Any procurement is open to cost benefit analysis, let alone absolute value, ie more batteries vs carbine. But the reasons for the universal dismissal of this program concerns me a bit.
If aircrew were captured by the most common enemy we face, it won't be anything like the Hanoi Hilton. It will be torture to the death, beheading or burned alive. I for one would lik every chance to live long enough to be rescued. More over, if capture means death I'd like to kill as many of my enemy up to capture as I can. The ultimate outcome for me will not be any worse than had I not wasted a few.
I disagree that survival and evasion is always paramount. Just because you find yourself on the deck without your primary means of combat does not mean you are a noncombatant. If enemy is between me and rescue, or an evasion route, I'd like to eliminate them rather than surrender to them.
You could debate dozens of scenarios and find reason not to fight. But having a more capable weapon only gives you more options. If you want to surrender to ISIS and leave a M4 behind, go ahead. Id rather not throw spare batteries at them. I'd like to evaluate the situation and then kill some of the fuckers before they behead me.