JDupre5762 wrote:

I'm interested in canvassing opinions regarding the inclusion of a gun
on future military aircraft.

There seems to be a remarkable coincidence every time that pundits or experts
decide that something can never happen again it will. I would think that the
cost of an internal gun is small enough to be included in a future design based
on the possibility of it being needed at some time somewhere. The military
needs to be prepared for almost any eventuality. I know that the USAF has had
occasion to use guns ony strafing runs from F-15s in Afghanistan and would bet
that if someone had said there was a need for that ten years ago many people
would have laughed at the thought. I would think too that any nation in Europe
with its congested airspace ought to see that at some point it will probably
become necessary to establish visual range only (VRO) intercept and firing
parameters lest a lot of neutrals end up dead.

The thing is, modern dogfight missiles cued by HMS, radar or IRSTS are effective
down well inside classical gun ranges at much higher off-boresight angles, making
the gun far less likely to be used for A/A combat. There is an issue of
countermeasures susceptibility with missiles (as there is with gun fire control
systems), but the general conclusion of the analysts, this time backed up by combat
experience (unlike the case in the '50s) is that the gun really is excess weight
these days, at least for A/A combat use. It still may have a place in peacetime
for firing warning shots or the occasional troops in contact emergency, but the
general feeling seems to be that the first situation can be catered for with podded
guns, while in the second the weight/volume otherwise dedicated to an internal gun
installation can be better used for carrying more A/G (like the SSB or rockets) or
A/A weapons, fuel or avionics, or can just be left out and the a/c as a whole can
be smaller, lighter and cheaper.

Guy