"Chad Irby" wrote
"Paul F Austin" wrote:

Now, here's a question: for the 200Kg or so weight budget (I have no
idea
about volume) of an internal gun and ammo tank, would you rather have 1,
2
or 3 more AIM-9Xs/ASRAAMs?

It's not a question of "just weight," or we'd just build C-5s with a big
automated missile launcher in them.

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? Or some of the
other goods that you snipped. Those are real choices and a gun has to earn
its place on the airframe just like every other piece of gear. You (the
customer and systems designers) make choices that affect the aircraft
thoughout its life.

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.
Minimum range engagement? ASRAAM claim 300m minimum range and with "looks
can kill" helmet sights, it's really not clear that a gun brings much to the
table.. Strafing? Having 6 SDBs tucked away seems more useful.

It's not just weapons fit either. The vibration from gun firing costs
significantly higher failure rates in electronics near the gun. Having a
major electronics failure is a mission kill these days.