What people don't understand about dogfighting,

File: 1480962218983.jpg (63KB, 455x817px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 455x817px

>>32543509
>What people don't understand about dogfighting
Then he proceeds to talk about WVR combat that is NOT dogfighting. What an amazing article.

>>32543726
that guy basically says Dogfights like in Top Gun don't happen.
"BVR has replaced dogfighting", is his point.

>>32543780
Hell, even in WVR you have things like the AIM-9x which almost cannot be evaded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMSfg26YSQ

>>32543788
if an f35 let someone get that close, the Dude seriously fucked up.

>>32543788
Also in WVR, you have the entirely-different tactic of high-alpha gunfighting, which is more about pointing the nose, rather than the whole plane. Every F-18 ever built uses this tactic.

Also, the traditional reason for WVR is "ROE" or "positive ID". However, EO/DAS gives the F-35 a WVR range of potentially >50NM, conditions permitting. And, finally, non-cooperative ID (some fairly spooky target ID software that uses the radar to image targets and ID them at long ranges) has been a part of the program since the beginning.

>>32544077
>However, EO/DAS gives the F-35 a WVR range of potentially >50NM

"WVR" is a metric that doesn't change based on how far you can see.

>>32544077
I think It's also worth mentioning that the "ROE" situation would probably go out the window in a "real" war.

>>32543509
>businessinsider
Seriously?

>>32544095
It seems that WVR is basically what can be seen then optics without radar and not with your eyes now.

>>32545453
WVR is generally considered to be within 20 miles (~15NM / ~30km).

>>32544095

>Within visual range doesn't change based on how far you can see

>>32546462
Correct.

>>32544077
Hell, they had non-cooperative on F-4Es in Vietnam with Combat Tree.