....maybe a good idea or is it a screwy concept that's been tried and disproved before?
Sounded like heresy to me, but I had a discussion with a friend of mine last night / today about the merits of guns in air to air combat. His (legitimate) points are that:
1.) The addition of the gun to an air to air fighter means more weight, more maintenance, more support equipment, more personnel, and more things to break down and supply.
2.) Since Vietnam, there have been several medium-scale air battles fought, and guns kills have been almost nonexistant in that time. The only guns kills in Desert Storm were from Hogs, I believe.
3.) Modern off-boresight missiles, helmet mounted sights, etc. as well as improved close-range missile technology, can and have made a guns fight a much more risky proposition than ever before.
Now, this isn't dealing with air to ground stuff....I think there is a role for guns there, especially in specific platforms like the Su-25 or A-10. But my friend's point is that the days of aircraft slugging it out at guns range and both using guns is probably behind us.
Thoughts? I'd love to hear Andy's take, especially, since he was a pilot from the generation who flew the non-gun fighters into combat. Yes, we tried the no-guns fighters idea before, but not with the technology we have today, nor the solid history of missile kills.
So, what do we think?
------------------
John Sponauer
Senior Editor
SimHQ.com
jsponauer@SimHQ.com