If you were to chain a fighter pilot to a chair and demand answers, it wouldn't take long to find that there's only one air-to-air scenario where a gun would be useful. And that's for what's called a "blow through." Imagine two flights of fighters closing head-to-head. Older missiles were not too good at a front on shot, so the pilots of both flights "blow through" the other formation and immediately try to reverse direction to get on the opponent's tail, or "six." Thing is, the other pilots try to do the same thing, and what results is called a "sissors," with the opponents jinking to gain an advantage or stay out of the other's launch window. This can often result in opponents being within a few hundred yards of the other. Too close for a missile to arm or track after launch. Eventually, one pilot will get enough separation to use missiles. Waiting for that separation is the only time a gun is needed for A2A combat.
Now, imagine the same scenario where one flight of aircraft has highly effective missiles for a head-on shot. If the blow through still happens, imagine a 20-g turn by one aircraft; that aircraft will lock on to the 9-g opponent well before he is able to reverse direction, and the bad guy is toast. So, despite the protests of the fighter pilot clan, a gun isn't needed on a A2A UAV.
Any other circumstances where a gun might be useful are rare and unlikely to present themselves. No point in hauling a 600 lb gun around all the time for such occasions.
"...that doesn't mean there are not real issues with them now, or for the near term future."
I couldn't agree more! The main resistance to such a UAV is funding. The powers that be don't want to go there, and that's why there aren't a dozen designs on the table. We could have built today's UAVs 20 or 30 years ago, but we didn't for the same reasons. |
