Sup /k/. Does anyone have any handy infographics as far as the

>>33466518
The Navy had TOPGUN up and running by 1972 and Linebacker, so they had pilots who had not only been through the couslrse, but also had spread their knowledge of dissimilar ACM. The Air Force wanted to fix the terrible bombing accuracy experienced in Rolling Thunder, and never did develop anything such as TOPGUN until after the war.

But to answer your question, the gun was prevalent in kill counts thanks to F-105 drivers who only had them to contend with MiGs. Later missiles that worked better also reduced the need for a gun on the F-4, as it was mostly the early days that saw the need for a gun. However, Phantoms claimed around 14 MiGs with guns, while all Thud MiG kills were gun
kills. The F-8 claimed only 4 gun kills out of 19.

File: Phantom Kills Vietnam.png (29KB, 433x458px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 433x458px

>>33466518
Best I have is pic related.

But yeah, the Navy never added guns to their Phantoms, but instead started up TOPGUN. Their kill/loss ratios ended up being consistently higher than the USAF, even without guns.

>>33466657

That's perfect anon, thanks.
>even without guns
Yeah, that's what I understood the situation to be as well. Problem is, I can't prove it. But that table's a good start.
>>33466642
So the F-105's were used as like, ground attack or something, and had to use their guns as a self defence weapon on the way too/back from their target?

File: 388th_TFW_F-105F_Wild_Weasles_1972.jpg (135KB, 1080x722px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1080x722px

>>33466712
The F-105 was a tactical strike aircraft, meaning it was nominally a fighter, and at the time it was developed, all fighters had guns.

In Vietnam, the DoD had the amazing idea of using the tactical bombers (F-105s) for a strategic bombing campaign (Rolling Thunder) and strategic bombers (B-52s) for tactical bombing (Arc Light). So F-105s bore the brunt of the bombings north of the DMZ. The guns they had weren't really intended to be used so much as they just weren't removed. They did send them with escort - usually F-100s or F-4s - that was supposed to fend off any enemy interceptors. The gun kills the F-105s made were mostly opportunistic events that were fairly rare (remember, hundreds of thousands of F-105 sorties were flown). Normal doctrine for the F-105s if they were caught by enemy fighters was to just jettison everything and bolt away, as they were faster than anything the NVAF could send after them once they'd dropped all their bombs.

File: MiG-17_and_F-105_Thunderchief_over_Vietnam_1967.jpg (97KB, 655x420px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 655x420px

>>33466712
Yes, Thuds would come into contact with MiGs that had slipped pass CAP when coming off target and they used the gun in self defense.

>>33466642
>The Air Force wanted to fix the terrible bombing accuracy experienced in Rolling Thunder, and never did develop anything such as TOPGUN until after the war.

Interestingly as the USAF had more time and a corps of enthusiastic and reformist younger officers, many of whom were majors at the time of the Vietnam war, their answer to TOPGUN - the Red Flag exercises - was actually far more fleshed out and considered a superior training instrument (to the point that it's now one of the major events for most NATO air forces every year)

>>33467779
Red Flag was better then Top Gun and then the Air Force decided to deactivate its F-15 aggressors, now only the Navy has a stand-in for SU-27.

>>33467819

What do they use? F-18s aren't exactly similar to Flankers or Fulcrums, kinematically.

>>33468237
Navy uses F-18, not great but still closer then F-16.

File: F-4 with 15 miniguns.jpg (42KB, 747x422px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 747x422px

>>33466518
>>33466657
>>33466712
Navy F-4B Phantoms COULD carry the external gun pod like USAF F-4C/Ds often did, but it was rarely done in practice. In both USN and USAF, the F-4 B/C/D lacked a lead-computing gunsight to go with this external pod, limiting its usefulness for air-to-air, and the reliability and accuracy left something to be desired. No Naval Phantom variant ever implemented the internal gun that the F-4E did, as the Navy preferred to keep the large-diameter 32-inch antenna of the APQ-72 and AWG-10, which would obstruct an internal gun.

>>33468237
>F-18s aren't exactly similar to Flankers or Fulcrums, kinematically.
Sure they are. A lightweight Super Hornet should be able to simulate a loaded Flanker or Fulcrum just fine.

File: scan0045.jpg (163KB, 739x510px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 739x510px

>>33468695
Yeah the Mk. 4 gunpod had a reputation for being a jamming piece of trash. Some Marine units like VMFA-122 used it, with the Crusaders sometimes flying with 3 gunpod on the belly and main wing stations.