The gun vs. the missile

[tbfighterpilot]

Which one is better, the gun or the missile? With the gun, you get exciting dogfights, but with a missile, you can pretty much just sit and pull the trigger. Guns have a shorter range, and can jam, but a pilot once said, "I fired two missiles, because they're called missiles, not hittiles*".




*Hittiles is not a real word.

[vanir]

The bigger your toolbox, the more combat adaptability you have. Aerial combat tactics is about taking the enemy out of his strengths and into yours. Given most encounters start BVR then, my vote is avionics and everything else I can mount on the thing without killing its airframe qualities too badly to be competitive in the given mission. That way even if you gain no distinct advantage at least you've got a shot at pot luck, better training and more circumstantial talent than the other guy.

The objective of defence technologies is to render offensive technologies superfluous. Trial by combat is only fair when it's only a battle of wills. And you can't out-determine someone who just knows they're right.
Complacency kills in this sphere, the trigger man is just a witness. Like I said, pot luck is in there. But better that than technological disadvantage.

[J dog]

well it depends what plane you are in and going up against if you were in world war 2 the gun is most affective nowadays you are going to fast to get a trained eye on the enemy target and radar missiles can do the trick. Now if you were to have a radar guided gun that would help but I say neither.