Will dog-fighting ever come back?

Michael Vick pls go

>>34604932
ONLY IF--
>fighters and interceptors become fast/maneuverable/smart enough to out-turn missiles (requires better G-Suit, airframe, engine, ECM tech)
>missile and radar tech doesn't advance (it will)
The era of close-in aerial engagements is at an end. Missiles and radar have seen to that.

File: 1465364800391.png (51KB, 128x131px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 128x131px

>>34605155
fpbp

>>34605155
fpbp

>>34604932
Maybe if somehow missiles become totally worthless overnight, so probably not.

>>34606246

How do you know without real shooting wars between white nations?

Only if new countermeasure technology is discovered that makes guided weapons 100% useless. Possible but not likely, since even with this magical new technology, we would probably make human-guided missiles or even missiles that visually track a target.

>>34605155
Dubs are correct. FPBP.

>>34606246
Vietnam called, it want's it's military air dogma back.

>>34606973
you don't need them 100% useless, just about at ~60-70ss tier

ECM technology is constantly advancing, stealth technology is likewise constantly advancing. There will always be a battle between detectibility vs detection capabilities.

To say two hostile aircraft will never again get inside of dogfight range in any conceivable future engagement is incredibly naive.

>>34604932
Not as standard fighting doctrine. But if a pilot were to fuck up and let an adversary get close enough.... well... then it would get real exciting for a bit.

even f-22 has a gun and a pretty decent one

File: prinpil.jpg (101KB, 500x640px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 500x640px

>>34606246
>>34604932
Yes, if aircraft get missile countermeasures like our tanks are getting. If that happens, then you can expect a return to dogfights with guns being the primary weapon.

>>34606246
Yo dawg, the 50s called.

Remember when they ditched cannons just to find out that they couldnt down fucking MIG17s over Vietnam?

>>34611913
>not as standard fighting doctrine
BASIC
FIGHTER
MANEUVERS

>>34611961
>hard-kill APS point defense
>on aircraft
riiiiiight

>>34611962
the best case it wasn't even a mig-17, it was a runaway drone remade from an old hellcat

>While the drone flew over Castaic, the first crew lined up and fired 42 rockets, completely missing their target. The second interceptor moved into position and unleashed another salvo of 42, the rockets passing just beneath the bright red drone, a few glancing off the fuselage underside, but none detonating.[1] Close to the town of Newhall the pair of jets made a second pass, launching a total of 64 rockets; again none found the mark. The two Scorpion crews adjusted their intervalometer settings and, as the wayward drone headed northeast toward Palmdale, each fired a last salvo of 30 at the target with no hits, dispensing their last rockets. In all, the Air Force element fired 208 rockets and were unable to shoot the Hellcat down.[8]

>As the Scorpion pilots headed home low on fuel, the drone advanced toward Palmdale, its engine sputtering from fuel starvation. The drone slowly descended in an easy spiral, approaching a desolate section of desert 8 miles (13 km) east from Palmdale Regional Airport. Just before crashing, the drone severed three Southern California Edison electric cables along an unpaved section of Avenue P. The drone's right wing dug into the sand, and the drone cartwheeled and disintegrated. In July 1997 archeologists found some pieces of the drone "identifiable by part numbers and inspection stamps".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Palmdale

what's this pic, a pilot with a comfort trap assigned to him?

>>34611991
forgot the link >>34611974

>>34606973
Quit playing video games holy fuck. Are you 15 srs question

>>34611913
>adversary
Go

>>34604932
Yes.
In AI controlled fighters with radically different construction.

>>34610524
>>34611962
>a war in the '60s determines modern fighting technology, equipment, and doctrine
No. Stop this fucking meme. We don't strap GAUs on our aircraft as a primary weapon. It is a last resort. The question was "Will dogfighting ever come back?". And it WON'T. It's era is over, as I had previously mentioned. I made no remark of there NEVER being a use for guns, nor did I deny the possibility of a close-in engagement. That shit just straight-up doesn't happen enough to warrant that much training or equipment.

>>34606286
Because that sort of Cold War what-if wankery only works on gullible politicians and generals who still fear the Red Menace. War is waged on daytime television, the Internet, trading floors, and committee boardrooms now more than ever. Compared to putting boots on the ground, it's much easier to false-flag dissenting opinion, underprice their exports, and pressure them with sanctions and hearings. Once again: that's not to say it WON'T or CAN'T ever happen, but given the current geopolitical climate? Highly unlikely for at least the next 5-10 years. Pro-tip: people like their things unfucked. War fucks a lot of things up. Thus, people are mostly averse to war.

>>34612284
>That shit just straight-up doesn't happen enough to warrant that much training or equipment.
Until it does happen and the pilots are completley unequipped to to handle such a situation both in equipment capabilities and in training.

Like I said. This exact line of thinking occured some 50 years ago and it turned out to be complete garbage.

There is nothing. No engagement data from any modern air war to indicate that this would not still be true.

Claiming something is never going to happen again thus we shouldn't prepare our men and women for such an inevitability is flat ass backwards thinking. Especially with the limited as shit stores options on the F-35.

File: ace.gif (4MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 480x270px

>>34611974
It probably wouldn't be APS, but if lasers weapons become a thing I could see laser missile defenses on aircraft happening.

>>34612284
>dogfighting will never happen again
>stop training pilots, just teach them to press the red button and let the magic missle do the rest
>take the guns away, it makes our pigfat plane even more pigfatter
>new air war kicks off
>large numbers of cheap soviet fighters in theater
>overwhelms both the numbers and engagement potential of new U.S. fighters.
>time to close from BVR missle engagement distances to WVR BCM is closed in a matter of minutes
>pigfat unmaneuverable pigfat "fighters" without guns and pilots with minimal to no BCM training get assraped by lower tech but more maneverable Soviet jets with guns

Anyone that thinks the above or similar is impossible is a fucking retard

>>34612372
shinden vs... certainly not corsair with that tail

File: blondecondescension.jpg (391KB, 1374x1425px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 1374x1425px

>>34612284
>being this mad on a mongolian sheep-shearing forum

>>34612284

War changes, Fallout can suck a dick. Right now, yes, you're absolutely right. War has moved away from dogfights, tank slugfests, and infantry beating each other with shovels in the mud (mostly). However, as far as geopolitical competition between state actors is concerned, this is a direct product of the post-WW2 global "peace" state, which is currently receding.

Now, I'm not saying this will happen in the next few years, or even the next couple decades, but the shift back to interstate conflict is already beginning, and will make a return in the forseeable future.

Which means there's a solid chance dogfighting might make a comeback. Depends on a lot of things, but it's not something that can just be dismissed out of hand.

File: 1499817251322.jpg (26KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x375px

>>34612343
I agree on your points, but I was speaking on the merits of guns being used as a primary weapon. It's similar to the "Should we still train with bayonets?" argument. Obviously, a bayo has uses outside of combat, and can be effective if the opportunity presents itself (see Sgt. Falconer's charge in Afghanistan circa ~2004). It's just that the opportunity is so rare, due to advances in tech and doctrine.

>>34612381
>dogfighting will never happen again
Never said that, never implied that.
>stop training pilots
See Item 1.
>just teach them to press the red button and let the magic missle do the rest
That's not how it works. But I don't expect you to understand, not knowing how to even SPELL "missile".
>take the guns away, it makes our pigfat plane even more pigfatter... pigfat unmaneuverable pigfat "fighters"
But I thought that in your fantasy land we shed the guns to lose weight? Learn to craft a story, at least.
>large numbers of cheap soviet fighters in theater
>overwhelms both the numbers and engagement potential of new U.S. fighters.
>time to close from BVR missle engagement distances to WVR BCM is closed in a matter of minutes
>pigfat unmaneuverable pigfat "fighters" without guns and pilots with minimal to no BCM training get assraped by lower tech but more maneverable Soviet jets with guns
See? NOW you're writing a good fantastical tale!

>>34612343
>Like I said. This exact line of thinking occured some 50 years ago and it turned out to be complete garbage.
Which is why over 70% of kills in Vietnam came from missiles.
And is also why the navy never equipped their F4's with gun.

>>34612464

And you are aware that the military both still issues Bayonets, and continues to train on fighting with them, right?

>>34612469
>And is also why the navy never equipped their F4's with gun.
And why they built the Tomcat as soon as fucking possible to replace it in the air superiority role it was so ill suited for.

File: retards.jpg (38KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 400x400px

>>34612479
>F-14
>Air superiority
Pick one friendo.

Also since the muhreens added gun pods to their F-4's, why didn't the navy? Maybe it had something to do with the navy actually training their pilots to use their planes right.

>>34612469
And the K:L ratio on the F4 was so fantastic right?

If Vietnam vindicated the "dogfighting is dead missiles are the future" train of thought, then why did the Navy push so hard and spend so much to come up with a fighter much more maneuverable than the F-4 that had a gun (see: F-14)?

>>34612487

Probably more because Marine airframes have a ground support focus, and guns make good ground support weapons at times.

File: air supiriority.jpg (44KB, 1436x103px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1436x103px

>>34612487
>>F-14
>>Air superiority
>Pick one friendo.

Claiming air superiority wan't one off the primary roles of a carrier launched fleet interceptor is full fucking retard.

File: 1499297905226.png (2MB, 2880x1800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2880x1800px

>>34612425
>not being this mad
I'm the winningest at internet yelling matches. My mother said so.

>>34612475
I was using that as an analogue. In both instances, they have their theoretical uses. But in practice, that shit just doesn't happen enough to warrant a massive amount of resources spent on it, and in the few instances it IS useful, it just ends up being a footnote compared to how effective the better equipment is. It is useful, but not worth the money pumped into it. How the FUCK is this not getting through to you?

File: B7A-Ryusei_torpedo.jpg (14KB, 1005x350px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 1005x350px

>>34612389
Only thing similar to Corsair are the inverted gull wings, which isn't a unique trait.
I don't remember any real single engine prop planes with twin tail. It's just for show.

>>34612487
>gun pods
>in a dog fight
>on a fast unmanuverable sled like the F-4

Because Navy ROE was to fire missiles and gtfo because the F-4 was so ill equipped for dogfighting, but had a significant speed advantage over the Migs. They were playing to their advantages instead of accepting more expensive F-4 losses to cheap Migs in a dogfight.

>>34612510

>How the FUCK is this not getting through to you?

Probably the same reason it's failing to penetrate your skull that the military constantly clings to seemingly outdated shit in an attempt to be prepared for future conflicts or things that in practice might not happen very often.

Note 1: A vast portion of the military's leadership is still planning for the cold war and can't let go of that.

Note 2: There was a general who tried to get rid of the Abrams tank because he said MBTs, while they had their theoretical uses, were not needed often enough to warrant the massive amount of resources spent on them.

File: tomcat.jpg (49KB, 320x382px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 320x382px

>>34612487
You're one of those special kind of retards aren't you?

>>34612507
>>34612533
>OMG WIKIPEDIA
The F-14 was designed first and foremost as an interceptor.. The fact that it was used as an air superiority platform does not change this.

>>34612025
Fagget, how would YOU make a guided missile without IR, laser, or any other kind of modern tracking?

>>34612494
>And the K:L ratio on the F4 was so fantastic right?
The K:L ratio for the F-4 was well over 2:1 by the end of the war for all services combined.
K:L ratios for the air force improved after they started training pilots in BFM/BCM. Navy K:L ratios remained almost constant throughout the war because they were actually training their pilots in BFM/BCM from the start.

File: 2017-06-13_0612.png (2MB, 1767x962px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1767x962px

>>34611961
>implying lasers won't render missiles or missile countermeasures moot by then

well with the invention of better EW suites and perhaps something like EMP flares, fighters will definitely have to dogfight again
I can see how this makes some people VERY angry in here though, they've been shilling amerilard style BVR against 3rd world-tier "armies" for years on here, and if overnight slavshit planes become top-dog again due to having MUCH better flight characteristics, then some people might just explode from anger

File: 5_1251771904h3Ae.jpg (949KB, 3008x1960px) Image search: [Google]

949KB, 3008x1960px

>>34612548
Yeah well the "not a pound for air to ground" F-15 was designed as an air superiority fighter first and foremost, now look what happened.

>inb4 b-but they're practically virtually sorta kinda different planes desuuuu xdd
The E and C versions of the eagle are as different as the A/B and D versions of the Tomcat

>>34612594

dude probably doesn't even know that US Military aircraft come in different blocks like that.

>>34612568
well, from what i gather phantom was the most shot down jet in history... but for some reason most of the losses were attributed to sams and aa and it's pretty hard to tell if it's really true or was done for propaganda purposes (see the shit they claim in topgun movie), vietnamian sources were disregarded whatsoever (funnily but even by the american approved sources vietnam had more aces)

the only real statistics that we have it's the number of lost phantoms and it's about 500 or so, vietnam didn't even have so many migs i believe

>>34612343
>turned out to be complete garbage

Demonstrably false. AIM-7's and -9's were responsible for up to 70% of air-to-air kills through the Vietnam war. The technology for consistent missile kills was not ready, but even someone like Robin Olds saw that missiles were the future, even saddled with something as shit as the AIM-7.

File: 1414048299620.png (76KB, 525x393px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 525x393px

>>34611985
>no sights
>faulty FCS
>best case

vatniks gtfo

>>34612594
You could totally configure an E model to fly the same role as a C model and have it be just as effective in air-to-air combat. We just don't do that because the E model is so good at blowing shit up and it takes time to take the pods and CFTs off every other flight. It's just easier for them to have designated roles.

>>34604932
Maybe if our ECM becomes better.

Much better.

It's not unheard of for aircraft to defeat missiles either by duping with chaff and flares or simply giving them a bad intercept window. At mach 3 this means that you'll end up in dogfighting distance in minutes.

However, this just means you're in a dogfight with missiles. Leading the shot for a super sonic fighter plane is effectively impossible and modern jets have the performance to break the sound barrier with a few seconds of full throttle. A missile is still the best way to shoot down a plane and missiles don't really care about range or angles.

File: 1467240727272.png (152KB, 378x338px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 378x338px

>>34612284
>>a war in the '60s determines modern fighting technology, equipment, and doctrine
>We don't strap GAUs on our aircraft as a primary weapon. It is a last resort.

>>34612510

O.O

>>34612533
The f-14 is kinda dated. While it's got variants still in service none of them are first line air superiority fighters anymore.

>>34612554
Actually, image recognition is some of the most complicated and processor heavy applications we have. It would be easier to have the RIO control the missile by remote rather than have the missile seek in by image recognition.

>>34610560
pretty much this.

dogfighting plays a part, but its a smaller part nowadays. BVR is lyfe

>>34612284
>Using caps
no need to get emotional anon.

>>34612998
>AIM-7's and -9's were responsible for up to 70% of air-to-air kills through the Vietnam war
Both of those missiles had a less than 18% probability of kill. Sometimes an F-4 would expend all 8 missiles and none would hit the target.

So you can imagine how many wasted and failed missile launches there were. hundreds and hundreds.
If you don't believe me, google those 2 missiles and look at their Vietnam operational history.

>>34615629
It's dated now. it was not dated in the 60's, 70's and 80's which is the context of the discussion.

They still train dogfighting tactics at Top Gun.

>>34604932
I always thought it most definitely would if we got into some serious fucking wars and all the more advanced fighters have gone down, we'd begin mass production of more WW2-esque fighters just for the sheer numbers and having at least SOME airpower.

>>34616435
>Top Gun

Muh Danger Zone

>>34616845

Except the cost of a single seat turbo prop and its pilot, even if mass produced, would still be far more than the mass produced missiles used to shoot them down.

>>34612580
>Laser kills missile
>Laser somehow doesn't kill plane
huh

File: buddy2.png (751KB, 565x510px) Image search: [Google]

751KB, 565x510px

>Will dog-fighting ever come back?
Only if every pilot radio is fitted with Spanish guitars

>>34604932
When major powers fight conventional wars against each other again
>>34605155
And for the love of G-d, stay retired

>>34611962
>50s
Try the fucking 30s. People have been saying dogfighting has been on its way out practically as long as wars have been fought in the air

>>34616878
And yet you still need airpower if you're to stand a semblance of a chance in today's warfare.

>>34615629
The ones still in service are first line air superiority fighters. That is, the Iranian ones

US F14 fleet is completely retired

File: 1480224828644.jpg (36KB, 352x472px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 352x472px

>>34604932
Maybe if we strap guns to our drones and program them to intercept other drones.

Shit would be cash, especially if we get to watch replays of the onboard footage.

>>34612594
>The E and C versions of the eagle are as different as the A/B and D versions of the Tomcat
So slapping new engines, radar and avionics into an existing airframe is the same as redesigning/engineering the trainer version of an airframe into a deep strike fighter, including major structural changes to the airframe itself?

>>34612629
>dude probably doesn't even know that US Military aircraft come in different blocks like that.
And you clearly don't know that block changes can include.

>>34614255
>You could totally configure an E model to fly the same role as a C model and have it be just as effective in air-to-air combat.
Get the fuck out.

>>34604932
The exact second one of these new-fangled planes designed under the assumption it will never face an adersary inside visual range or fly in hostile airspace runs out of missiles.

>>34616146
>Both of those missiles had a less than 18% probability of kill. Sometimes an F-4 would expend all 8 missiles and none would hit the target.
The PK numbers from the Vietnam war were skewed by airforce pilots firing them at retarded angles of intercept early in the conflict due to their "training" that consisted of their instructors telling them as long as you get a lock it's going to kill the target. I'm not saying the PK was 100%, but it was certainly higher than 50% when the missile was fired with favorable angles of intercept.

>>34616435
They train BFM/BCM at Top Gun.
Does that include dog fighting? Yes.
Does it focus on dog fighting? No.

>>34604932
>>34606246
Even during World War II the majority of air-to-air kills were ambushes where the other pilot didn't see his attacker. Dogfighting was always a tactic of last resort.>>34606246

>>34612518
>I don't remember any real single engine prop planes with twin tail.

There have been a few

The Ju-87 originally had one. It allows the gunner a better shot over the tail.

File: missile envelopes.png (163KB, 779x804px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 779x804px

>>34612518
i have taken some time skimming from all these aircraft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Inverted_gull-wing_aircraft

there is indeed no plane which looked exactly like that anime one, but a couple of french ones look rather close

dewoitine hd.730 looks close but it has floaters, see here, the wiki article doesn't have a pic - http://www.airwar.ru/enc/sww2/hd730.html

loire-nieuport ln.401 looks close too but it has a triple rudder, see here, the wiki article again doesn't have a pic - http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bww2/ln411.html

yes, that russian site seems to have the most pics of those planes and also their basic technical drawings


>>34621401
implying it was easy to launch a missile properly

pic related, it's from a book printed in 1985

File: Artwork-blueprint-Ju-87V1-Stuka-prototype-diagram-0A.jpg (118KB, 1200x1013px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1200x1013px

>>34622036
hm, indeed

it has fixed landing gear though

>>34622065
>implying it was easy to launch a missile properly
I never said such a thing. I just paraphrased what the airforce pilots were told in their training early in the war: that as long as they could get a lock on the enemy aircraft, the missile would kill that aircraft.
This is further reinforced by the attitudes of the airforce early on in that they had no really specialized fighter MOS, they would just tell a pilot they were flying fighters and be done with it. They assumed that just having missiles that could seek a target would do the work without having to properly train their pilots. This was obviously wrong, and was only corrected after they started training the pilots properly. Once the pilots received proper training the missiles became more effective through better employment of the plane and weapons. Even after guns were mounted to airforce F-4's, the majority of airforce kills were still made with missiles.

>pic related, it's from a book printed in 1985
Yes, a book written after the Vietnam war.

File: 1280px-Swiss_Air_Force_C-3603-1.jpg (253KB, 1280x724px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1280x724px

>>34622121

Its popped up on more civilian aircraft than military I think, but there are a number of combat aircraft that had it

>>34606246
What about point-defense? A missile isn't very useful if it gets turned into swiss cheese before it can even get close to the aircraft.

>>34621360
Motherfucker I know what I'm talking about.

File: 1489590163291.jpg (67KB, 521x697px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 521x697px

>>34605155

>>34617282
>Hey Buddy

>>34611962
nice meme, but when Navy F-4s scored a 7-1 kill ratio during Linebacker II they were flying without guns, whereas Air Force gun-equipped phantoms managed only 3-1.

>>34611974
A dispenser that pops out a rudder-equipped (scatter pattern?) EFP munition that receives target data from the aircraft would work

>>34612494
K:L ratio for Navy F-4s (without guns) was 7-1 once they'd actually trained their pilots to use their missiles while manoeuvring. They also faced the greatest number of MiG-21s at the time due to their zones of operation.

>>34612343
>>There is nothing. No engagement data from any modern air war to indicate that this would not still be true.
That ignores the Gulf War, and Israel's invasion of Lebanon
>"B-b-but they don't count!"
The Gulf War was an example of Western high-tech air doctrine facing off against a cheaper, lower-technology, CGI-equipped force which was supposed to, according to critics, embarrass the west in a similar manner to Vietnam by shooting their "Lemon" and "turkey" F-15s and F-16s out of the sky. Nothing of the sort happened.

>>34623107
>Among fixed-wing aircraft, more F-4 Phantoms were lost than any other type in service with any nation. In total, the United States lost in Vietnam almost 10 000 aircraft, helicopters and 578 UAVs (554 over Vietnam and 24 over China).[1]

from the wiki

didn't know vietnam had so many planes :^)

Animal cruelty is punishable by law.

>>34623152
Most US aircraft were lost to SAMs, which, surprise surprise, are best dealt with by adopting high-technology solutions. In combat against enemy aircraft, properly-trained US Navy pilots attained extremely high kill ratios.

File: Goose, even you could get laid in a place like this.jpg (982KB, 2160x1920px) Image search: [Google]

982KB, 2160x1920px

REVVIN UP YOUR ENGINE
LISTEN TO HER HOWLING ROOOOAAARR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK0P1Bk8Cx4

>>34623183
yes, i know that the stats was made pretty conveniently to balm the wound of the butthurt american air force

all the vietnmese data were disregarded too

>>34617185
I think the point is it kills both

>>34604932

Yes, the same time battleships and gliders do

>>34623195
t. Chinkposter

>>34623214
You just proved him right.
Stop disregarding Vietnamese data

>>34623242
Vietnamese data is highly questionable at best, especially since their bean-counters had no reason to verify any of their statistics.