Why Fighter Pilots Avoid Shooting Down Defenseless Planes and Opt for Missiles
In the high-stakes world of air combat, fighter pilots face the critical decision of when to use their cannons against an enemy aircraft. The question often arises: would fighter pilots shoot down a defenseless enemy plane with the cannon if there is no reason to use missiles? If the target can't fight back, why would missiles be fired instead?
When to Use Cannons vs. Missiles
From a practical standpoint, fighter pilots primarily use missiles for air-to-air engagements due to the risks involved. Cannons are generally less risky and more effective within a close range of a few hundred meters. However, missiles provide a higher probability of a hit, especially when engaging targets at a distance.
The decision to use a cannon or a missile depends on the range and maneuverability of the target. If the target is maneuvering, pilots will likely opt for a missile due to the increased risk of the target spotting and defending itself. On the other hand, if the target is defenseless and stationary, a cannon can be an effective option, particularly if the pilot is already in a favorable position.
Case Study: September 11
Commercial aircraft on September 11, 2001, were indeed defenseless in the sense that they were civilian aircraft with limited defensive capabilities. Yet, even without any active defense, these planes were still powerful weapons due to their mass and structural integrity. Firing a cannon at a stationary target like a commercial airliner could easily result in severe damage or total destruction.
For instance, if an F16 or similar aircraft had managed to intercept and engage United Flight 93 on September 11, a cannon strike might have been more effective in destroying the aircraft than using missiles. However, in a scenario where the target is aware of the threat and is maneuvering, missiles are the preferred choice due to their higher accuracy and reduced risk.
The Role of Pilots in Air Combat
Pilots cherish the opportunity to achieve a "gun kill" over a "missile kill." The satisfaction of downing an enemy aircraft with a cannon is significantly higher when the target is maneuvering. This is because it showcases the pilot's skill and expertise. However, the reality is that such opportunities are rare, and engaging at close range increases the risk of being detected by the target.
Hence, the sensible approach is to fire the missile as soon as a good shot is available. Closing in to get a better position is often a risky gambit that might result in the target evading or even taking down the pursuing fighter. Prompt, decisive action with a missile ensures a higher probability of success while minimizing risks.
Strategic Considerations and Objectives
The strategic goal of shooting down a "defenseless enemy" is not to eliminate the plane alone but to incapacitate the pilot. This is because the pilot can return to the battlefield and pose a significant threat again. In contrast, a damaged or exploded plane is significantly less of a concern.
Moreover, a piloted aircraft, even if it seems "defenseless," carries the potential to become a formidable opponent due to the pilot's ability to adapt and counter unexpected situations. A smart and experienced pilot in a structured aircraft (even if it appears to lack defensive systems) remains a potent and dangerous adversary.
In conclusion, while fighter pilots may opt for cannons in some scenarios, the use of missiles is often more prudent due to their superior range, accuracy, and the reduced risk of engagement. The primary goal is to neutralize the threat posed by the pilot, making missile engagements the preferred choice in most aerial combat situations.