Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War

by Robert Coram

The guns versus missiles argument is one of the most emotional arguments in the Air Force. It is utterly incomprehensible to non-pilots, most of whom probably think missiles are the best possible armament for a fighter. The rules of engagement in Vietnam, combined with poor-performing missiles, had shown what happened when fighter aircraft had no guns. The rules dictated that a U.S. pilot visually identify an enemy aircraft before firing a missile. But the minimum missile-launch range was far greater than the range at which an aircraft could be identified as friend or foe. That meant the pilot had to get in close, identify the enemy, then back off far enough to launch his missiles. Missiles could be evaded by the simplest of countermeasures. There was no countermeasure for a gun. Signs began showing up on the walls in the Pentagon: “It takes a fighter with a gun to kill a MiG-21.”