In article ,
"Paul F Austin" wrote:

Nope, I just used weight as an example of the "cost" paid for a gun.
And my question stands: At the initial design stage of an aircraft
when you're making choices, is a gun worth more than a couple of
SRAAMs?

Yes. For flexibility, and for having a system independnt of the missile
system.

Yes, the "no-guns" fighter was 'way premature in 1955, the year the
F4H configuration was frozen. It's_really_not clear that's still the
case now.

Funny, the fighter pilots keep telling us differently.

It's not just weapons fit either. The vibration from gun firing costs
significantly higher failure rates in electronics near the gun.

That's a nice theory, but not proven anywhere, and it certainly didn't
show up on the F-4Es I used to work on.

Having a major electronics failure is a mission kill these days.

So you want a non-electronic weapon. Like a gun, instead of a missile.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.