the consequences of capture and fought it out.
 
Top