Unmissable
I'm not aircrew so my logic may be flawed, but with regard to an air-to-air scenario, surely the more weapons options a pilot has available to him, the better? IF he has expended his BVR missiles and is threatened again, he has to employ Heaters at close range. I would have thought that in that case our pilot would like to have an aircraft that can mix it with the best of them, because if he misses or has missile failure, whatever, within seconds he's going to be in a dogfight, right? So as a fall back option he'd need a gun, otherwise he's at a disadvantage. Finally he needs an aircraft with the performance to enable him to disengage and run away when he wants to, not when he's forced to.
Seems to the uninitiated (i.e me) that aircraft ability and a gun are still relevant even in 2004. If not, will that be the end of ACT for our pilots then, with a resulting lengthening of useful airframe life due to a lower fatigue consumption?!!
I just don't want our aircrew being hindered in a future conflict in the same way that US crews were flying F4's in Vietnam, by equipment and ROE.