I tried earlier to explain why Kaan must have a gun on a basic principle that it was still a fighter
And @Windchime, later on, unrelated to my post, put up more modern tactical concerns about the dogfight, saying “ACM, AOA (and to an extent instantaneous turn rate) based point and shoot is far more important than traditional turn rate based dog fighting.”
For me it was educational I must admit.
But somehow I can’t get it out of my head this unforeseen nightmare of a scenario where a KAAN pilot would be out of options when he/she ran out of missiles or malfunction of those and forced into a dogfight by an agile 1/2 or 1 generation older pure fighter!
I can not even dream a KAAN pilot, or any 5th gen pilot for that matter, would like to get into a close quarter dogfight before he would exhaust his state of the art options of taking an opponent down from far far away.
But I said it earlier. The gun is up close and personal and it is a last ditch effort and it should be there to assure the pilot that a fighter pilot never gives up.
If they revised the design to strip the gun off, well, I don’t know.
A gun is the last resort for a fighter pilot and it’s up close and personal.
I remember a documentary where many veteran Israeli pilots of Arab - Israeli conflicts mention how things got out of hand quickly when their python AA missiles failed occasionally and they suddenly found themselves in a dogfight to death with their opponents. And all they got left was the gun and their skills as fighter pilots.
Also let’s remember how the USAF envisioned the Cold War.
According to contemporary doctrine, high altitude Soviet bombers would penetrate Western air space and to counter them all they needed was the newly developed AA missiles. In fact, they bet so heavily on them that they believed there was no room for guns anymore in that new era where they would be engaging their opponent on such long ranges thanks to their AAs.
And we all know how it went, like Hasanrize said, when they had to engage MIGs with the deadly 23mm guns.
Short version; as long as there is man in the cockpit, things might get out of hand and you need to protect him/her with a last resort weapon.
Hope they didn’t remove the gun.
Sorry, this turned out to be a long piece.
And @Windchime, later on, unrelated to my post, put up more modern tactical concerns about the dogfight, saying “ACM, AOA (and to an extent instantaneous turn rate) based point and shoot is far more important than traditional turn rate based dog fighting.”
Bringing up examples from half a century ago doesn't help at all. Firstly there's much more context behind the failure of missile-centric doctrine in Vietnam. Secondly, since Desert Storm not a single air-to-air engagement was done with guns, bar the sole example of an A-10 shooting down Iraqi helo.
Moreover in modern ACM, AOA (and to an extent instantaneous turn rate) based point and shoot is far more important than traditional turn rate based dog fighting.
For me it was educational I must admit.
But somehow I can’t get it out of my head this unforeseen nightmare of a scenario where a KAAN pilot would be out of options when he/she ran out of missiles or malfunction of those and forced into a dogfight by an agile 1/2 or 1 generation older pure fighter!
I can not even dream a KAAN pilot, or any 5th gen pilot for that matter, would like to get into a close quarter dogfight before he would exhaust his state of the art options of taking an opponent down from far far away.
But I said it earlier. The gun is up close and personal and it is a last ditch effort and it should be there to assure the pilot that a fighter pilot never gives up.