Surfing Wiki, on the Python air-to-air missile, it mentions the poor performance of Israel’s first such missile, the Shafrir, in the Six-Day War, and that every single enemy splash was by guns.
Are gun battles in the air now only occurring on the History Channel?
ETA: Anyone seen LSLGuy lately?
This might not fit your description, but in 2001 the Peruvian air force shot down a missionary plane by mistake, with gunfire.
Air battles are relatively rare these days and on the occasions an air battle happens it is usually with missiles.
That said I think it was during the Korean war when the US tried to go all missiles on their planes they learned it was a mistake and guns still mattered.
The proof of it is the F22 Raptor, the most modern and capable fighter in the US arsenal, has a gun (M61A2 Vulcan cannon) and does not rely solely on missiles.
So, while I cannot tell you the last time a plane shot down another with a gun I can say militaries still think guns are important to have on a plane.
Air to air battles between manned aircraft are mostly only happening on the History Channel. The US Military, as an example, went just over 18 years without a successful air to air engagement - May 4, 1999 until last years engagement of a Syrian SU-22 on June 18th.
There simply hasn’t been any major direct fighting between major military powers that field large air forces with modern equipment. There’s been cases of major powers engaging much weaker powers like NATO in Libya or Russia against Georgia. There’s been occasional small sparring between minor powers with aging, small, and generally poorly trained air forces. There have also been a lot of “small wars” like US counterinsurgency campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria or Russia’s involvement in Syria where one side doesn’t even have air power.
Trying to sort out trends from a very small sample is going to be tough.
they mentioned in the movie Top Gun they created the Top Gun school because the pilots no longer knew how to dog fight. (and yes I know the movie is fictional) Top Gun was created in 1969 during Vietnam after a lot of US planes were lost during Vietnam.
It was the Vietnam war with the F-4 Phantom.
The Korean war used the F-80 Shooting Star, the F-84 Thunderjet, The F-86 Sabre (the most well-known of the jets), and the F-94 Starfire. All of these had machine guns on them right from the start.
Thanks. My bad.
Point still stands though.
One reason for having guns on modern fighters is that they offer a means of firing a warning shot across the bow in an intercept situation if an aircraft is uncooperative. They also offer a means of strafing ground targets.
Two Iraqi helicopters were shot down by A-10 cannons during the Gulf War in 1991. Earlier, during the Falklands War, a British helicopter was downed by cannon fire from an Argentine Pucara (a twin-turboprop ground-attack plane that’s a bit like an A-10 with props instead of jets.)
It is very likely the case, though, that guns matter a lot less now than they did in Vietnam. Modern air to air missiles are wildly superior to those of 1967, whereas guns are pretty much the same.
Of course, adding guns did not work. That was the USAF solution and no improvement in kill ratios was seen. The US Navy implemented the TOPGUN training program rather than trying technical solutions, and saw dramatic improvement.
The Air Force is nonetheless overrepresented in the list of aerial victories of the Vietnam War, and of the American aces (5 or more air-to-air kills) the Air Force has 3 to the Navy’s 2.
The Air Force had more planes.
The concern that led to the changes of 1969 wasn’t that the USAF wasn’t shooting down a lot of planes, but that in doing so, too many of its own planes were being shot down; the kill ratio was roughly 2-to-1 or 3-to-1, depending who you believe, a ratio that sounds good but is completely unacceptable in Western military doctrine, which calls for the establishment of air supremacy.
That’s what came to mind, here is an article on it: http://www.usafa.af.mil/News/Commentaries/Display/Article/658505/academy-aircraft-is-desert-storm-icon/
I believe the Colombian Air Force has shot down a couple of aircraft with guns in recent-ish years, but I don’t know if you’d call that a “combat kill” as they were unarmed Cessna’s or the like.
Guns are simply an insurance policy that is a holdover from Vietnam. The whole idea now is not to get into a knife fight, and rely strictly on BVR missiles and theater hand offs. With the cost of the F35 being what it is, your looking at almost a 20-1 kill ratio before the A/C pays off.