Tony Williams wrote:

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
In message , Tony
Williams writes

Provided, of course, that you can get and hold a solid radar lock on the
target; the lack of which ability is sometimes cited as a reason to keep
guns, which of course are wonderful because they're just 'point and
shoot' with no fancy sensors or expensive jammable radars needed

True. I do include this statement in the book:

"The percentage of shots which hit the target in air-to-air firing
exercises varies greatly depending on the circumstances. Modern fire
control systems can calculate the correct aiming point, taking into
account such variables as the effects of gravity (if the gun is fired
when the aircraft is banking) and of relative wind (if the aircraft is
manoeuvring so that its gun is pointing away from the direction of
flight). If the radar is locked on to the target, a high percentage of
hits can be achieved; if not, then the scores drop down to optical
gunsight levels. If a pilot knows he is under gun attack, he can make
a radar lock virtually impossible by constantly making small changes
in direction every couple of seconds. The number of hits required to
destroy a modern aircraft is estimated at four to six hits of 30 mm
fire and perhaps three times as many with a 20 mm gun."

However, it obviously takes an aware and skilled pilot to stop his
attacker from getting a radar lock.

ISTM we're ignoring Laser/IRSTS here, but many of the same comments apply. However, if you're locking someone
up then you're almost certainly setting off his radar/laser warning systems (assuming he's so fitted).

snip

I've personally come to the conclusion that the "guns are a waste of
space" movement was clearly and provably premature[1], but as combat
experience improved tactics and equipment the backlash was almost
counterproductive. By the time the USAF were fielding the F-4E, the
desperate need for its M61 had gone; but it was a lot easier to say
"that useless Navy fighter we were forced to buy didn't have a gun!"
than to admit to significant doctrinal, tactical and maintenance
shortcomings.

I also include the following in the book, which illustrates your point
rather better than Vietnam:

"The growing importance of missiles is graphically demonstrated by the
experience of the Israeli Air Force, which has experienced more
air-to-air combat in this period than any other. In the Six Day War of
1967, guns scored 100% of the Israeli fighter kills. Between then and
1973, the figure dropped to 70%. In the Yom Kippur War there was a
further drop to 30%, between 1973 and 1979 it was 20%, from 1979 to
1982 it was 10%, in the Lebanon campaign of 1982 it was 7%, and since
then 0%."

Someone else has a copy of "Fighters over Israel" ;-)

I do note that the US Navy, flying in the same area (though with
significant differences) never felt the need to field either gun pods
for air-to-air or to insist on an internal gun on any Phantom. (Though
the F-14 acquired one: interesting, that, and I'd like to know why. For
that matter, was the F-111B meant to have an internal gun?)

I presume that the F-14 installation, along with the F-15, was part of
the 'backlash' against the gunless planes (for the initially
lower-capability, general-purpose F-16 the gun was more
understandable). The F-111B could carry a gun - another quote:

"The F 111 had an internal weapons bay in the front fuselage and one
of the loads that could be accommodated was a M61A1 with a generous
2,048 rounds, with the gun in the left half of the bay. The only
version that regularly carried this weapon was the F 111D, and
although it was carried in Vietnam the weapon saw no use there. It was
soon decided to carry AIM 9 missiles for self-defence instead."

snip

FWIW, Tony Thornborough's first book on the 'Vark (and probably the bigger one, which I haven't read) contains
interviews with a fair number of F-111A crews who flew in Vietnam. Their comment was that they were ordered to
carry the loaded gun on every mission and did so, but absolutely no one ever used it or intended to do so, and
they considered it and its ammo unnecessary weight. It made no sense to use it, given their mission
(night/all-weather, Lo-Lo-Lo-Hi, single-ship laydown attacks). The last thing they were going to do was to
come around and make strafing passes on an alerted target -- they figured if a full load of Slicks/Snakes/CBUs
didn't do the job the cannon wasn't going to, and it's not as if there were any MiGs flying around in the
conditions they operated in.

Guy