Guns on fighters?

"Red" wrote:

I have to add one thing to this discussion.

The R.O.E. will always require visual I.D. Why? Because somewhere there is
always someone with stars on his colar, (or who wants stars on his colar)
that is deathly afraid that someone will screw-up.

That once was arguably true, but with technology that makes ID
virtually certain (if we ain't there yet, we're darn close), the
guy/gal with stars on their collar who wants more of them will choose
beating the enemy to covering his/her posterior.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

"José Herculano" wrote in message .. .
All...I was wondering: have there been any guns-only air to air kills by
US
aircraft since SE Asia?
As an aside, what are the thoughts of those who have been in combat? Are
guns
on board nostalga, or, are they a practical weapon?

2 kills by A-10 over helos on DS only... but:

a) The Israelis have got air-to-air gun kills with both F-16 and F-15;

Add to this several gun-kills scored by (US-built) F-4s, F-5s, and
F-14s in Iranian service, during the war with Iraq, in the 1980s.

As a matter of fact, the first kill ever scored by an F-14 was against
an Iraqi Mi-25 (export version of the Mi-24 "Hind"), shot down on 7
September 1980, by 20mm gunfire.

Iranian F-4s also scored their last known kill of that war (and thus
for all the Phantoms ever) with the gun: an Iraqi Su-22M-3K, in May
1988.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq; War in the Air, 1980-1988
http://www.schifferbooks.com/militar...764316699.html

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585

In article , Red
writes
The R.O.E. will always require visual I.D. Why? Because somewhere there is
always someone with stars on his colar, (or who wants stars on his colar)
that is deathly afraid that someone will screw-up.

That's because going off recent events, someone will screw up,
particularly annoying when there's no enemy air activity anyway.

--
John

In article , SKSvilich
writes
All...I was wondering: have there been any guns-only air to air kills by US
aircraft since SE Asia?
As an aside, what are the thoughts of those who have been in combat? Are guns
on board nostalga, or, are they a practical weapon?

Sea Harriers over the Falklands made kills with their guns:

1x Pucara
2x A-4
1x A.109
1x C130 (hit by AIM 9L, finished off with the gun)

In addition one Puma was destroyed by the wake of a Sea Harrier.

It makes sense to stick at least one gun on to me.

--
John

"SKSvilich" wrote in message
...
All...I was wondering: have there been any guns-only air to air kills by
US
aircraft since SE Asia?
As an aside, what are the thoughts of those who have been in combat? Are
guns
on board nostalga, or, are they a practical weapon?

Thanks in advance.

Stefan
Humble Cessna Driver

.... maybe Israeli fighter jock(s) have scored with a gun but they are
tightlipped about their air ops.

On 8/9/03 9:32 PM, in article , "John
Halliwell" wrote:

In article , Red
writes
The R.O.E. will always require visual I.D. Why? Because somewhere there is
always someone with stars on his colar, (or who wants stars on his colar)
that is deathly afraid that someone will screw-up.


Not true (in training and in the fleet).

That's because going off recent events, someone will screw up,
particularly annoying when there's no enemy air activity anyway.

But perhaps it should be. Consider the OIF Patriot battery operators.
Funny how we hear/see all this press about our dudes dropping bombs on
Canadians in Afghanistan, but don't hear about the Patriot operators (or
folks that gave them the OK to shoot) that shot a Tornado and a Hornet.

--Woody

(Pechs1) wrote in message ...
But to answer the question- As an aside, what are the thoughts of those who
have been in combat?
Snip:

I've been there and until someone comes up with a genuine Buck Rogers
disintegrator ray or plasma blaster or whatever I'd still want a gun.
Walt BJ

On 8/9/03 5:24 PM, in article
, "Eric Moore"
wrote:

snip

And that takes me to my biggest beef with Navy hardware choices of late:
although the USAF F-35A will have an internal gun, the Navy F-35B will not.
It will have the possibility of carrying a gun in a pod in one of the two
big internal bays, which is the same as saying it is not gona happen, babe.

Lets hope for some high brass with a mean disposition to throw a stupendous
tantrum... put a gun on the F-35B right now, and, BTW, Boeing, come over
here and tell me why the Super Bug still has those 4 degrees toed-out
pylons!
_____________
José Herculano


The Navy didn't go for an internal gun on the F-4J/S, or the A-6 either,
how big of a disadvantage was that?

Would have helped to have a gun on an Intruder during Operation Preying
Mantis. Strafing is quite effective in close quarters and for SuW... And if
you don't have a gun in A/A it sucks to have to open the range and rely on
the min range missile shots.

There were a bunch of thankful troops on the ground in Afghanistan during
Operation Condor that the F/A-18 had a GAU.

The Navy fixed their error on the F-4J/S.

The F-35 doesn't have one (on the Navy version) but needs one. This is
another case of the engineers (and budgeteers) believing their own
arithmetic and sacrificing capability... Make it single engine and don't
install a gun... See? The numbers don't lie. It'll work.

Meanwhile operators are shaking their heads... again.

--Woody

Didn't the F-106 and F-111 have provisions for a Vulcan cannon in the
weapon bay? Was this setup ever used in anger?
Have they decided what kind of gun the F-35 will have?
Also, what's the status of the laser weapon that was to be fitted in
the F-35 weapon bay?
Just curious.

"JDupre5762" wrote in message
...
All...I was wondering: have there been any guns-only air to air kills by
US
aircraft since SE Asia?
As an aside, what are the thoughts of those who have been in combat?
Are
guns
on board nostalga, or, are they a practical weapon?

Duke Cunningham will tell you that if his Navy F-4 had a gun he might have
got
three more kills in his famous day of fighting when he made ace. While
not air
combat there were guns only strafing runs made in Afghanistan during a
fight
over a downed helicopter.

While air to air and air to ground missiles are now far more reliable than
during Vietnam and far more capable than during Desert Storm I think
history
shows us that whenever we think that some weapon is obsolete along comes a
conflict where that weapon is needed. Often the weapon is not used in its
original form but a good use is found for it.

In regards to combat aircraft guns there might come a time when the combat
arena is so circumscribed that beyond visual range weapons will not be
practical due to the chance of "collateral damage". Then only visual
range
weapons could be used and the gun takes on a new importance. Imagine if
in the
Balkans one of our opponents (I can't remember whose side we weren't on!)
had
put up a decent aerial opposition, would we really have been launching a
lot of
long range weapons in one of the most heavily air traveled areas of the
world?

As in Afghanistan in a future conflict at the extreme of range for some
aircraft might make it necessary to use every weapon they brought along
right
down to the guns when all other ordnance was expended. Not because they
could
not loiter in terms of fuel but because it would take too long to return
to
base and reload.

The gun will never again be a primary or even secondary weapon but as a
tertiary one it will have its uses and you can never be sure when that
will be.

John Dupre'


.... it is my understanding that naval versions had a gun but the air force
did not but was later retrofitted with one.

Woody,

Would have helped to have a gun on an Intruder

I agree that having a gun would have been a good thing during Preying Mantis
(taking out oil platforms). I can't agree that the Intruder would have been
the right bird for guns. During 1988 the A-7 was still lurking about, so
it's not as if we didn't have gun assets available. I presume the A-6E
COULD carry rockets (as its predecessor Intruder variants could), and so
augment the gunfire from the Thalidomide Crusader.

Then there's the old conundrum about what tradeoffs you'd need to make, to
retrofit a gun into any aircraft not already "gun-ready". With the
Intruder, this would most likely have meant a pod. The expression, "sailors
and pods don't mix very well", was already gaining currency during the early
1970s with the intro of the EA-6B to the fleet.

Since the A-6's primary mission was all-wx attack a gun - at best - would
only have been a "nice to have".

Owl sends.
--
Mike Kanze

436 Greenbrier Road
Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
USA

650-726-7890

"Vegetarian (vej ' i târ ' ee en), n. Amerindian term meaning "lousy
hunter".


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
[rest snipped]