Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Fighters without guns Message-ID: <13036@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 11 Jan 90 04:59:41 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 31 Approved: military@att.att.com From: att!utzoo!henry >From: dlj@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (david.l.jacobowitz) >...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. The F-8 substantially pre-dated the F-4. It was just early enough to have guns. The F-105 was roughly an F-4 contemporary, but its primary mission was nuclear strike rather than air combat. (The tell-tale sign of this is the *small* internal weapons bay.) I don't know why there was a gun on the F-105; perhaps for self-defence? Part of the problem, I think, was a fixation on the interceptor role, as opposed to air superiority. The F-4 was definitely meant as an interceptor. The F-102 and F-106 likewise had no gun armament. Nor did the even sexier, but cancelled, F-103 and F-108 interceptors. For that matter, I don't think the F-101 had guns, and still earlier interceptors -- specific variants of the F-86 and F-89 -- didn't either. The F-86D fired salvos of unguided rockets, as did the F-89D. Later F-89s switched to carrying Falcon AAMs. The F-102 had provisions for rockets but main armament was Falcons. The F-106 used Falcon and Genie, although some were later retrofitted with guns. F-103 armament was going to be, I think, the Eagle AAM, also meant to arm the Missileer that the Navy started as a Phantom replacement. (Phoenix is Eagle's distant descendant via several other abortive projects.) Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu