I think the rules of engagement were probably the biggest factor for air to air difficulties Vietnam. Add that to the sparrow missile being so unreliable and it must have been incredibly frustrating to fight in the sky’s in that war.
The sidewinder was also a problem, because of its deceptively small engagement envelope compounded by the USAF insistence on “universal pilots” (unspecialized pilots who where as trained for nuclear bombers as for air superiority fighters). The reason that pilots were getting gun kills is that there were older pilots who had experience with fighting with guns.
We have to remember that BVR weapons like the Sparrow are new in Vietnam; the technology was immature. We also didn't have AWACS, sensors, radars, etc. that enable true BVR combat.
Yeah. They tried to leave guns behind before they could reliably to do air-to-air with only missiles, much less BVR which is where the arguement makes much more sense to keep it optional. I think they jumped the gun but a backup is always a safe bet. We have automatic weapons the size of small pistols but soldiers are still give a combat knife. A gun is like the aerial combat knife in that sense.
The biggest contributing factor to Americas reduction in kill ratio (apart from the lack of a gun), was that pilots were no longer given Basic Fighter Maneuvers training because the military brass thought that missiles would do all the work. Their training for the most part involved trying maneuvers after they had finished a mission with whatever fuel they had left. Robin Olds, who was a WWII P38 and P51 pilot, help to change all this, he made the best pilots flight lead, regardless of rank and made sure his 8th tactical fighter wing had the training it needed. Robin Olds, if he had been born in another time, would have been a warrior king.
It is sad to hear the air strategy was as stupid as the ground strategy. I am a Vietnam vet that served with 4th Infantry Division, in boonies there were no rules of engagement, if we found them or they hit you it was Katy bar the door. The 4th went back to the US and I was transferred to the I/10 cavalry at Ankhe which was the same AO as the 4th. The 10th Cav secured QL 19 from the top of the Ankhe Pass to Bridge 33 beyond the MangYang Pass. QL 19 was the highway from the coast to Pleiku Our tanks could not fire their 90mm unless shot at with big guns or rockets. The PCs (M113s) nor our tanks (M48s)could use their M2 50cals unless fired on with Russian 51cal heavy machine guns. Luckily the dinks always fired B40 RPGs at the trucks in the convoys so we were able to justify using all we had. Which was a lot.
Alex again another fantastic video. The F-4 while lacking a gun was hampered by the ROE, the lack of BFM/ACM training and the misshandling of the AIM-9 and AIM-7. The USN Ault Report addressed all of these issues. The USAF took a different approach and thankfully the Navy and Air Force shared the info from Have Donut, Have Drill etc. Your assessment was spot on! The tactics, training, understanding the enemy and the F-4 allowed the USN and USAF to survive and defeat the MiGs.
One thing that is often forgotten when discussing guns on aircraft is the detrimental effect it has on every other system and other weapons on the aircraft. Firing a gun causes an incredible amount of vibration and can drastically reduce the service life of equipment, including other ordinance that the aircraft is carrying. There are real trade offs.
"According to Red Baron data, the single most significant factor in the loss of aircraft [to Migs] was the element of surprise, with 81 per-cent of all U.S. losses occurring when the crew was either completely unaware they were under attack, or found out too late to effectively defend." ".... the Air Force finally got its technical answer to the warning problem, a control center called “Teaball.” Teaball was, in essence, an all-source fusion center that issued MiG warnings in real-time to U.S. air-crew over a complicated set of radio nets. Because of the complexity and unreliability of the communications involved, Teaball did not always work. But when it did, the results were excellent: The Teaball facility came into operation in early August when we had a loss-ratio of .47-to-one - we were losing almost twice as many as the MiGs to us. Then, with the first week’s operation of Teaball, we jumped to a four-to-one ratio for the month of August, and four-to-one in September....This proved one thing - if you can show the American fighter pilot where [the enemy] is in sufficient time, he’ll shoot him down. Overall, and especially following the commencement of Teaball, American pilots enjoyed definite air superiority over North Vietnam." The USAF didn't start impressive kill rates over the VPAF until Operation Teaball. Teaball vastly increased the situational awareness of USAF pilots. The USAF didn't have Top Gun, and Red Flag hadn't started yet. It wasn't Tom Cruz and Top Gun, it was the Situational Awareness of Tea Ball that put the USAF way back on top.. ..
I think the gun pod route is the way to go, so long as it's developed actively and frequently put to the test. It makes sense to always have the gun option available if we find out that some unforeseen set of circumstances make our air forces really wish they had a gun handy. So long as we can avoid dumb stuff (like having gun pod compatibility force compromises on the core design of the aircraft itself), having the option seems like the right move.
@@FactCheckerGuy I didn't say they were great - I hear that the F35's pod in particular had (or still has?) problems. But having the pod option is exactly that - an option. The platform stays stealthy as ever normally, and ONLY in that "damn nobody saw this coming, but guns would help a lot" scenario we can strap on a decently functional pod.
Sounds like a sidearm for an aircraft. Probably missions where one may or may not be needed, or be preferred. But, to completely eliminate the option, or stop developing and training for them, would be a blind spot.
Guns on a fighter are like an infantryman's pistol. May not be needed very often but they are very comforting. And, when you do need it, you really need it!
Yeah, like when you are "in the sh$t" and you're fresh outta missiles! Yer F-35 in stealth-mode can carry what? 4 AIM-120 (some say maybe 6 with a "sidekick configuration"). My point: when you are out of arrows, you either turn and haul a$$ or make it personal with a virtual "knife-fight" !
The AIM 7 was certainly improved at the time of Desert Storm. The F15 used it to cause more than half of the air to air kills. And the F14’s AWG 9 radar allowed her crew to make identification at long range via the Television Camera System. With these advances in avionics and armaments one can say the gun is unnecessary weight. But, these days aircraft are multirole, there’s no pure Fs nor pure As. The shot of the F35 firing away, that gun is intended for air to ground, those are 25 mm rounds. Many argue the 20 mm of the M61 is more than enough to spray effectively. The gun is useful for CAS and Search and rescue which makes me mention, the A7D and E was retired too soon like the F14 tomcat. They made a good air to air and air to ground duo.
Aside from the million dollar risk of sending an F-35 to do a CAS using a gun, they can just use PGM and it will be much more effective at CAS and does not risk your F-35.
@@Anonnonner9546 The Marines bought the F-35B specifically for the CAS role, because that is the primary purpose of Marine aviation. The gun on the F-35 is a 4-barrel version of the 5-barrel gun on the Harrier which is what the F-35 is replacing, and the Harrier has used its gun a fair amount in air-to-ground strafing. PGMs are expensive and scarce, cannon shells are cheap and plentiful. And if you're afraid to send your expensive jet into harm's way to protect your troops on the ground, Marine aviation is not for you.
Thr one nice thing about a cannon in a modern fighter is that it's a weapon that occupies a space no other weapon can fit into. You aren't losing a missile to have a cannon. The cannon may be of dubious usefulness and maybe that space could be used for more fuel or something, but the cannon will always be an extra weapon on top of whatever else you might carry
I dont think this is entirely true, most gun systems for planes are crammed to where they can fit, in the f-22s case it lost 2 BVR missiles to accommodate the gun. For the F-35 it was the "is it practical to put it on because we could fit an extra 1500 pounds of fuel in this" which is the primary "issue" with the f-35.
Fuel can fit almost anywhere and in place of that, the weapons bay could be expanded. Or lighter weight, more efficient airframe, etc... Carrying a gun is 500-800 lbs worth of range, speed, maneuverability, or payload to lug around something that will never be used. It's fine to keep the existing guns on 4th gen aircraft, but adding guns on 5th gen aircraft was a mistake. The one legitimate excuse is that current 5th gen aircraft were being designed in the 90s which was basically a different era. But a mistake in retrospect is still a mistake. Certainly they have no place on 6th gen aircraft.
While this video is great at addressing the shortfalls of the F-4 in Vietnam, it doesn't really negate nor promote the addition of a gun in a modern fighter plane. The way I see it, might not be the primary weapon of choice for any modern fighter pilot today, but neither are knives the primary weapon of choice of infantry, and yet in CQC sometimes you do bring a knife to a gunfight, and you do bring a gun to a missile fight.
@@gordonbergslien30This does not apply to this situation. Adding a gun to an aircraft will add weight and reduce maneuverability, range, ect. That extra weight could be used for more missiles or fuel, or just dropped entirely. Add to this the significant danger manpads will pose to any aircraft that attempts to provide close air support with guns and it doesn't seem like such a great addition anymore. Pilots will likely prefer to support ground troops with precise guided bombs from afar rather than risk getting smoked by enemy close air defense. However, there will likely be some niche situations where guns would be useful or even necessary. That is why I think detachable gun pods are the best solution. If the air force thinks they might need guns, great, just add some. If they don't need them they can add extra missiles or fuel instead of just having dead weight. But IDK that's just my opinion. 😅
Nobody mentions that the early Vietnam era AIM-9 and AIM-7 missiles would have had to be maintained in the shop AFER EVERY FLIGHT, but it was common to leave a missile on the raul for 20-50 (carrier) flight cycles and these missiles just could not function because of lack of maintenance!
There have been exactly ZERO US fighter kills using guns since the Vietnam war. Zip. Zero. Nada. The Phantom designers had it right, but the missile engineers didn't have it right. The "Last Gunfighter" F-8, a plane that everyone thinks ran around the sky using its guns to kill MIGs, have it wrong. There is only one MIG gun kill only made by the F-8. All of the other kills Mig kills were Sidewinder kills except one. In that case, the opponent was struck with a missile, which damaged it, and finished off with a gun, but it was not a pure gun-only kill and the plane was losing altitude when it was finished off with the gun, but it was the Sidewinder that really won the engagement. Guns are useful for strafing though, so they do make more sense on an multi-roll aircraft.
Keep the gun until lasers are improved enough to replace them. A laser will still be less effective than a gun for taking down a large aircraft. But lasers could also potentially be used defensively against incoming missiles and point quickly anywhere in a large arc. Lasers also don’t run out of ammunition and could continue to fire as often as available electric power allows. A laser would also be handy for taking down lower cost targets such as balloons or small drones with low risk and low cost.
I agree on lasers optionally replacing guns since at least lasers have much more utility. But really guns were already a mistake on 5th gen aircraft (and certainly 6th gen). If we REALLY need guns, that is every 4/4.5 gen fighter. We have thousands of those. But all this is, is 500-800 lbs worth of range, speed, maneuverability, or payload to lug around something that will never be used. Every other use of that weight and space is better.
I feel like the gun on a modern jet is like the average infantryman’s knife. It’s not your primary or secondary weapon, but when shit hits the fan it’s good to have.
Having a backup is always a good idea. The guns are certainly not the first thing a fighter pilot thinks of but when he or she really needs one, nothing else will do! Too many things can go wrong and one never knows when the mission will change to where having that gun might be a lifesaver! So yes, I think they need the gun. Cheers, jc
@@jetli740 exactly! Beyond visual range has become increasingly common since its prevalance in the Iran-Iraq War. Nowadays in the Russo-Ukranian War, Ukranian Air Force pilots have gone on public record declaring MiG-31's and Su-35's the single greatest threat to their aircraft because of their BVR capabilities. Because of this, we see a few kills from the Russian Air Force at beyond visual range every single month, and to date, there is not a single open source publicly confirmed air-to-air victory from the Ukrainian Air Force against a crewed aircraft, only against cruise missiles, OWA drones, and other UAV's. Russians have released BVR air-to-air combat footage, but notice that Ukrainians haven't been able to release footage of successfully interceptions of crewed aircraft. Granted if something like this occured at night, this makes footage difficult as Ukraine aircraft are not known to carry targeting pods (snd their IRST do not function as cameras) The UAF sends a fighter escort of one MiG-29 for their two-ship Su-25 strikes, but (and also this specifically has been discussed) is more of a moral booster and can offer some light protection against, say, the asymmetric air-to-air threat posed by Russian attack helicopters carrying air-to-air missiles.
@@countvonthizzle9623 the Argentinians were at the edge of their range and couldn't use afterburner to build up speed or else they'd run out of fuel over the ocean.
This paper documents the prevalence of various kinds of air-to-air kills by decade. By the 1980s, guns were a very small fraction of air-to-air kills. See Table 11: csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/Air-to-Air-Report-.pdf
@@countvonthizzle9623 While the Harriers had a slower top speed they accelerated to their top speed faster than the Skyhawks & Mirages especially at low level, perhaps more importantly they were far more agile due to Directional Thrust.
And that was because of British EW made a lot of the outmoded Argentine missile systems much less effective. That & a lack of good training meant that Argentine pilots were willing to take their inceptor-type airframes down into the lower altitudes that the Harrier excels in. It was, in short the Vietnam lesson being taught all over again. In the close-in dogfight, guns are a necessity, but dogfights are an anachronism of poor training &/or operational non-readiness. "If the enemy is stupid enough to get close enough for my guns, then it's good I have a gun." If the Argentine military had proper missile defense in the theatre, then the Harriers would have been rendered largely impotent, but interdepartmental rivalries were high & coordination was low amongst the branches, so logistics & capabilities failed, which the Brittish Navy exploited to maximum effect.
Well, having seen some people fight in DCS, even in dogfights allowing 9-Xs and other high off bore sight missiles, sometimes people still get gun opportunities before they can land a missile. There's a still a minimum range people can exploit, countermeasures, etc. Having both means the opponent needs to cover the risk from the fighter's nose in addition to the missile's threat envelope. If a plane ends up in the kind of close range fight, sometimes the gun is still the best tool. Same thing for say strafing a target of opportunity, etc. So the question is less whether or not guns are useful for their job, and more whether or not those jobs come up sufficiently often that it is worth hedging with resources and performance to cover that need versus having more missiles, better sensors, etc. However, I'm not sure that gun pods are actually a good alternative to an integrated gun. For stealth aircraft, external mounts tend to have a pretty significant penalty. And some of the situations where people could use a gun aren't necessarily ones that they expected to be in. Personally, I'd say that keeping guns is probably a good idea for any kind of conventional fighter or stealth fighter. I don't think we see nations fielding large and diverse fleets of fighters and strike aircraft anymore, nor do new iterations and designs reach maturity rapidly. Much of the design of the P-51 was done in the same year it first flew, and its introduction was 2 years later. The F-35 goes from being declared JSF winner in 2001 to a first fight in 2006, and sees first deployment in 2015. According to wikipedia anyway. Some countries are only flying F-35 as a fighter, so it - or the equivalent - needs to be ready for all situations; even the ones that suck. There's not anything else ready to cover them. OTOH, does something like some of theorized properties of NGAD which gives up some of its fighter like properties and delegates them to its drone wingmen need a gun? There it seems like maybe the tilt is away from guns, just like how B-21 doesn't seem to have gun turrets...
I don't think DCS is a good reference point. You won't see realistic tactics coming from DCS - i.e. large flights if aircraft on both sides being supported by additional aircraft and ground units, all coordinating in a way that compliments each weapon platforms abilities.
The F-4 had the kinematics of a brick, but it could also just power away from any MiG-17/19 and pick when/where/how to fight and attempt a pass. If the MiG pilot lost sight of them... they could easily be taken by surprise. But, yes, if you take a Phantom and decide to get into a rate fight with a MiG-17/19, that's a losing proposition.
Well, in Afghanistan, guns became vital for close air support. Missiles run out quickly. Of course, there’s always the famous M1 pass that scared the enemy away. ☺️
He is talking about air to air platforms not ground support ones. Although even there there is an argument that modern smart bombs could replace that as well but of course their limited quantity is then the issue like you mentioned.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 It was an F-16 that ran out of weapons and made the Mach 1+ pass that frightened away the enemy. It’s used as an attack platform, but it’s not tagged AF or FA-16 for a reason. Even in A2A, we haven’t faced an enemy with a sizable AF is decades. The possibility of friendly forces meeting an enemy with superior numbers is a high probability, especially in WESTPAC. Then, guns just might become vital. The other option is flee, and as the saying goes, these colors don’t run.
Glad more people are starting to talk about this. I love a sick dogfight as much as the next guy, but I think people are slowly starting to realize that air to air combat sadly doesn't work like that anymore....in theory. The world really hasn't had a big peer level war in a long time. Theoretically most air to air engagements in a modern war are gonna be those long range over the horizon shots, but I wonder how electronic warfare factors into that. If EWAR renders radar useless, are we suddenly in a guns only close in fight? All of a sudden leaving that gun pod back at base is starting to look like a really bad idea. I don't know enough about how EWAR works to make a guess, I'm just thinking out loud here. God what I wouldn't give to see a Raptor in that kind of fight. From another perspective, 10, maybe 20 years from now, fighters won't have guns or missiles. They'll just have those laser systems, and dogfights will come down to who acquires who first. Hell maybe it'll be exclusively drone only, no human pilots. Equal parts fascinating and depressing to think about.
A lot of people are quick to say that the lack of gun caused the issues for the Phantom just like people will say that only the P51 had the range to escort the bombers (the P47 had drop tanks that could have done the job). It is easier to blame the tools than the skill set as many people know. I can understand why people are questioning the gun with how reliable missiles are these days and how great the pilot training is. I will never advocate for loosing a capability until it is written in crayon and broken down Barney style until I will agree to be without it. For example it wasn’t until 2019 when I was okay without a blu-ray drive and DVD drive from my PC.
"For example it wasn’t until 2019 when I was okay without a blu-ray drive and DVD drive from my PC." [Remembers back to around that point where I upgraded from a previous AMD FX processor to a new Ryzen processor and no one informed me it doesn't work with Windows 7 and here I was trying to install Windows 10 with no working USB slots and just my phone for internet access] Luckily I had a W10 installation DVD...
@@matchesburn I do miss seeing and hearing that tray do its thing frankly. I’m actually turning my old computer with the disc drives into a local media server so the disc drive duo will run again.
Title of the video was a great segway into a "lessons learned" kind of video, very interesting policy choices in the middle of a war - clearly not designed by someone who gets in the hot seat themselves!
An interesting video, thanks for giving context to the use (or not) of guns over Vietnam, however it doesn't address if fighters still need guns today. For what it's worth I believe they do. Air-to-air missiles are a lot better these days but counter-measures have also improved, and add to that the increased number of aircraft featuring 'stealth'/low-observable features I suspect there is still a reasonable chance that today's fighters could get into close in dog fights in a conflict between near peer adversaries. And a gun is still useful in ground support as well.
Did you answer the question? you said that the answer doesn't lie in Vietnam, but I didn't really hear if we do actually need guns on fighters. Some newer models that don't come with with guns can fly with a gun pod, but that takes away from combat radius and stealth. I would like to see a more in depth video on this. Thanks for all your hard work, Alex!
You didnt answer your own question... It was "Do jets need a gun ?". Not "Did a gun help the F4 get more kills ?". These are completely different answers. Especially considering you didnt talk about strafing which were extremely useful in modern counter insurgency wars
Thank you, Alex, that illustrates the number of major issues that led to poor results in the Vietnam Air War. Today, I can not see the need for a conventional internal gun on the 5th and certainly not on 6th generation fighters against peer aggressors. In fact, non peer aggressors could probably be completely countered by drones of various capabilities from Reaper through to Taranis.
The RN used 2.75" rockets for close in work. Idea generated in WW2. They were fitted under the nose on Sea Vixen FAW1's and carried in pods on FAW2"s& RN Phantoms and Buccaneers.
The RN rockets were 2"/50mm MATRA whereas the RAF used the 68mm SNEB (also by MATRA). In the Falklands, RAF Harriers ended up using the 2" rockets because the SNEB was not qualified for operation on carriers, presumably due to HERO considerations. The 2" rockets carried in retractable launchers on Sea Vixen (and I believe also on some early Lightning) were for air to air use, but that was never, as far as I am aware intended with the podded versions on Phantom and Buccaneer. You can tell 2" pods from SNEBs as the former has an extra row/circle of rocket apertures.
Guns aren't exactly small and internal space is at a premium. The better question to ask a stealth fighter pilot: "Do you want a gun or a couple extra missiles?"
@@major__kong We can't produce them at a high rate with at this particular moment, but the same thing was true for hardware in the interwar period between WW1 and 2. There was a ramping up period to get our industrial base where it needed to be to switch to mass producing military equipment, and it's likely we would have to do the same thing in a potential lead up to a WW3 scenario.
@@major__kong Air-to-air missiles aren't like artillery shells. You don't use millions of them. It is very unlikely that any modern war would require more than a few thousand, and even that number is pretty unlikely. We can stockpile enough to have plenty.
Slight correction... the AIM-7, while not great, wasn't the reason USAF Phantoms did so poorly. At the time USAF and USN used different missiles because branch rivalry or something. USN had the AIM-9 and USAF AIM-4. It was the AIM-4 Falcon which was so bad that pilots Jerry rigged AIM-9's on their F-4's instead.
Thank you. Ive been saying this for decades. I would add that it wasnt that the sparrow was bad, it wasnt great, but it wasnt bad. Most air to air kills were made with the sparrow. Look it up. The problem was the sparrow had to have its target continuously illuminated by the launching aircraft. So the shooter had to keep its target in its radar cone. When combat rangers were pushed to within visual range by the rule of engagement you can see how easy it would be for a target to slip out of that cone and the sparrow would go dumb. Pilots did figure this out and eventually one (remember they flew in pairs) would scout ahead to make the visual ID and the other would take the shoot. And for this disgrace we can thank McNamara. "You have to visually ID your target. " "Uh, mr secretary, if we're leading the strike package and we spot a plane ahead of us who else could it be beside the enemy?" All because of McNamara's ridiculous fear of escalation. The good news is he figured out his mistake and apologized. The bad news is it wasnt until decades later, right before his death.
Thank you again for a great video. If I remember correctly, once the guns were added, the pilots were trained better and they changed tactics, the kill ratio actually went all the way up to 20/1.
The Air Force added guns and initially, nothing changed. The kill rate went from 2:1 to 3:1 for most of the rest of the war. It improved in the last couple years. But those years were also when they fielded newer, much more capable sidewinders. The Navy never ended up equipping their Phantoms with guns. But due to revamps in training, tactics, missile maintenance, and improved technology, their kill rate had gone up from 2:1 to 13:1 by wars end. The gun was never the problem.
About as much gun kills were made with gun pods and the E internal gun. The majority of kills were missile. The reason for the increase in kill rate was the introduction of Teaball, the radar coverage and comms monitoring that exposed the North Vietnamese ambush tactics.
1:48 "Engines that would produce massive smoke trails" Hmm.. so that's where the Russians got the idea. Implementing that new-fangled technology to their Kuznetsov carrier
The only real issue with not having a gun on a fighter is how it changes the dynamic of a dogfight. The gun means that crossing in front of a fighter's nose is easily punishable and easy way to get shot down. Without a gun, all of that space becomes a safe zone that a skilled enemy can take advantage since even sidewinders have a significant WEZ (weapon employment zone). This gives the enemy far more options in any prolonged fight. I understand why the pentagon doesn't see them as necessary considering air superiority is not the primary mission of the F-35. But it's something that a skilled adversary with the right terrain could easily take advantage.
So... *_do_* fighters need guns? 🤔 I genuinely appreciate your thoroughly-researched, informative, well-produced videos, including this one. But this video discusses various issues related to Vietnam-era fighters. It doesn't even *pretend* to _attempt_ to answer whether (or which of?) today's fighters need guns. And I would be a very interested in hearing your thoughts on that. Maybe retitle this video (so as to avoid snarky accusations of click-bait¹) then create a new one that.... maybe if the question has no simple answer... at least more directly addresses the question? 🤔 Either way, thanks for all your good work! ____________ ¹ To clarify, I'm *not* accusing you of creating click-bait. But it surely some troll's² going to throw that stone at you. ² We've become a culture very good a breaking eggs yet terrible at making omelets.³ ³ e.g. We hyper-criticize everyone else, especially those like you who work hard to create something beneficial and good quality. But we ourselves don't even _try_ to offer anything worthwhile.
Well, it depends. Are we talking MMA or multi-role fighters? Anyone who’s shot a gun, can imagine how difficult it’d be to ever hit another aircraft in a modern dogfight. I’d rather have extra range or missiles.
"Anyone who’s shot a gun, can imagine how difficult it’d be to ever hit another aircraft in a modern dogfight. I’d rather have extra range or missiles." ...Should anyone tell him that radar gunsights are a thing and how they work and that this is comparing apples to orange-painted lettuce? (And that, oh, we see from the F-35 that the F-35A having an internal gun doesn't magically give the F-35B/F-35C, which lack it, a meaningful difference in range because the weight of the gun is only around 250 pounds.)
While BVR weapons means that getting close enough for a dogfight may be unlikely, that doesn't mean it won't ever happen. And if a bandit does get that close, you'll be happy to have that option in case you run out of missiles.
Sure, but those circumstances just don't happen. We've tried this in both the Gulf & Iraq & Syrian Wars, gun dogfights don't happen. At this point guns on planes are the equivalent of giving every soldier a sword in the off chance they might need it. Similar to guns on planes, the cost and weight of that addition just isn't worth the one in a million chance that you might need it.
that can be done much better and cheaper with electronic warfare to jam the control signals and lasers to dazzle sensors if the drones are autonomous. ammo would just be another heavy and expensive item for logistics to have to lug around
@@coreytaylor5386 Multimodal AI was several months ago. And there are way more ways to communicate that fit on a chip than you can jam. The current state of military drone technology is an amateurish joke. The military refuses to hire stoners so the military has no imagination. Funny thing is defending myself in this argument would be an act of treason. The network is the computer. Not that you're wrong about needing energy weapons. I'm just saying that high-powered laser makes a really good targeting laser for the lead thrower as well. And an optical camera and a heat camera and an AI to operate it. Cell phones are going to start having phased array in a few years at most. When you have a swarm a jamming signal is just a bit easy target. I haven't given up on cold fusion yet, I'm hoping AI physics might get us there. With that kind of energy then yes make every jet a disco. The only thing I'm absolutely sure of is that nobody can be sure of everything because technology is changing too fast. So all of this is just my humble opinion. My actual bet is that everyone is going to be wrong.
I don't know if this story is true but I remember hearing about a time in Vietnam where a pilot had been shot down and the only planes able to cover him were F-4s. The enemy was moving in and with nothing else to use the F-4s dropped their fuel tanks to distract the enemy. I don't think it worked and the pilot was captured. I know we are talking about air combat, but I would hate to hear a story in the future of a U.S. pilot getting shot down and the only planes that could cover him were F-35Bs or F-35Cs with no air to ground weapons and no gun for strafing runs.
Seems like one of those questions where the answer is "do they necessarily need it in modern combat? Probably not. But in the rare instance where a merge happens they'll probably wish they had it so why not have one?"
Pilots today entering a merge don't reach for the gun. Their first instinct is to reach for their 9X paired with an HMS. These missiles are so flare resistance and so agile, you'd need to basically be kissing the opponent to be outside of the WEZ. And you'd be just barely too close. I think the USAF and Navy looking like they're not going to put any cannon armament on NGAD and F/A-XX and only one of the 3 F-35 variants having an internal cannon speaks for itself as to how necessary they feel the gun is in future warfare.
@@Registered_Simp ok sorry lemme clarify. I'm not a pilot nor an air to air expert what I'm trying to express can probably be simplified by the "better to have and not need than to need and not have" philosophy lol
@@mmancino1982True, but the thing is you're talking about a plane. It's not a question of "Do you want a gun", it's a question of "Do you want to replace X with a gun?", where X is something that'll be useful the other 99% of the time the plane is in the air. More fuel? More missiles? Lower weight, so the plane is faster and turns better? Perhaps a more powerful radar? Whatever it is, the gun will only really be useful if two fighters merge, and then somehow expend all of their close-range missiles without killing each other (which is unlikely, since these missiles are incredibly good at what they do), and relies on the other pilot sitting around trying to fight instead of just, you know, leaving. Simply put, a fighter with a gun is at a disadvantage against the same fighter designed without a gun, even in the situation where a gun might come in handy. Once the gun becomes necessary, the fighter with a gun only really has an advantage if the other plane doesn't break off and run, which it has no reason not to do. I'd rather have a better plane than a plane that has a gun, just in case.
And your article didn't answer the principal question that you posed in the title. It wasn't did the F4 phantom need a gun in Vietnam. It's do fighter jets need guns. Yes fighter jets need guns.
I feel like gun-pods are the solution, at least when it comes to modern and future aircraft. When you’re doing gun runs against ground targets you don’t tend to be very inconspicuous. But you also get the weight savings advantage when it comes to air to air and SEAD missions where a gun-pod isn’t useful
Gun pods are not solutions for any stealth aircraft. Gun pods were a stop gap in Vietnam. The thing is you have no way of knowing when you'll need the gun, which is why it needs to be part of the fighter.
I think it's rather obvious that it's still necessary. Taking away capabilities and options for something that can still be a back-up weapon doesn't make sense and is just pure hubris. There's limited space for bombs on aircraft. And spending a few hundred dollars on 20/25/30mm ammunition to strafe guys in some hills with AKs or a Toyota Hilux sounds like a much better option than using a 500lbs JDAM that costs more than a small house. And saves that bomb for potentially a much more worthy target. So I don't get how that sounds like "tradition's sake." It just sounds logical to me.
I have an idea for a video. During the Vietnam war Since the F4 had a problem in Dog fights with a lack of Guns, was the F8 crusader used more often in situations where F4 struggled since it was a gun ship? Was this solution considered by the US Military? if not why? I remember reading about the operations used to hunt down the MIG 21's (used Vietcong) etc that had taken out many F4 in Vietnam. I haven't seen much information on the consideration of the F8 to replace the F4 in areas of a high probability of a dog fight or missions to hunt down MIGs in areas with High kill losses?
Great question. The F-8 had 3 losses for IIRC 19 victories but only 3 or 4 kills were made with the four 20mm cannons. They tended to jam usually due to high G maneuvers. The F-8D and Es usually scored kills with the various AIM-9s which still required stern shots and ACM. The F-8 Community never ceased ACM/BFM training. By 1972, the F-4s flew off of the Super Carriers while the smaller 27C Carriers like the Oriskany,Hancock, etc continued to operate the F-8. The Ault Report pointed to the F-8 community for an example of understanding BFM/ACM, the value of Dissimilar Air Combat Training, the better care of weapons like AIM-9s and AIM-7s and the importance of the E-1,E-2 ,EC-121 and Red Crown ships
Kinda. The YF-16 took its first flights in early 1974. Then had to duke it out with the YF-17, to see which one would be adopted. I was starting high school back then. Still a year before Bill Gates came across the issue of Popular Electronics (Jan 1975) with the MITS Altair (1st personal computer, as a kit) on the cover, and started Microsoft. I had that issue, as I was subscribed at the time. Chucked it, to make room for Playboys, when I was older (and dumber).
Robin Olds once said that of his offical F4 Phantom tour in Vietnam he was credited with 4 Mig kills but if he had a cannon then 'without a shadow of a doubt I would have got 14'. Admitedly he was a very well trained and experienced WW2 fighter pilot. Other less experianced and less well trained pilots probably couldn't have been able to make such great use of a cannon in air to air combat.
This isn’t 1970 anymore. Or even 2000. We haven’t had a dogfight in like 20 years, the only air to air kill with guns was done against a helicopter. These days long range radar guided missiles are the main weapon of an aircraft, along with stealth. You’d need to get into a dogfight to take advantage of it, and that is not ever going to happen in a modern conflict. A modern conflict between Russia and America in the air would involve f-35’s and an AWACS with datalink 500 km’s away, with the russian aircraft seeing NOTHING until their radar warning receiver activates as the amraams go pitbull (turn on their radar, being guided to the target via the AWACS datalink) during the last 10-15 seconds before impact. Tell me; if the f-35 had no gun how does this change? Oh wait I know it doesn’t. If an American aircraft EVER gets into a dogfight something went horribly wrong. How are you going to dogfight something if you’re blown up at a distance of 60 miles by a long range missile that only warns you 10 seconds before impact (when it’s too late and yer fucked).
With stealth technology becoming more widespread and used by more and more nations engagement ranges will most likely be reduced significantly. And even if one can detect a stealth aircraft at maybe 15 miles that still does not mean that you can achieve a reliable lock on target at that range. That range might more in the 10 mile range. One you are that close it takes a mere minutes till you are merget in a dogfight..... where a gun is still useful Why was there no dogfight in 20 years? Because of a massive technological advantage of US forces.... an advantage that is not guaranteed to stay that way over the coming decades. And I is better to have a gun designed in from the start as carrying a gunpot once you find out you do need it now is no longer feasible on a stealth fighter.
@@Karlswebb When you run-out of missiles, there is always the gun. Expect the Chinese to attempt to overwhelm with numbers. The missiles will soon be gone.
@@untermench3502 key in your reply is 'close ranger. I would consider a 15 mile detection range and 10 mile lock on range against something like a J-20 or Su-57 relatively realistic from what I read. That is close range and not to far of Vietnam Era combat ranges.
Off-boresight capability has become incredibly good, if that can't save you in a close engagement then I don't think guns will. As some have pointed out there's also the hits to weight and space which could be better used for fuel or internal bay dimensions. As for ground support, even A-10's are operating at higher altitudes with guided missiles, much safer for pilots against enemy air defences and higher precision. If a gun is needed for some reason then they can use gun pods.
not only did the f-4 not have guns, there were many other issues during that time, The phantom was not very good at maneuvering, was massive and easy to spot, and also had very horrible missile problems "Only 14% only actually hit anything." -Mustard
The Air Force removed the last tail guns from the B-52 some years ago; it was still there into the 90s at least, and in Vietnam there were, I think, two MiG kills by B-52 tail gunners. Somewhere out there is a B-52 with a MiG kill painted on the side, which is pretty badass for a jet age bomber.
The RAF abandoned formations like the fluid four in 1940 before USA joined the war. The fluid four formation is more a WWI formation than a WWII formation. RAF learned from the Luftwaffe that pairs are much more effective.
It was originally produced without a gun, under the belief that the age of guns on fighters was over. A gun pod was added when the big ideas came into contact with reality. By the end of the war, they had guns.
The question of whether or not US Fighters should have a gun, in my opinion, is simple: Yes. But not just for air combat. You see, during Vietnam, you'd have Phantoms on station, doing combat air patrols, but no planes to shoot at. Suddenly, a ground skirmish opens up, and the Infantry start calling for air support. Put yourself in that seat, you're there, you can roll inverted and see the tracers and grenade explosions.... But you're armed purely for A/A, and have no gun. The nearest CAS aircraft is at least 20 minutes out... and you can do _nothing_ to help the guys on the ground. By the time those CAS birds arrive, all they'll get on the radio is silence and echos. Fast Forward to Operation Enduring Freedom. Two F-15Es are on CAP as a deterrent against China or Iran. Suddenly, they hear a Chinook had been shot down, and the crew and passengers need air support _now_. The F-15s don't have any A/G weapons... except one: Their guns. With permission, they break off, and head to the pinned down troops and are talked onto the target, a make-shift bunker that the Taliban Forces were firing from. Several times the Eagles would make strafing runs on the bunker, and kept it up until a pair of F-16s with a couple 2,000lb bombs each showed up. Once the Vipers used their bombs, they switched to their guns and also did strafing runs. Throughout the entire ordeal, this bunker kept shooting, and the fighters did what they could until they were ordered to clear out... at which point an MQ1 Predator showed up and destroyed the bunker with a Hellfire. The moral of the story here is that the fact that the fighters in question had a gun meant that they could still provide support even without the right weapons. Which in turn meant that the guys on the ground would still be alive when rescue finally arrived to pluck them off that mountain. The fact that they could make the strafing runs meant that the Taliban couldn't maneuver and take advantage of their suppressive fire, which in turn meant that when the Predator showed up with a guided weapon, they were neatly clustered together and an easy target. Sometimes, the low-tech weapons work, and it's better to have them, and not need them, then need them, and not have them.
Argument about F-4's lacking guns is even more funny when you remember that MiG-21PF and PFS, which Vietnamese AF has in possession, didn't have guns either. And MiG-21PFM have a gunpod with pretty similar problems as F-4's Vulcan gunpod.
Even in those situations where the lack of guns was relevant, it had everything to do with the F-4's speed advantage and the fact that it took forever to get a missile lock with the technology of the time. So the pilot would be forced to either slow down and lose their energy advantage while they wait for a lock, or they'd have to zoom past and circle around again. Those high-speed passes were the cases where they had opportunities to use a gun they wished they had.
Funny to throw the Top Gun series into the argument. Maverick's three kills in the original were all missile strikes. Maverick's two kills in Top Gun: Maverick were both gun kills because the enemy could evade his missiles…
@@RUclipsuser1aa Just quoting an F4 phantom pilot that I saw on TNT's reaching for the skies. Because that's why you should always keep a gun on a plane. 😉
Alex the presence of so many other factors leading to poor performance in Vietnam does not mean we didn’t realize the value of having a gun because of Vietnam. It was absolutely part of the problem.
Someone brought up an interesting point in comments on another video, several months ago... The current logic is, gins are becoming less important as AAMs become smaller (so planes can carry more of them) and more capable, with better radar and longer ranges. BUT, as stealth technology continues to improve, the radar-guided missiles will start losing the advantage they've gained, barring some revolution in radar tech vs stealth tech. BVR missiles will start having a hard time in fighter-on-fighter engagements, and we'll be back to short-range missiles and guns, in a dogfighting engagement. So, currently, perhaps guns are increasingly irrelevant. But their time will very likely come again.
Yeah but the detection range between them is still going to be like 8-10 miles between capable stealth fighters. Allot can happen in that distance. Like a couple Aim-120's and an Aim-9X. An AMRAAM from 6-8 miles is nearly certain death. And you may have to deal with 2 of them before merge. And even during merge, pilots aren't trained to reach for the gun. They're trained to reach for the 9X paired with an HMS which can pull maneuvers so stupid you'd swear the pilots installed cheats in real life
Rules of engagement and guided missiles that didn't work that well in the weather conditions of South East Asia made the gun a eventual requirement in Vietnam.
What do you do when you're out of missiles? Go home? But the gap was closed and the enemy is right there. Best to keep guns just in case. They're also very useful in CAS missions.
Always love seeing Tom Cruise ham it up since his Kawasaki GPZ900 Ninja is strapped to a towed trailer and he doesn’t know what else to do with his hands. ;) The people who saw it in Academy 4:3 “Fill Screen” aspect think this scene is broken in the original 16:9 widescreen aspect just because his hand goes out of the frame… but opening the matte to 4:3 like the old VHS and TV versions did also reveals the tie-down straps. Obviously that is much more egregious than an unscripted fist pump that briefly goes out of the frame.
Not having a gun is great if you can guarantee that your fighters will never have to dog fight. We can't guarantee this, so going without a gun is a high risk proposition. Whatever you're getting in the trade-off had better be worth it. Vertical take-off: yes. A couple extra missiles: no.
It's funny how some people try to over simplify complex problems and also overcomplicate simple problems. I get that it's because they're not usually trying to solve the problems, and instead are trying to push a narrative but... I always appreciate these "the real answer isn't so simple" videos.
Added weight, complexity, and rooms for error are all reason not to have one. Using your logic, we might as well put a mine plow on it because we never know when it might need it...
But at what point does the weight and space sacrifice of adding a permanent gun become not worth it anymore? Adding a bayonet to an infantryman costs basically no weight or space. But adding a cannon to a plane can be a couple extra tons with space allocated for the cannon and the reserve ammo on top of it. Is that really worth it for a sub-1% chance of needing it?
There's several great options for 20mm cannons all the way from single barrel to rotary cannons in US service that weigh less than 150 pounds. Add in another 150 pounds for ammo and 100 pounds for mounts and wiring, you're still less than 500 pounds to get a couple hundred rounds of 20mm for your last ditch weapon. It wouldn't add tons, but it still would require appropriate design and testing. I'm not a fighter pilot, but given the choice of having a few rounds for when the going gets tough or not, I know which I'd take. That said, that's about the weight of an AMRAAM. I wouldn't sacrifice a pylon for a gun, but I don't think that's a trade that would have to be made.
I think the rules of engagement were probably the biggest factor for air to air difficulties Vietnam. Add that to the sparrow missile being so unreliable and it must have been incredibly frustrating to fight in the sky’s in that war.
The sidewinder was also a problem, because of its deceptively small engagement envelope compounded by the USAF insistence on “universal pilots” (unspecialized pilots who where as trained for nuclear bombers as for air superiority fighters). The reason that pilots were getting gun kills is that there were older pilots who had experience with fighting with guns.
And there it is. It was never the lack of a gun. It was the lack of a gun in an era of not ready for prime time missiles.
We have to remember that BVR weapons like the Sparrow are new in Vietnam; the technology was immature. We also didn't have AWACS, sensors, radars, etc. that enable true BVR combat.
Yeah. They tried to leave guns behind before they could reliably to do air-to-air with only missiles, much less BVR which is where the arguement makes much more sense to keep it optional. I think they jumped the gun but a backup is always a safe bet. We have automatic weapons the size of small pistols but soldiers are still give a combat knife. A gun is like the aerial combat knife in that sense.
that sparrow statistic is shocking! 9% kill rate?
The biggest contributing factor to Americas reduction in kill ratio (apart from the lack of a gun), was that pilots were no longer given Basic Fighter Maneuvers training because the military brass thought that missiles would do all the work. Their training for the most part involved trying maneuvers after they had finished a mission with whatever fuel they had left. Robin Olds, who was a WWII P38 and P51 pilot, help to change all this, he made the best pilots flight lead, regardless of rank and made sure his 8th tactical fighter wing had the training it needed. Robin Olds, if he had been born in another time, would have been a warrior king.
It is sad to hear the air strategy was as stupid as the ground strategy. I am a Vietnam vet that served with 4th Infantry Division, in boonies there were no rules of engagement, if we found them or they hit you it was Katy bar the door. The 4th went back to the US and I was transferred to the I/10 cavalry at Ankhe which was the same AO as the 4th. The 10th Cav secured QL 19 from the top of the Ankhe Pass to Bridge 33 beyond the MangYang Pass. QL 19 was the highway from the coast to Pleiku Our tanks could not fire their 90mm unless shot at with big guns or rockets. The PCs (M113s) nor our tanks (M48s)could use their M2 50cals unless fired on with Russian 51cal heavy machine guns. Luckily the dinks always fired B40 RPGs at the trucks in the convoys so we were able to justify using all we had. Which was a lot.
Can this normie get a Civilian English translation?
Alex again another fantastic video. The F-4 while lacking a gun was hampered by the ROE, the lack of BFM/ACM training and the misshandling of the AIM-9 and AIM-7. The USN Ault Report addressed all of these issues. The USAF took a different approach and thankfully the Navy and Air Force shared the info from Have Donut, Have Drill etc. Your assessment was spot on! The tactics, training, understanding the enemy and the F-4 allowed the USN and USAF to survive and defeat the MiGs.
One thing that is often forgotten when discussing guns on aircraft is the detrimental effect it has on every other system and other weapons on the aircraft. Firing a gun causes an incredible amount of vibration and can drastically reduce the service life of equipment, including other ordinance that the aircraft is carrying. There are real trade offs.
"According to Red Baron data, the single most significant factor in the loss of aircraft [to Migs] was the element of surprise, with 81 per-cent of all U.S. losses occurring when the crew was either completely unaware they were under attack, or found out too late to effectively defend."
".... the Air Force finally got its technical answer to the warning problem, a control center called “Teaball.” Teaball was, in essence, an all-source fusion center that issued MiG warnings in real-time to U.S. air-crew over a complicated set of radio nets. Because of the complexity and unreliability of the communications involved, Teaball did not always work. But when it did, the results were excellent: The Teaball facility came into operation in early August when we had a loss-ratio of .47-to-one - we were losing almost twice as many as the MiGs to us. Then, with the first week’s operation of Teaball, we jumped to a four-to-one ratio for the month of August, and four-to-one in September....This proved one thing - if you can show the American fighter pilot where [the enemy] is in sufficient time, he’ll shoot him down. Overall, and especially following the commencement of Teaball, American pilots enjoyed definite air superiority over North Vietnam."
The USAF didn't start impressive kill rates over the VPAF until Operation Teaball. Teaball vastly increased the situational awareness of USAF pilots. The USAF didn't have Top Gun, and Red Flag hadn't started yet. It wasn't Tom Cruz and Top Gun, it was the Situational Awareness of Tea Ball that put the USAF way back on top.. ..
I think the gun pod route is the way to go, so long as it's developed actively and frequently put to the test. It makes sense to always have the gun option available if we find out that some unforeseen set of circumstances make our air forces really wish they had a gun handy. So long as we can avoid dumb stuff (like having gun pod compatibility force compromises on the core design of the aircraft itself), having the option seems like the right move.
Gun pods ruin stealth and aerodynamics, and they are heavy.
@@FactCheckerGuy I didn't say they were great - I hear that the F35's pod in particular had (or still has?) problems. But having the pod option is exactly that - an option. The platform stays stealthy as ever normally, and ONLY in that "damn nobody saw this coming, but guns would help a lot" scenario we can strap on a decently functional pod.
You said it was the way to go !! 😂. They have there places! Internal lasers for front line fighters ! And other stealth 🥷 is the main goal ! 😊
Sounds like a sidearm for an aircraft. Probably missions where one may or may not be needed, or be preferred. But, to completely eliminate the option, or stop developing and training for them, would be a blind spot.
Gun pods and drag just like extra fuel tanks
Guns on a fighter are like an infantryman's pistol. May not be needed very often but they are very comforting. And, when you do need it, you really need it!
Yeah, like when you are "in the sh$t" and you're fresh outta missiles! Yer F-35 in stealth-mode can carry what? 4 AIM-120 (some say maybe 6 with a "sidekick configuration"). My point: when you are out of arrows, you either turn and haul a$$ or make it personal with a virtual "knife-fight" !
A pilot's complaint about having a gun when not needed, will never be as pronounced as a pilot's complaint about not having one when very much needed.
The AIM 7 was certainly improved at the time of Desert Storm. The F15 used it to cause more than half of the air to air kills. And the F14’s AWG 9 radar allowed her crew to make identification at long range via the Television Camera System. With these advances in avionics and armaments one can say the gun is unnecessary weight. But, these days aircraft are multirole, there’s no pure Fs nor pure As. The shot of the F35 firing away, that gun is intended for air to ground, those are 25 mm rounds. Many argue the 20 mm of the M61 is more than enough to spray effectively. The gun is useful for CAS and Search and rescue which makes me mention, the A7D and E was retired too soon like the F14 tomcat. They made a good air to air and air to ground duo.
Aside from the million dollar risk of sending an F-35 to do a CAS using a gun, they can just use PGM and it will be much more effective at CAS and does not risk your F-35.
That is a good point, it’s wise to do that. The gun is still needed ultimately because one never knows how the scenario will play out
@@Anonnonner9546 The Marines bought the F-35B specifically for the CAS role, because that is the primary purpose of Marine aviation. The gun on the F-35 is a 4-barrel version of the 5-barrel gun on the Harrier which is what the F-35 is replacing, and the Harrier has used its gun a fair amount in air-to-ground strafing. PGMs are expensive and scarce, cannon shells are cheap and plentiful. And if you're afraid to send your expensive jet into harm's way to protect your troops on the ground, Marine aviation is not for you.
Thr one nice thing about a cannon in a modern fighter is that it's a weapon that occupies a space no other weapon can fit into. You aren't losing a missile to have a cannon.
The cannon may be of dubious usefulness and maybe that space could be used for more fuel or something, but the cannon will always be an extra weapon on top of whatever else you might carry
I dont think this is entirely true, most gun systems for planes are crammed to where they can fit, in the f-22s case it lost 2 BVR missiles to accommodate the gun. For the F-35 it was the "is it practical to put it on because we could fit an extra 1500 pounds of fuel in this" which is the primary "issue" with the f-35.
Fuel can fit almost anywhere and in place of that, the weapons bay could be expanded. Or lighter weight, more efficient airframe, etc... Carrying a gun is 500-800 lbs worth of range, speed, maneuverability, or payload to lug around something that will never be used. It's fine to keep the existing guns on 4th gen aircraft, but adding guns on 5th gen aircraft was a mistake. The one legitimate excuse is that current 5th gen aircraft were being designed in the 90s which was basically a different era. But a mistake in retrospect is still a mistake. Certainly they have no place on 6th gen aircraft.
@@chunkmen How did the F-22 lose 2 BVR missiles to fit a gun in the wing root above the engine intake?
@@Elthenar Ergonomics.
While this video is great at addressing the shortfalls of the F-4 in Vietnam, it doesn't really negate nor promote the addition of a gun in a modern fighter plane. The way I see it, might not be the primary weapon of choice for any modern fighter pilot today, but neither are knives the primary weapon of choice of infantry, and yet in CQC sometimes you do bring a knife to a gunfight, and you do bring a gun to a missile fight.
It's always better to have and not need than need and not have!
@@gordonbergslien30agreed, even if they’re simple 20-30mm cannons they’ll suffice when needed
99% of infantry does not do CQC
I'm sure modern jet pilots can decide for themselves whether they need a gun or not.
@@gordonbergslien30This does not apply to this situation. Adding a gun to an aircraft will add weight and reduce maneuverability, range, ect.
That extra weight could be used for more missiles or fuel, or just dropped entirely.
Add to this the significant danger manpads will pose to any aircraft that attempts to provide close air support with guns and it doesn't seem like such a great addition anymore. Pilots will likely prefer to support ground troops with precise guided bombs from afar rather than risk getting smoked by enemy close air defense.
However, there will likely be some niche situations where guns would be useful or even necessary. That is why I think detachable gun pods are the best solution. If the air force thinks they might need guns, great, just add some. If they don't need them they can add extra missiles or fuel instead of just having dead weight.
But IDK that's just my opinion. 😅
Nobody mentions that the early Vietnam era AIM-9 and AIM-7 missiles would have had to be maintained in the shop AFER EVERY FLIGHT, but it was common to leave a missile on the raul for 20-50 (carrier) flight cycles and these missiles just could not function because of lack of maintenance!
There have been exactly ZERO US fighter kills using guns since the Vietnam war. Zip. Zero. Nada. The Phantom designers had it right, but the missile engineers didn't have it right. The "Last Gunfighter" F-8, a plane that everyone thinks ran around the sky using its guns to kill MIGs, have it wrong. There is only one MIG gun kill only made by the F-8. All of the other kills Mig kills were Sidewinder kills except one. In that case, the opponent was struck with a missile, which damaged it, and finished off with a gun, but it was not a pure gun-only kill and the plane was losing altitude when it was finished off with the gun, but it was the Sidewinder that really won the engagement. Guns are useful for strafing though, so they do make more sense on an multi-roll aircraft.
Keep the gun until lasers are improved enough to replace them. A laser will still be less effective than a gun for taking down a large aircraft. But lasers could also potentially be used defensively against incoming missiles and point quickly anywhere in a large arc. Lasers also don’t run out of ammunition and could continue to fire as often as available electric power allows. A laser would also be handy for taking down lower cost targets such as balloons or small drones with low risk and low cost.
You dont need lasers for that, the electronic warfare of the F-35 can literally burn the electronics of all incoming missiles.
@@Anonnonner9546 that not how electronic warfare work
Correct @@jetli740
I agree on lasers optionally replacing guns since at least lasers have much more utility. But really guns were already a mistake on 5th gen aircraft (and certainly 6th gen). If we REALLY need guns, that is every 4/4.5 gen fighter. We have thousands of those. But all this is, is 500-800 lbs worth of range, speed, maneuverability, or payload to lug around something that will never be used. Every other use of that weight and space is better.
@@delos2279 and 1500 round not going to last long, a few bust fire you ran out of bullet
I feel like the gun on a modern jet is like the average infantryman’s knife. It’s not your primary or secondary weapon, but when shit hits the fan it’s good to have.
Having a backup is always a good idea. The guns are certainly not the first thing a fighter pilot thinks of but when he or she really needs one, nothing else will do! Too many things can go wrong and one never knows when the mission will change to where having that gun might be a lifesaver!
So yes, I think they need the gun.
Cheers,
jc
gun is ww2 , modern jet battle are beyond visual range.
@@jetli740 exactly! Beyond visual range has become increasingly common since its prevalance in the Iran-Iraq War. Nowadays in the Russo-Ukranian War, Ukranian Air Force pilots have gone on public record declaring MiG-31's and Su-35's the single greatest threat to their aircraft because of their BVR capabilities. Because of this, we see a few kills from the Russian Air Force at beyond visual range every single month, and to date, there is not a single open source publicly confirmed air-to-air victory from the Ukrainian Air Force against a crewed aircraft, only against cruise missiles, OWA drones, and other UAV's.
Russians have released BVR air-to-air combat footage, but notice that Ukrainians haven't been able to release footage of successfully interceptions of crewed aircraft. Granted if something like this occured at night, this makes footage difficult as Ukraine aircraft are not known to carry targeting pods (snd their IRST do not function as cameras)
The UAF sends a fighter escort of one MiG-29 for their two-ship Su-25 strikes, but (and also this specifically has been discussed) is more of a moral booster and can offer some light protection against, say, the asymmetric air-to-air threat posed by Russian attack helicopters carrying air-to-air missiles.
British Harriers in the Falklands War got a lot of Gun Kills against the Argentine Jets, most of which were faster than the Harriers.
Excuse my laziness, could you please explain how they did it. Thank you.
@@countvonthizzle9623 the Argentinians were at the edge of their range and couldn't use afterburner to build up speed or else they'd run out of fuel over the ocean.
This paper documents the prevalence of various kinds of air-to-air kills by decade. By the 1980s, guns were a very small fraction of air-to-air kills.
See Table 11: csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/Air-to-Air-Report-.pdf
@@countvonthizzle9623 While the Harriers had a slower top speed they accelerated to their top speed faster than the Skyhawks & Mirages especially at low level, perhaps more importantly they were far more agile due to Directional Thrust.
And that was because of British EW made a lot of the outmoded Argentine missile systems much less effective. That & a lack of good training meant that Argentine pilots were willing to take their inceptor-type airframes down into the lower altitudes that the Harrier excels in.
It was, in short the Vietnam lesson being taught all over again.
In the close-in dogfight, guns are a necessity, but dogfights are an anachronism of poor training &/or operational non-readiness. "If the enemy is stupid enough to get close enough for my guns, then it's good I have a gun."
If the Argentine military had proper missile defense in the theatre, then the Harriers would have been rendered largely impotent, but interdepartmental rivalries were high & coordination was low amongst the branches, so logistics & capabilities failed, which the Brittish Navy exploited to maximum effect.
Love your channel. Great content.
I have always really liked your channel please keep up the good work
Well, having seen some people fight in DCS, even in dogfights allowing 9-Xs and other high off bore sight missiles, sometimes people still get gun opportunities before they can land a missile. There's a still a minimum range people can exploit, countermeasures, etc. Having both means the opponent needs to cover the risk from the fighter's nose in addition to the missile's threat envelope. If a plane ends up in the kind of close range fight, sometimes the gun is still the best tool. Same thing for say strafing a target of opportunity, etc.
So the question is less whether or not guns are useful for their job, and more whether or not those jobs come up sufficiently often that it is worth hedging with resources and performance to cover that need versus having more missiles, better sensors, etc.
However, I'm not sure that gun pods are actually a good alternative to an integrated gun. For stealth aircraft, external mounts tend to have a pretty significant penalty. And some of the situations where people could use a gun aren't necessarily ones that they expected to be in.
Personally, I'd say that keeping guns is probably a good idea for any kind of conventional fighter or stealth fighter. I don't think we see nations fielding large and diverse fleets of fighters and strike aircraft anymore, nor do new iterations and designs reach maturity rapidly. Much of the design of the P-51 was done in the same year it first flew, and its introduction was 2 years later. The F-35 goes from being declared JSF winner in 2001 to a first fight in 2006, and sees first deployment in 2015. According to wikipedia anyway. Some countries are only flying F-35 as a fighter, so it - or the equivalent - needs to be ready for all situations; even the ones that suck. There's not anything else ready to cover them.
OTOH, does something like some of theorized properties of NGAD which gives up some of its fighter like properties and delegates them to its drone wingmen need a gun? There it seems like maybe the tilt is away from guns, just like how B-21 doesn't seem to have gun turrets...
I don't think DCS is a good reference point. You won't see realistic tactics coming from DCS - i.e. large flights if aircraft on both sides being supported by additional aircraft and ground units, all coordinating in a way that compliments each weapon platforms abilities.
The lack of gun in Vietnam as you stated not the big thing, the aircraft couldn't maneuver well enough to use it either. Too much ROE
The F-4 had the kinematics of a brick, but it could also just power away from any MiG-17/19 and pick when/where/how to fight and attempt a pass. If the MiG pilot lost sight of them... they could easily be taken by surprise.
But, yes, if you take a Phantom and decide to get into a rate fight with a MiG-17/19, that's a losing proposition.
Love this video!!! Thanks for posting. 🙂
Well, in Afghanistan, guns became vital for close air support. Missiles run out quickly. Of course, there’s always the famous M1 pass that scared the enemy away. ☺️
He is talking about air to air platforms not ground support ones. Although even there there is an argument that modern smart bombs could replace that as well but of course their limited quantity is then the issue like you mentioned.
Muslims can't get scared. They take smart precaution, or face the enemy. Scared is what you are.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 It was an F-16 that ran out of weapons and made the Mach 1+ pass that frightened away the enemy. It’s used as an attack platform, but it’s not tagged AF or FA-16 for a reason.
Even in A2A, we haven’t faced an enemy with a sizable AF is decades. The possibility of friendly forces meeting an enemy with superior numbers is a high probability, especially in WESTPAC. Then, guns just might become vital. The other option is flee, and as the saying goes, these colors don’t run.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 gun adds more versatility
@@DrlftySwlfty Also more weight reducing the capacity for other things...
Thanks Alex🇺🇸
Glad more people are starting to talk about this. I love a sick dogfight as much as the next guy, but I think people are slowly starting to realize that air to air combat sadly doesn't work like that anymore....in theory. The world really hasn't had a big peer level war in a long time. Theoretically most air to air engagements in a modern war are gonna be those long range over the horizon shots, but I wonder how electronic warfare factors into that. If EWAR renders radar useless, are we suddenly in a guns only close in fight? All of a sudden leaving that gun pod back at base is starting to look like a really bad idea. I don't know enough about how EWAR works to make a guess, I'm just thinking out loud here. God what I wouldn't give to see a Raptor in that kind of fight.
From another perspective, 10, maybe 20 years from now, fighters won't have guns or missiles. They'll just have those laser systems, and dogfights will come down to who acquires who first. Hell maybe it'll be exclusively drone only, no human pilots. Equal parts fascinating and depressing to think about.
missile will still there, laser have limited range, cant make a kill at long range
A lot of people are quick to say that the lack of gun caused the issues for the Phantom just like people will say that only the P51 had the range to escort the bombers (the P47 had drop tanks that could have done the job). It is easier to blame the tools than the skill set as many people know. I can understand why people are questioning the gun with how reliable missiles are these days and how great the pilot training is. I will never advocate for loosing a capability until it is written in crayon and broken down Barney style until I will agree to be without it. For example it wasn’t until 2019 when I was okay without a blu-ray drive and DVD drive from my PC.
"For example it wasn’t until 2019 when I was okay without a blu-ray drive and DVD drive from my PC."
[Remembers back to around that point where I upgraded from a previous AMD FX processor to a new Ryzen processor and no one informed me it doesn't work with Windows 7 and here I was trying to install Windows 10 with no working USB slots and just my phone for internet access]
Luckily I had a W10 installation DVD...
@@matchesburn I do miss seeing and hearing that tray do its thing frankly. I’m actually turning my old computer with the disc drives into a local media server so the disc drive duo will run again.
Title of the video was a great segway into a "lessons learned" kind of video, very interesting policy choices in the middle of a war - clearly not designed by someone who gets in the hot seat themselves!
1700 lost aircraft... that is unthinkable today.
The wonders of picking the right commanders and politicians. We stopped doing that post 90s.
Yes, they do. It's more cost effective and you can strafe ground or sea targets.
An interesting video, thanks for giving context to the use (or not) of guns over Vietnam, however it doesn't address if fighters still need guns today.
For what it's worth I believe they do. Air-to-air missiles are a lot better these days but counter-measures have also improved, and add to that the increased number of aircraft featuring 'stealth'/low-observable features I suspect there is still a reasonable chance that today's fighters could get into close in dog fights in a conflict between near peer adversaries. And a gun is still useful in ground support as well.
Did you answer the question? you said that the answer doesn't lie in Vietnam, but I didn't really hear if we do actually need guns on fighters. Some newer models that don't come with with guns can fly with a gun pod, but that takes away from combat radius and stealth. I would like to see a more in depth video on this. Thanks for all your hard work, Alex!
You didnt answer your own question...
It was "Do jets need a gun ?". Not "Did a gun help the F4 get more kills ?".
These are completely different answers. Especially considering you didnt talk about strafing which were extremely useful in modern counter insurgency wars
Thank you, Alex, that illustrates the number of major issues that led to poor results in the Vietnam Air War. Today, I can not see the need for a conventional internal gun on the 5th and certainly not on 6th generation fighters against peer aggressors. In fact, non peer aggressors could probably be completely countered by drones of various capabilities from Reaper through to Taranis.
Would love a video about those aerial failings in Vietnam.
The RN used 2.75" rockets for close in work. Idea generated in WW2. They were fitted under the nose on Sea Vixen FAW1's and carried in pods on FAW2"s& RN Phantoms and Buccaneers.
The RN rockets were 2"/50mm MATRA whereas the RAF used the 68mm SNEB (also by MATRA). In the Falklands, RAF Harriers ended up using the 2" rockets because the SNEB was not qualified for operation on carriers, presumably due to HERO considerations. The 2" rockets carried in retractable launchers on Sea Vixen (and I believe also on some early Lightning) were for air to air use, but that was never, as far as I am aware intended with the podded versions on Phantom and Buccaneer. You can tell 2" pods from SNEBs as the former has an extra row/circle of rocket apertures.
Guns aren't exactly small and internal space is at a premium. The better question to ask a stealth fighter pilot: "Do you want a gun or a couple extra missiles?"
@@major__kong We can't produce them at a high rate with at this particular moment, but the same thing was true for hardware in the interwar period between WW1 and 2. There was a ramping up period to get our industrial base where it needed to be to switch to mass producing military equipment, and it's likely we would have to do the same thing in a potential lead up to a WW3 scenario.
Do the f-35 variants with no guns even carry more missiles?
The missile supply chains are much weaker than for guns. Also, you don’t need as much still to make a gun as a missile.
The F-35B trades its gun for a lift fan.
@@major__kong Air-to-air missiles aren't like artillery shells. You don't use millions of them. It is very unlikely that any modern war would require more than a few thousand, and even that number is pretty unlikely.
We can stockpile enough to have plenty.
Slight correction... the AIM-7, while not great, wasn't the reason USAF Phantoms did so poorly. At the time USAF and USN used different missiles because branch rivalry or something. USN had the AIM-9 and USAF AIM-4. It was the AIM-4 Falcon which was so bad that pilots Jerry rigged AIM-9's on their F-4's instead.
Thank you. Ive been saying this for decades. I would add that it wasnt that the sparrow was bad, it wasnt great, but it wasnt bad. Most air to air kills were made with the sparrow. Look it up. The problem was the sparrow had to have its target continuously illuminated by the launching aircraft. So the shooter had to keep its target in its radar cone. When combat rangers were pushed to within visual range by the rule of engagement you can see how easy it would be for a target to slip out of that cone and the sparrow would go dumb.
Pilots did figure this out and eventually one (remember they flew in pairs) would scout ahead to make the visual ID and the other would take the shoot.
And for this disgrace we can thank McNamara.
"You have to visually ID your target. "
"Uh, mr secretary, if we're leading the strike package and we spot a plane ahead of us who else could it be beside the enemy?"
All because of McNamara's ridiculous fear of escalation.
The good news is he figured out his mistake and apologized. The bad news is it wasnt until decades later, right before his death.
Thank you again for a great video. If I remember correctly, once the guns were added, the pilots were trained better and they changed tactics, the kill ratio actually went all the way up to 20/1.
The Air Force added guns and initially, nothing changed. The kill rate went from 2:1 to 3:1 for most of the rest of the war. It improved in the last couple years. But those years were also when they fielded newer, much more capable sidewinders. The Navy never ended up equipping their Phantoms with guns. But due to revamps in training, tactics, missile maintenance, and improved technology, their kill rate had gone up from 2:1 to 13:1 by wars end. The gun was never the problem.
Thank you for the great video very informative
About as much gun kills were made with gun pods and the E internal gun. The majority of kills were missile.
The reason for the increase in kill rate was the introduction of Teaball, the radar coverage and comms monitoring that exposed the North Vietnamese ambush tactics.
came here to say this...@@Registered_Simp
1:48 "Engines that would produce massive smoke trails" Hmm.. so that's where the Russians got the idea. Implementing that new-fangled technology
to their Kuznetsov carrier
The only real issue with not having a gun on a fighter is how it changes the dynamic of a dogfight. The gun means that crossing in front of a fighter's nose is easily punishable and easy way to get shot down. Without a gun, all of that space becomes a safe zone that a skilled enemy can take advantage since even sidewinders have a significant WEZ (weapon employment zone). This gives the enemy far more options in any prolonged fight. I understand why the pentagon doesn't see them as necessary considering air superiority is not the primary mission of the F-35. But it's something that a skilled adversary with the right terrain could easily take advantage.
Yes
So... *_do_* fighters need guns? 🤔 I genuinely appreciate your thoroughly-researched, informative, well-produced videos, including this one. But this video discusses various issues related to Vietnam-era fighters. It doesn't even *pretend* to _attempt_ to answer whether (or which of?) today's fighters need guns. And I would be a very interested in hearing your thoughts on that. Maybe retitle this video (so as to avoid snarky accusations of click-bait¹) then create a new one that.... maybe if the question has no simple answer... at least more directly addresses the question? 🤔
Either way, thanks for all your good work!
____________
¹ To clarify, I'm *not* accusing you of creating click-bait. But it surely some troll's² going to throw that stone at you.
² We've become a culture very good a breaking eggs yet terrible at making omelets.³
³ e.g. We hyper-criticize everyone else, especially those like you who work hard to create something beneficial and good quality. But we ourselves don't even _try_ to offer anything worthwhile.
Yes...
Well, it depends. Are we talking MMA or multi-role fighters?
Anyone who’s shot a gun, can imagine how difficult it’d be to ever hit another aircraft in a modern dogfight. I’d rather have extra range or missiles.
Regardless, the answer is yes. Time to step up the intensity of your average MMA bout.
@@oskar6661I really want to see MMA fights where they come out John Wick style or at least a new division: Mixed Martial Artillery.
"Anyone who’s shot a gun, can imagine how difficult it’d be to ever hit another aircraft in a modern dogfight. I’d rather have extra range or missiles."
...Should anyone tell him that radar gunsights are a thing and how they work and that this is comparing apples to orange-painted lettuce?
(And that, oh, we see from the F-35 that the F-35A having an internal gun doesn't magically give the F-35B/F-35C, which lack it, a meaningful difference in range because the weight of the gun is only around 250 pounds.)
While BVR weapons means that getting close enough for a dogfight may be unlikely, that doesn't mean it won't ever happen. And if a bandit does get that close, you'll be happy to have that option in case you run out of missiles.
Sure, but those circumstances just don't happen. We've tried this in both the Gulf & Iraq & Syrian Wars, gun dogfights don't happen. At this point guns on planes are the equivalent of giving every soldier a sword in the off chance they might need it. Similar to guns on planes, the cost and weight of that addition just isn't worth the one in a million chance that you might need it.
Yes, but tiny ones. In turrets.
In the age of drones you definitely need point defense weapons.
that can be done much better and cheaper with electronic warfare to jam the control signals and lasers to dazzle sensors if the drones are autonomous. ammo would just be another heavy and expensive item for logistics to have to lug around
I’d rather have small guide missiles with smart/matrix fragmentation. Do you know how hard it’d be to shoot an agile drone with normal cannons?
@@coreytaylor5386 Multimodal AI was several months ago.
And there are way more ways to communicate that fit on a chip than you can jam.
The current state of military drone technology is an amateurish joke.
The military refuses to hire stoners so the military has no imagination.
Funny thing is defending myself in this argument would be an act of treason.
The network is the computer.
Not that you're wrong about needing energy weapons. I'm just saying that high-powered laser makes a really good targeting laser for the lead thrower as well. And an optical camera and a heat camera and an AI to operate it.
Cell phones are going to start having phased array in a few years at most.
When you have a swarm a jamming signal is just a bit easy target.
I haven't given up on cold fusion yet, I'm hoping AI physics might get us there. With that kind of energy then yes make every jet a disco.
The only thing I'm absolutely sure of is that nobody can be sure of everything because technology is changing too fast.
So all of this is just my humble opinion.
My actual bet is that everyone is going to be wrong.
@@The_ZeroLine You will never get me to say no to anime missiles. 👍
@@jtjames79 oh, I didn't realize you where just trolling lol. sorry to interrupt your fun
In the crowded skies of some battlefields, you can be in a situation where a cannon is a good option and you can be too close for missiles IMHO.
I don't know if this story is true but I remember hearing about a time in Vietnam where a pilot had been shot down and the only planes able to cover him were F-4s. The enemy was moving in and with nothing else to use the F-4s dropped their fuel tanks to distract the enemy. I don't think it worked and the pilot was captured. I know we are talking about air combat, but I would hate to hear a story in the future of a U.S. pilot getting shot down and the only planes that could cover him were F-35Bs or F-35Cs with no air to ground weapons and no gun for strafing runs.
What about Strafing and close ground support though? May not be a primary mission but it’s an important capability in a pinch.
Seems like one of those questions where the answer is "do they necessarily need it in modern combat? Probably not. But in the rare instance where a merge happens they'll probably wish they had it so why not have one?"
Pilots today entering a merge don't reach for the gun. Their first instinct is to reach for their 9X paired with an HMS. These missiles are so flare resistance and so agile, you'd need to basically be kissing the opponent to be outside of the WEZ. And you'd be just barely too close. I think the USAF and Navy looking like they're not going to put any cannon armament on NGAD and F/A-XX and only one of the 3 F-35 variants having an internal cannon speaks for itself as to how necessary they feel the gun is in future warfare.
Because to bring the gun means you leave something else behind. Fuel, another missile, something that would probably be more useful than a gun.
@@Registered_Simp ok sorry lemme clarify. I'm not a pilot nor an air to air expert what I'm trying to express can probably be simplified by the "better to have and not need than to need and not have" philosophy lol
@@mmancino1982True, but the thing is you're talking about a plane. It's not a question of "Do you want a gun", it's a question of "Do you want to replace X with a gun?", where X is something that'll be useful the other 99% of the time the plane is in the air.
More fuel? More missiles? Lower weight, so the plane is faster and turns better? Perhaps a more powerful radar?
Whatever it is, the gun will only really be useful if two fighters merge, and then somehow expend all of their close-range missiles without killing each other (which is unlikely, since these missiles are incredibly good at what they do), and relies on the other pilot sitting around trying to fight instead of just, you know, leaving.
Simply put, a fighter with a gun is at a disadvantage against the same fighter designed without a gun, even in the situation where a gun might come in handy. Once the gun becomes necessary, the fighter with a gun only really has an advantage if the other plane doesn't break off and run, which it has no reason not to do.
I'd rather have a better plane than a plane that has a gun, just in case.
@@ryanhodin5014 ya you're totally right. I'm just speaking as a layman here lol
00:31 it turns out with later and more accurate infos from back then that the actual k/d ratio was *not* 10:1 but actually around 1.3-1.6:1
And your article didn't answer the principal question that you posed in the title. It wasn't did the F4 phantom need a gun in Vietnam. It's do fighter jets need guns. Yes fighter jets need guns.
Yes they do
My guns 💪 are still essential! And I identify as an attack chopper 😂
Yes!
Might be interesting to compare "liquid two and liquid four" to Loyal Wingman strategy ...
I feel like gun-pods are the solution, at least when it comes to modern and future aircraft. When you’re doing gun runs against ground targets you don’t tend to be very inconspicuous. But you also get the weight savings advantage when it comes to air to air and SEAD missions where a gun-pod isn’t useful
Let us know when there's an effectively stealth gun pod.
Gun pods are not solutions for any stealth aircraft. Gun pods were a stop gap in Vietnam. The thing is you have no way of knowing when you'll need the gun, which is why it needs to be part of the fighter.
@@SlavicCeleryThe F-35C has one, though it certainly still increases RCS.
@@MrShaneVicious but you kinda do know when you’ll need a gun-pod.
@@WildmanTrading Once again, let me know when you effectively have a STEALTH gun pod.
It's just a problem with that answer.
Between drones, BVR ROE, and whatever, I think they’re best kept on until lasers can be fielded
I was asking myself this for quite some time
Seriously 😒, I still don't know if we need guns on fighter jets.
We don't but we will hang on to it for tradition's sake. Like how we have Marines just because of the uniforms.
I think it's rather obvious that it's still necessary. Taking away capabilities and options for something that can still be a back-up weapon doesn't make sense and is just pure hubris.
There's limited space for bombs on aircraft. And spending a few hundred dollars on 20/25/30mm ammunition to strafe guys in some hills with AKs or a Toyota Hilux sounds like a much better option than using a 500lbs JDAM that costs more than a small house. And saves that bomb for potentially a much more worthy target.
So I don't get how that sounds like "tradition's sake." It just sounds logical to me.
Good thing our leaders agreed to not make mistakes anymore, problem solved!
Yes.
I have an idea for a video. During the Vietnam war Since the F4 had a problem in Dog fights with a lack of Guns, was the F8 crusader used more often in situations where F4 struggled since it was a gun ship? Was this solution considered by the US Military? if not why?
I remember reading about the operations used to hunt down the MIG 21's (used Vietcong) etc that had taken out many F4 in Vietnam. I haven't seen much information on the consideration of the F8 to replace the F4 in areas of a high probability of a dog fight or missions to hunt down MIGs in areas with High kill losses?
Great question. The F-8 had 3 losses for IIRC 19 victories but only 3 or 4 kills were made with the four 20mm cannons. They tended to jam usually due to high G maneuvers. The F-8D and Es usually scored kills with the various AIM-9s which still required stern shots and ACM. The F-8 Community never ceased ACM/BFM training. By 1972, the F-4s flew off of the Super Carriers while the smaller 27C Carriers like the Oriskany,Hancock, etc continued to operate the F-8. The Ault Report pointed to the F-8 community for an example of understanding BFM/ACM, the value of Dissimilar Air Combat Training, the better care of weapons like AIM-9s and AIM-7s and the importance of the E-1,E-2 ,EC-121 and Red Crown ships
@@00calvinlee00 Thank for the information. I appreciate the insight.
didn't we have this argument back with the F4 phantom?
Great show but you forgot to mention that it's the F16's 50th Birthday mate ....
Kinda. The YF-16 took its first flights in early 1974. Then had to duke it out with the YF-17, to see which one would be adopted. I was starting high school back then.
Still a year before Bill Gates came across the issue of Popular Electronics (Jan 1975) with the MITS Altair (1st personal computer, as a kit) on the cover, and started Microsoft. I had that issue, as I was subscribed at the time. Chucked it, to make room for Playboys, when I was older (and dumber).
@@michaelmoorrees3585I got it from C.W. Lemoine yt channel = the Bday not the PLAY BOYS lol
If the tactics were to fight within visual range due to rules of engagement then the lack of an integral gun is criminal.
Robin Olds once said that of his offical F4 Phantom tour in Vietnam he was credited with 4 Mig kills but if he had a cannon then 'without a shadow of a doubt I would have got 14'. Admitedly he was a very well trained and experienced WW2 fighter pilot. Other less experianced and less well trained pilots probably couldn't have been able to make such great use of a cannon in air to air combat.
If the enemy knows you have a weakness, they will exploit it.
This isn’t 1970 anymore. Or even 2000. We haven’t had a dogfight in like 20 years, the only air to air kill with guns was done against a helicopter.
These days long range radar guided missiles are the main weapon of an aircraft, along with stealth.
You’d need to get into a dogfight to take advantage of it, and that is not ever going to happen in a modern conflict.
A modern conflict between Russia and America in the air would involve f-35’s and an AWACS with datalink 500 km’s away, with the russian aircraft seeing NOTHING until their radar warning receiver activates as the amraams go pitbull (turn on their radar, being guided to the target via the AWACS datalink) during the last 10-15 seconds before impact.
Tell me; if the f-35 had no gun how does this change? Oh wait I know it doesn’t. If an American aircraft EVER gets into a dogfight something went horribly wrong. How are you going to dogfight something if you’re blown up at a distance of 60 miles by a long range missile that only warns you 10 seconds before impact (when it’s too late and yer fucked).
With stealth technology becoming more widespread and used by more and more nations engagement ranges will most likely be reduced significantly.
And even if one can detect a stealth aircraft at maybe 15 miles that still does not mean that you can achieve a reliable lock on target at that range. That range might more in the 10 mile range.
One you are that close it takes a mere minutes till you are merget in a dogfight..... where a gun is still useful
Why was there no dogfight in 20 years? Because of a massive technological advantage of US forces.... an advantage that is not guaranteed to stay that way over the coming decades.
And I is better to have a gun designed in from the start as carrying a gunpot once you find out you do need it now is no longer feasible on a stealth fighter.
@@tobiasfreitag2182 It's pretty easy to detect a stealth aircraft at close range. They are not invisible and the do have a significant IR signature.
@@Karlswebb When you run-out of missiles, there is always the gun.
Expect the Chinese to attempt to overwhelm with numbers. The missiles will soon be gone.
@@untermench3502 key in your reply is 'close ranger.
I would consider a 15 mile detection range and 10 mile lock on range against something like a J-20 or Su-57 relatively realistic from what I read.
That is close range and not to far of Vietnam Era combat ranges.
Off-boresight capability has become incredibly good, if that can't save you in a close engagement then I don't think guns will. As some have pointed out there's also the hits to weight and space which could be better used for fuel or internal bay dimensions. As for ground support, even A-10's are operating at higher altitudes with guided missiles, much safer for pilots against enemy air defences and higher precision. If a gun is needed for some reason then they can use gun pods.
not only did the f-4 not have guns, there were many other issues during that time, The phantom was not very good at maneuvering, was massive and easy to spot, and also had very horrible missile problems
"Only 14% only actually hit anything." -Mustard
I mean a gun on a plane is like a ground soldier with a knife. Not effective for normal fights, but when you need it, you NEED it.
Yes, modern fighter aircraft still need guns for ground support, to attack stealth aircraft in a head on engagement, and to attack patrol boats.
Always keep the guns. Especially if it can be a little Cwis. Even the B-1B, give it a Cwis.
The Air Force removed the last tail guns from the B-52 some years ago; it was still there into the 90s at least, and in Vietnam there were, I think, two MiG kills by B-52 tail gunners. Somewhere out there is a B-52 with a MiG kill painted on the side, which is pretty badass for a jet age bomber.
The RAF abandoned formations like the fluid four in 1940 before USA joined the war. The fluid four formation is more a WWI formation than a WWII formation. RAF learned from the Luftwaffe that pairs are much more effective.
I thought that the F4E Phantom (which I reckon served in Vietnam) had a 20mm gatling gun in the nose?
It was originally produced without a gun, under the belief that the age of guns on fighters was over. A gun pod was added when the big ideas came into contact with reality. By the end of the war, they had guns.
The question of whether or not US Fighters should have a gun, in my opinion, is simple: Yes.
But not just for air combat.
You see, during Vietnam, you'd have Phantoms on station, doing combat air patrols, but no planes to shoot at. Suddenly, a ground skirmish opens up, and the Infantry start calling for air support. Put yourself in that seat, you're there, you can roll inverted and see the tracers and grenade explosions.... But you're armed purely for A/A, and have no gun. The nearest CAS aircraft is at least 20 minutes out... and you can do _nothing_ to help the guys on the ground. By the time those CAS birds arrive, all they'll get on the radio is silence and echos.
Fast Forward to Operation Enduring Freedom. Two F-15Es are on CAP as a deterrent against China or Iran. Suddenly, they hear a Chinook had been shot down, and the crew and passengers need air support _now_. The F-15s don't have any A/G weapons... except one: Their guns. With permission, they break off, and head to the pinned down troops and are talked onto the target, a make-shift bunker that the Taliban Forces were firing from. Several times the Eagles would make strafing runs on the bunker, and kept it up until a pair of F-16s with a couple 2,000lb bombs each showed up. Once the Vipers used their bombs, they switched to their guns and also did strafing runs. Throughout the entire ordeal, this bunker kept shooting, and the fighters did what they could until they were ordered to clear out... at which point an MQ1 Predator showed up and destroyed the bunker with a Hellfire.
The moral of the story here is that the fact that the fighters in question had a gun meant that they could still provide support even without the right weapons. Which in turn meant that the guys on the ground would still be alive when rescue finally arrived to pluck them off that mountain. The fact that they could make the strafing runs meant that the Taliban couldn't maneuver and take advantage of their suppressive fire, which in turn meant that when the Predator showed up with a guided weapon, they were neatly clustered together and an easy target.
Sometimes, the low-tech weapons work, and it's better to have them, and not need them, then need them, and not have them.
It's funny to think the Vietnam war ended around 50 years ago... you'd think the circumstances for aerial combat would have changed since then
Argument about F-4's lacking guns is even more funny when you remember that MiG-21PF and PFS, which Vietnamese AF has in possession, didn't have guns either. And MiG-21PFM have a gunpod with pretty similar problems as F-4's Vulcan gunpod.
Even in those situations where the lack of guns was relevant, it had everything to do with the F-4's speed advantage and the fact that it took forever to get a missile lock with the technology of the time. So the pilot would be forced to either slow down and lose their energy advantage while they wait for a lock, or they'd have to zoom past and circle around again. Those high-speed passes were the cases where they had opportunities to use a gun they wished they had.
Funny to throw the Top Gun series into the argument. Maverick's three kills in the original were all missile strikes. Maverick's two kills in Top Gun: Maverick were both gun kills because the enemy could evade his missiles…
They're called missiles not hittles.
Are you sure about that?
Missiles are meant to miss. The others hit.
@@RUclipsuser1aa
Just quoting an F4 phantom pilot that I saw on TNT's reaching for the skies. Because that's why you should always keep a gun on a plane.
😉
@@OtherWorldExplorers but you do realize that there are hittles, right?
Alex the presence of so many other factors leading to poor performance in Vietnam does not mean we didn’t realize the value of having a gun because of Vietnam. It was absolutely part of the problem.
I can't believe that in 2024 people are still saying America had a 10-1 kill ratio in Korea
As they say it is better to have them and not need them than it is to need them and not have them.
Imo yes. You always need a weapon of last resort. It's the fighter jet's boot knife. Plus it can make for some scary ground support.
Is there any situation where a pilot would be like “I’m so glad I don’t have a gun”?
Someone brought up an interesting point in comments on another video, several months ago...
The current logic is, gins are becoming less important as AAMs become smaller (so planes can carry more of them) and more capable, with better radar and longer ranges. BUT, as stealth technology continues to improve, the radar-guided missiles will start losing the advantage they've gained, barring some revolution in radar tech vs stealth tech. BVR missiles will start having a hard time in fighter-on-fighter engagements, and we'll be back to short-range missiles and guns, in a dogfighting engagement.
So, currently, perhaps guns are increasingly irrelevant. But their time will very likely come again.
The need varies from fight to fight.
Wouldn't the detection of stealth vs stealth aircraft reduce the detection range and increase the chances of merger?
Yes. You'd think high closure rates and stealth would cause more merges.
Yeah but the detection range between them is still going to be like 8-10 miles between capable stealth fighters. Allot can happen in that distance. Like a couple Aim-120's and an Aim-9X. An AMRAAM from 6-8 miles is nearly certain death. And you may have to deal with 2 of them before merge. And even during merge, pilots aren't trained to reach for the gun. They're trained to reach for the 9X paired with an HMS which can pull maneuvers so stupid you'd swear the pilots installed cheats in real life
Rules of engagement and guided missiles that didn't work that well in the weather conditions of South East Asia made the gun a eventual requirement in Vietnam.
What use is a long range missile when you have to visually identify the target?
What do you do when you're out of missiles? Go home? But the gap was closed and the enemy is right there. Best to keep guns just in case. They're also very useful in CAS missions.
Always love seeing Tom Cruise ham it up since his Kawasaki GPZ900 Ninja is strapped to a towed trailer and he doesn’t know what else to do with his hands. ;) The people who saw it in Academy 4:3 “Fill Screen” aspect think this scene is broken in the original 16:9 widescreen aspect just because his hand goes out of the frame… but opening the matte to 4:3 like the old VHS and TV versions did also reveals the tie-down straps. Obviously that is much more egregious than an unscripted fist pump that briefly goes out of the frame.
Not having a gun is great if you can guarantee that your fighters will never have to dog fight. We can't guarantee this, so going without a gun is a high risk proposition. Whatever you're getting in the trade-off had better be worth it. Vertical take-off: yes. A couple extra missiles: no.
F-8s had guns. They still got almost all of their kills with Sidewinders.
It's funny how some people try to over simplify complex problems and also overcomplicate simple problems. I get that it's because they're not usually trying to solve the problems, and instead are trying to push a narrative but...
I always appreciate these "the real answer isn't so simple" videos.
Answer to the title is Yes. Not for air to air, all US fighters are multirole aircraft and the guns are incredibly useful in air to ground roles.
You should do a WW2 Air power with 350,000 planes? Bombers,P51 mustang and all the legends 🤔
The old saying “better to have one and not need it , than needing one and not having one”
Added weight, complexity, and rooms for error are all reason not to have one.
Using your logic, we might as well put a mine plow on it because we never know when it might need it...
But at what point does the weight and space sacrifice of adding a permanent gun become not worth it anymore? Adding a bayonet to an infantryman costs basically no weight or space. But adding a cannon to a plane can be a couple extra tons with space allocated for the cannon and the reserve ammo on top of it. Is that really worth it for a sub-1% chance of needing it?
There's several great options for 20mm cannons all the way from single barrel to rotary cannons in US service that weigh less than 150 pounds. Add in another 150 pounds for ammo and 100 pounds for mounts and wiring, you're still less than 500 pounds to get a couple hundred rounds of 20mm for your last ditch weapon.
It wouldn't add tons, but it still would require appropriate design and testing. I'm not a fighter pilot, but given the choice of having a few rounds for when the going gets tough or not, I know which I'd take.
That said, that's about the weight of an AMRAAM. I wouldn't sacrifice a pylon for a gun, but I don't think that's a trade that would have to be made.