Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.

[Suhiir]

The more complicated a system is the more teething problems it's going to have. Long gone are the days of wooden frames, fabric surfaces, and 80 hp radial engines you could fix with a pair of pliers and a screwdriver.

Look back on the original F-4 Phantom ... it didn't have MGs/Cannon ... a rather glaring oversight in a fighter wouldn't you say?

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well it didn't until the F-4E came along in the fall of 1967. It carried a M61A1 VULCAN six barreled 20mm internal nose mounted cannon. Due to it's initial design mission as a long range radar interceptor it was felt the plane didn't need it. That would change with the lessons learned from the Vietnam War.

To be fair actually the F-4C did eventually carry either the SUU-16/A or SUU-23/A gun pods however they caused drag issues compared to just carrying extra fuel tanks or ordnance. These issues would part of the reason as stated above, for an internal mounted weapons system.

Seems like we just had this discussion within the last couple of years!?!

Anyway...
http://www.aviation-history.com/mcdonnell/f4.html
http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...ighter-bomber/
https://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/f-4_phantom_ii.pl


I saw some discussion on the next so here's a "where are they now" update.
https://theaviationist.com/2016/08/3...aesh-in-libya/

Regards,
Pat

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

The more complicated a system is the more teething problems it's going to have. Long gone are the days of wooden frames, fabric surfaces, and 80 hp radial engines you could fix with a pair of pliers and a screwdriver.

Look back on the original F-4 Phantom ... it didn't have MGs/Cannon ... a rather glaring oversight in a fighter wouldn't you say?

Well yes and no. That was about technology seemingly overcoming physics and common sense: Missiles get more kills, more certainly, so who needs guns, except when you run out of missiles and/or the enemy is right up your rear and he has a cannon and you do not.

The pilot escaping a shot down aircraft, is, surely, a fairly basic thing to get right? Or is it overcoming physics and common sense again: Vastly expensive aircraft, the aircraft is so expensive it should be A) Invulnerable and B) the pilot is, finally, worth less than the aircraft so it is not so important? To me the idea that a F35 will never get into a close range 'dog fight' goes against all common sense and history.

Don't agree at all, about the pilot, just saying...

I'm fairly sure that X number of F35's with X number of missiles v Z number of enemy aircraft has been wargamed at a fairly professional level and that, for example if you have 48, very expensive, F35 and the enemy has 150 rather cheaper, but more agile, Soviet/Chinese aircraft, that he does not mind losing, the ending is not always all that good, no matter what the people who make (and make vast amounts of money from) the very, very, expensive F35 say...