Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Fighters without guns
Keywords: Only the F-4?
Message-ID: <12968@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 10 Jan 90 03:28:02 GMT
References: <12928@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR
Lines: 49
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker)
In article <12928@cbnews.ATT.COM> dlj@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (david.l.jacobowitz) writes:
>
>I understand that the U.S. went through a phase in the '50s and
>early '60s where we considered the gun on a fighter to be obselete.
>The prevailing thinking was that all air-to-air engagements would
>be fought with missiles.
>
>Now, I don't wish to restart the discussion on why this is not true.
>But I'm trying to think of the fighters that were actually deployed
>without an internal gun, and I can only name one: the F-4 Phantom II.
>I do know that most of the F-4's contemporaries did in fact have
>internal guns, for example the USAF's F-105 Thunderchief
>and the USN's F-8 Crusader.
>
>So I'm wondering what other U.S. fighters have been deployed
>without an internal gun.

The Phantom II is the only one that I am aware of without guns.  The
period you mention was more a de-emphasis on dogfighting than on guns.
The prevailing thinking was that missiles would prevent opposing
aircraft from closing to close range, so dogfight-type training was
ignored.  This concpt manifested itself in the Phantom II because of
its role.  It was designed to be a long range over-water interceptor.
As such it was only expected to fire its missiles in long range
engagements.  Dogfighting was not considered a possibility, and the
gun was deleted to save weight.  At least in part because of possible
ground attack missions, air force versions carried a gun.  The early
experience in Vietnam showed how flawed this thinking was.  In defense
of the navy, they didn't believe close in fighting was impossible.
Back then the navy tended to keep two different types of fighters
around.  The F-8 Crusader complemented the Phantom II well, by being
the dogfighter the Phantom wasn't.  Matter of fact, the last I heard,
the F-8 had the highest kill ratio of individual American aircraft in
Vietnam.  Of course it helps that most of the F-8's were gone by the
late war air offensives, and didn't have to face the much improved air
defenses. 

>Has the USSR ever deployed a gunless fighter?
Technically, several early Migs used conformal gun pods.  Since they
were removable, the airframe was gunless.  It's a small detail, and I
am not aware of any major, regular use where the gun pods weren't
installed.  Most fact sheets on the Migs list them with internal guns.

-- 
Terry Rooker
terryr@cse.ogi.edu