Thread: Is there a need for internal guns on air superiority fighters anymore?

Originally Posted by Jimmy

Compared to Vietnam? Real-world examples are difficult to find. There's Allied Force, but not much else.

The diferences in Vietnam were far smaller (specially at first) in terms of tactics, equipment, US C3I support and politics. AFAIK, during most of Vietnam the USAF/UN weren't even allowed to engage over the north unless it was in strict self defence. That put them in a huge disadvantage, which was greatly responsible for a high percentage of NVA kills.

True, but I was more referring to the vast advances in technology. We don't have many real-world examples of modern air weaponry to examine. Missile tech in Vietnam was still in it's infancy, and there wasn't much until Desert Storm, which at least included weapons similar to what we have now. Desert Storm and Allied Force are about as close as we can get to what we currently use, thus the best examples.

I'll try to summarize the non-gun argument.

Data for missiles is primarily gathered by firing them against drones. The drones can be programmed for any number of scenarios. Straight and level, 4g turn, 6g spiral, etc. The simple reality is that the missile either works, or it doesn't. If it "works", then it doesn't matter much what the drone is doing. Will there be cases where a target's 9g bat turn defeats a missile that would hit at 6g? Of course. But less often than most think, given the ability of a modern AA missile to maintain high seeker slew rates, and control surfaces capable of delivering 20+ g.

From the live-fire ranges such as Tyndall, data is accumulated over the years, and published as a classified document. Without disclosing specifics, this is where I primarily base my opinion. The performance of the AIM-9L over the Falklands, and other combat-fired missiles from the Bekaa valley up to the present day, reinforces this view.

Finally, modern tactics drives the use of missiles rather than the gun. While close turning combat is still practiced for the necessary art it is, missile minimum ranges have shrunk over the years and definitely overlap the gun envelope. Tactically, it is infinitely better to launch the IR missile rather than achieve a gun-track solution. That guy about to get gunned will be screaming on his radio for assistance, and the additional 15 to 45 seconds it takes to gun him will unnecessarily expose you.

I think we've flogged this nicely, and there is no correct answer - just two alternatives, each with advantages and disadvantages.

Well put Chogy.