dlj@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (david.l.jacobowitz) (01/09/90)
From: dlj@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (david.l.jacobowitz) I am somewhat familiar with the fighter (and pursuit) planes used by the U.S. since WWII (although not as familiar as others on the net are, I'm sure). I understand that the U.S. went through a phase in the '50s and early '60s where we considered the gun on a fighter to be obselete. The prevailing thinking was that all air-to-air engagements would be fought with missiles. Now, I don't wish to restart the discussion on why this is not true. But I'm trying to think of the fighters that were actually deployed without an internal gun, and I can only name one: the F-4 Phantom II. I do know that most of the F-4's contemporaries did in fact have internal guns, for example the USAF's F-105 Thunderchief and the USN's F-8 Crusader. So I'm wondering what other U.S. fighters have been deployed without an internal gun. Does anybody know of any others? And how about fighters deployed by other countries? Has the USSR ever deployed a gunless fighter? I hope that this discussion is of some interest to the newsgroup. Thanks for the help. -- Dave J. (ark2!dlj) This space intentionally usual disclaimer implied left blank.
random@cbnewse.ATT.COM (Random @ rebmA) (01/10/90)
From: random@cbnewse.ATT.COM (Random @ rebmA) >From article <12928@cbnews.ATT.COM>, by dlj@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (david.l.jacobowitz): > From: dlj@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (david.l.jacobowitz) - > But I'm trying to think of the fighters that were actually deployed > without an internal gun, and I can only name one: the F-4 Phantom II. > So I'm wondering what other U.S. fighters have been deployed > without an internal gun. The F-111 was a bomb and rocket hauling fighter. It was adapted to accept an 'electric cannon' in it's bomb bay. It had the minor drawback of being one of those aircraft that can fly fast enough to shoot itself down. I don't know if that is true, but it WAS advertised at mach 2.5+. Random
terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) (01/10/90)
From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <12928@cbnews.ATT.COM> dlj@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (david.l.jacobowitz) writes: > >I understand that the U.S. went through a phase in the '50s and >early '60s where we considered the gun on a fighter to be obselete. >The prevailing thinking was that all air-to-air engagements would >be fought with missiles. > >Now, I don't wish to restart the discussion on why this is not true. >But I'm trying to think of the fighters that were actually deployed >without an internal gun, and I can only name one: the F-4 Phantom II. >I do know that most of the F-4's contemporaries did in fact have >internal guns, for example the USAF's F-105 Thunderchief >and the USN's F-8 Crusader. > >So I'm wondering what other U.S. fighters have been deployed >without an internal gun. The Phantom II is the only one that I am aware of without guns. The period you mention was more a de-emphasis on dogfighting than on guns. The prevailing thinking was that missiles would prevent opposing aircraft from closing to close range, so dogfight-type training was ignored. This concpt manifested itself in the Phantom II because of its role. It was designed to be a long range over-water interceptor. As such it was only expected to fire its missiles in long range engagements. Dogfighting was not considered a possibility, and the gun was deleted to save weight. At least in part because of possible ground attack missions, air force versions carried a gun. The early experience in Vietnam showed how flawed this thinking was. In defense of the navy, they didn't believe close in fighting was impossible. Back then the navy tended to keep two different types of fighters around. The F-8 Crusader complemented the Phantom II well, by being the dogfighter the Phantom wasn't. Matter of fact, the last I heard, the F-8 had the highest kill ratio of individual American aircraft in Vietnam. Of course it helps that most of the F-8's were gone by the late war air offensives, and didn't have to face the much improved air defenses. >Has the USSR ever deployed a gunless fighter? Technically, several early Migs used conformal gun pods. Since they were removable, the airframe was gunless. It's a small detail, and I am not aware of any major, regular use where the gun pods weren't installed. Most fact sheets on the Migs list them with internal guns. -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu
turner@BLACKBIRD.AFIT.AF.MIL (Bob Turner) (01/10/90)
From: udecc!turner@BLACKBIRD.AFIT.AF.MIL (Bob Turner) In article <12928@cbnews.ATT.COM> dlj@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (david.l.jacobowitz) writes: > >So I'm wondering what other U.S. fighters have been deployed >without an internal gun. >Does anybody know of any others? >And how about fighters deployed by other countries? >Has the USSR ever deployed a gunless fighter? >I hope that this discussion is of some interest to the newsgroup. >Thanks for the help. I'm pretty sure that the F-101 Voodoo's, F-102 and F-106's were all missile platforms. They were all designed, according to what I have read, as interceptors against large bomber formations. With that in mind, I know the F-101 and probably the others carried the Genie nuclear air-to-air missles for use against formations. They were gyro stablized with no active or passive homing gear. The idea being aim at the formation and let it go. Loosely equivalent to trying to hit the broad side of a barn. I think there are others US fighters that were missile only. F-104? F3H Demon (predesscor to the Navy F4) possibly. But I can't remember. Bob -- ==================================================================== Bob Turner Network Manager, School of Engineering 513-229-3171 turner@udecc.engr.udayton.edu Univ. of Dayton, Engineering Computing Center-KL211, Dayton OH 45469
steve@pmday_2.Dayton.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges) (01/10/90)
From: steve@pmday_2.Dayton.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges) In article <12928@cbnews.ATT.COM> dlj@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (david.l.jacobowitz) writes: > > >From: dlj@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (david.l.jacobowitz) > >[text deleted.....] > >Now, I don't wish to restart the discussion on why this is not true. >But I'm trying to think of the fighters that were actually deployed >without an internal gun, and I can only name one: the F-4 Phantom II. >I do know that most of the F-4's contemporaries did in fact have >internal guns, for example the USAF's F-105 Thunderchief >and the USN's F-8 Crusader. I remember reading tha after the Air Force F-4 pilots started screaming for a gun, the SUU-23 gun pod was developed. It was hung on the centerline hardpoint. Later, on the F-4E for the Air Force, it had in internal Vulcan. The Navy F-4B and F-4J did not have an internal gun. If you consider the A-4 a fighter, it did not have an internal gun. -- Steve Bridges | NCR - USDPG Product Marketing and Support OLS Steve.Bridges@Dayton.NCR.COM | Phone:(513)-445-4182 622-4182 (Voice Plus) ..!ncrlnk!usglnk!pmday_2!steve | AOPA #916233 ..!uunet!ncrlnk!usglnk!pmday_2!steve| PP-ASEL, AMEL
wjh@wayback.att.com (William J Hery) (01/11/90)
From: wjh@wayback.att.com (William J Hery) >I understand that the U.S. went through a phase in the '50s and >early '60s where we considered the gun on a fighter to be obselete... >But I'm trying to think of the fighters that were actually deployed >without an internal gun, and I can only name one: the F-4 Phantom II. > >So I'm wondering what other U.S. fighters have been deployed >without an internal gun. >Does anybody know of any others? >And how about fighters deployed by other countries? >Has the USSR ever deployed a gunless fighter? >From "Modern Warplanes" (by Sweetman, Gething, Richardson, Spick, and Gunston; Portland House, NY, 1987), in the section on F-4 armament: "In the early 1950s gun armament was considered obsolete by many operators. In the USA, Britain, and the Soviet Union canonless designs such as the F-86D, F-102, Lighning, MiG-19PM, and SU-9 were entered into service. This mistaken trend continued into later designs as the F-106 and SU-15." The section then describes how the early F-4s didn't have guns, but were retrofit with gun pods, and that the F-4Es were designed with built in guns. Bill Hery AT&T Bell Labs 201-386-2362 att!wayback!wjh wjh@wayback.att.COM
military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (01/11/90)
From: att!utzoo!henry >From: dlj@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (david.l.jacobowitz) >...I'm trying to think of the fighters that were actually deployed >without an internal gun, and I can only name one: the F-4 Phantom II. >I do know that most of the F-4's contemporaries did in fact have >internal guns, for example the USAF's F-105 Thunderchief >and the USN's F-8 Crusader. The F-8 substantially pre-dated the F-4. It was just early enough to have guns. The F-105 was roughly an F-4 contemporary, but its primary mission was nuclear strike rather than air combat. (The tell-tale sign of this is the *small* internal weapons bay.) I don't know why there was a gun on the F-105; perhaps for self-defence? Part of the problem, I think, was a fixation on the interceptor role, as opposed to air superiority. The F-4 was definitely meant as an interceptor. The F-102 and F-106 likewise had no gun armament. Nor did the even sexier, but cancelled, F-103 and F-108 interceptors. For that matter, I don't think the F-101 had guns, and still earlier interceptors -- specific variants of the F-86 and F-89 -- didn't either. The F-86D fired salvos of unguided rockets, as did the F-89D. Later F-89s switched to carrying Falcon AAMs. The F-102 had provisions for rockets but main armament was Falcons. The F-106 used Falcon and Genie, although some were later retrofitted with guns. F-103 armament was going to be, I think, the Eagle AAM, also meant to arm the Missileer that the Navy started as a Phantom replacement. (Phoenix is Eagle's distant descendant via several other abortive projects.) Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
gardiner@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (David Gardiner) (01/12/90)
From: gardiner@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (David Gardiner) I was talking to a pilot who flew F-4s in Vietnam in the late 1960's who related this story to me. The Sidewinders they carried had to travel about a half mile before they would arm. Whenever a Phantom would get on the tail of a MiG, the MiG would hit the brakes, forcing the Phantom to get too close. Then the external gun pods arrived. Suffice to say, there were some VERY surprised MiG pilots finding that their favorite tactics were no longer such a hot idea. After a week or so, the VC apparently figured out what was going on and ceased sending MiGs up to play with the Phantoms.
roberts@uunet.UU.NET (Robert Stanley) (01/12/90)
From: mitel!sce!cognos!roberts@uunet.UU.NET (Robert Stanley) Umm, I guess you could add the YF-12A to the list... :-) It was also my impression that the original Century series birds for continental air defense were all missile-only (F102 -> F106). Robert_S -- Robert Stanley UUCP: uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!roberts Cognos, Inc. INET: roberts%cognos.uucp@uunet.uu.net (Research) Voice: (613) 738-1338 x6115