Guy Alcala wrote in message ...

I have seen no concrete evidence that it was a "purely economic" decision (but
see Tony Williams' post). I'm sure cost played a part, but I imagine there were
a multitude of factors involved. I don't doubt that a lot of RAF people
screamed at the idea, just as many people have screamed at virtually every
deletion of some weapon capability (or loss of their personal warm and fuzzy),
no matter how little utility it may have in changed circumstances. The
battleship people screamed too. Who's right in this instance has yet to be
proved. We all agree that there are some cases where a gun provides a useful
capability, but then so does a sword. As always, it's a question of tradeoffs.

Agree with the points you make, Guy. My argument would be that
although the gun is no longer of primary importance in a fighter, it
can fulfil a wide range of secondary roles (see my original post)
especially in situations short of a 'hot' war. The theorists have
frequently tried to keep their concepts 'clean' (what was the USAF
fighter whose development was said to include 'not one pound for air
to ground'?) but the even the most specialised interceptors have
frequently found themselves carrying bombs once combat required it.

I would argue that for the present at least, the small weight penalty
and cost of a gun (compared with the whole-life cost of the aircraft)
makes it worth keeping.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/