Every time we've tried to permanently eliminate cannons or guns of some kind from fighters, something has happened to require the use of cannons -- and then we install them again. This has proven true even in the case of the modern jet fighter, with newer aircraft such as the F-22 Raptor, F-35 Lightning II, Su-57, and MiG-35. The ability to directly engage any target is highly valuable, as missiles are of questionable utility at very low altitudes where terrain features may preclude the efficient use of radar-guided or infrared-guided missiles.

As a result... F-8. Missiles are extremely limited in quantity and readily foiled with modern ECM packages. Cannon shells are effective against just about anything, countermeasures be damned.

I'm on the same page too. I've watched some documentaries about this topic and found out slowly during the Vietnam conflict, the F-8 Crusader eventually was gradually phased out in favor of the twin engine Phantom II. The cannons on the crusader were also prone to jam under high G-forces and ironically, the sidewinder was the weapon that earned the Crusader most of it's kills despite the shortcomings of the missile technology at the time.

Who knew?

With the F-4 they found out early in Nam that by not having a gun on the airplane hindered it's mission capability, they then came up with a pylon mounted gun pod with a GAU-19/A mounted inside. Most Phantoms had one slung under each wing. Many times it was used to engage ground targets.

Speaking of the gunpods, not all squadrons equipped the jets with them and did not have the Leading Optical computing gun sight to aerial targets. Some pilots used the gun pods and said something along the lines of just hope it shoots something down.

That is true... but with tracers you have a good idea where they are going.

At least they do have that. I hear during the conflict, there was the Aults report and despite having a lack of a gun which the report stressed, a school to train the pilots was actually the top priority. The naval counterparts scored a higher victory ratio with their new fighter weapons school while the latter did with some technical fixes and a gun with a smaller ratio. Quite a story to be told.

I know a lot of tit for tat was going on at the time. Knowing how to use and get the most out of the capabilities of the aircraft is what gets you a better victory ratio. That's one of the reasons they came up with the Top Gun school for the Air Force. The Navy had the same thing before the Air Force did it.