Acho que essa pergunta é altamente baseada em opinião e deve ser encerrada.
Mas aqui estão meus $ 0,02
Historicamente, houve tentativas de remover canhões, mas acabou cedo demais: os mísseis não são tão bons. O benefício da arma de fallback realmente supera o peso.
One instance of combat during Project Dark Gene was an engagement on November 28, 1973 between an RF-4C aircraft piloted by IIAF Major Shokouhnia and backseater USAF Colonel John Saunders and a Soviet MiG-21 flown by Captain Gennadii N. Eliseev. The Soviet pilot fired two Vympel K-13 missiles at the Iranian aircraft, failing to destroy it. He was ordered from ground control to press his attack at any cost, and with his cannon jammed after the first shot,[8] he continued by ramming into the Iranian aircraft and losing his life in the process. He struck the RF-4C's tail assembly with his wing and then flew into high ground. It was the first deliberate jet-to-jet ramming by a Soviet aircraft during an interception, a practice common in the propeller age of World War II. Eliseev was posthumously awarded as a Hero of the Soviet Union.[3][9] The crew of the RF-4C aircraft were captured by Soviet ground forces and released after 16 days.2[10]
As forças armadas americanas chegaram à mesma conclusão na mesma época, para adicionar canhões ao F-4 Phantom II .
Talvez agora seja a hora de repensar essa questão novamente após 40+ anos de avanço dos mísseis AA. Mas se você perguntar ao piloto, pelo mesmo peso, eles querem combustível, arma + munição ou nada? Uma parte significativa, se não a maioria, escolheria a arma, eu acho.
Muitos pilotos de caça, ou até mesmo astronautas, carregam pistolas. Quão útil é isso?