In article ,
(Chris Manteuffel) wrote:

Scott Ferrin wrote in message
. ..

Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Everything is a tradeoff. For a gun you bring along quite a bit of
weight (~100kg+ weight of ammo). What if that mass was fuel?

With weight of tankage, that's about 150 kilograms of fuel (gun, ammo,
et cetera versus tankage, pipes and fuel control stuff). An extra five
percent, maybe . Not a good tradeoff, overall.

What if it were extra decoys?

The dispensing system on the F-4 was small enough to be held in your
arms. There's not a lot of need for five times that much, and the gain
versus having an extra weapon isn't obvious.

What if it were more avionics?

The plane is pretty full of avionics right now, there's not a lot more
you could put in and still have something a pilot could use.

What if it were more engines?

It's got "more engine" than pretty much anything else, and you'd need a
lot more than a coupl of hundred kilos to do anything more with it.

What if that mass was completely dropped to get a more
manueverable fighter?

A more maneuverable fighter that doesn't need as much maneuverability,
since it's going to have to stay the hell away from actual dogfighting.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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