IAF has no BVR capability?
-
“The whole leapfrogging technology thing always seems to lead me back to the conclusion that the dogfight will stay around.”
Which makes the underpowered and trying-to-be-too-many-things-for-too-many-customers F35 highly problematic. Pilots have said that the plane is an energy-management nightmare in a turning fight, but the program managers keep countering with: “It doessn’t matter, it’s stealthy and takes the first shot.” The pilots don’t seem to be convinced.
-
Given that turning fights are violently not a thing anymore… all too often its planned to blow through at the merge, so that friendly groups off axis can engage the group you just blew through. Even more likely is to abort if there are friendlies on axis.
-
…what Blu3wolf says. On top of which, the USN/USMC F-35 variants don’t even have an onboard gun - which tells me that doctrine will be to strictly avoid the merge with these aircraft, so - “no more dogfights”. I guess.
-
-
-
F-4 rings a bell? And than came Vietnam.
-
Given the frequency of small wars or policing of no fly zones in recent years, I wonder how the no dogfight thing works with RoE such as having to visually identify aircraft, or no firing until fired upon.
-
IMO, this only adds more fuel to the discussion of how fighters are becoming “obsolete”…as you point out, the areas of conflict are shrinking and public opinion is less and less in favor of risking personnel. A UCAV can deliver the same damage on deck and totally avoid putting a man overhead. So what if it gets shot down?..it’s cheap, I can make another one - cheap - and I haven’t lost a man…and if it completes it’s mission then the mission is complete.
-
Agree in full.
And these are the reasons why in the mil. many believe this is the future aviation - as they say, “If you’re going to send a guy to a dangerous place, send a bullet instead.”
Best regards,
-
If you give it fighter performance (sensors and maneuverability), a UCAV actually stops being cheap. What would cost a lot less would be training its (remote) pilot.
As far as F-4s in Vietnam, I wonder what the dogfights would have looked like if they had had AIM-9Xs instead of AIM-9Bs/Ds (or, God forbid, AIM-4s). My bet is on “rather different”.
-
…and why would it need fighter performance? It’s basically an artillery platform, if you think about it. It either sneaks in, flies high, or attacks in numbers. Think different, fight different.
-
Attacks in numbers is the way I like to think of it. B-52 disgorging a couple hundred MALDs alongside a few combat drones… which contact is the SAM gonna target? Doesnt matter [emoji14]
-
…and why would it need fighter performance? It’s basically an artillery platform, if you think about it. It either sneaks in, flies high, or attacks in numbers. Think different, fight different.
Well, if you don’t need sensors or maneuverability, producing a lot of cheap artillery platforms is already fully possible, and has been so for decades, regardless of whether they’re manned or unmanned (depending of how much you value pilots’ lives). I notice no modern air force is doing it though. I don’t believe it’s because all airforce pilots only love shiny expensive planes.
-
As far as F-4s in Vietnam, I wonder what the dogfights would have looked like if they had had AIM-9Xs instead of AIM-9Bs/Ds (or, God forbid, AIM-4s). My bet is on “rather different”.
Which is one reason if the stealth v. stealth became a thing, you would probably see a jump in IR missile defensive systems, they already have the DIRCM systems that will basically blind even something with a seeker head like an AIM-9X IIRC, it just isn’t sized to be on a fighter yet nor is there much interest “because BVR.” Hehe if that scenario plays out then it is back to guns ;D
FWIW, I also have moral qualms about drones and the unmanned thing. When used by the good guys it’s great way to not put them at risk, but the flip side is that you are now conducting air campaigns without human risk which then makes it more palatable to bomb those backward guys over there since we aren’t going to lose anybody anyway. If those guys are really “bad guys” and “deserve it” then that’s fine in my book, which is what I mostly think happens today, but that may not always be the case in the future.
-
Please keep your blablá about good or bad guys for you. AFAIK this forum is not to discuss moral dilemas. Thanks
-
Well, if you don’t need sensors or maneuverability, producing a lot of cheap artillery platforms is already fully possible, and has been so for decades, regardless of whether they’re manned or unmanned (depending of how much you value pilots’ lives). I notice no modern air force is doing it though. I don’t believe it’s because all airforce pilots only love shiny expensive planes.
…just because you don’t notice, don’t mean it isn’t being done. And/or that fighter pilots aren’t worried about having jobs…
-
Which is one reason if the stealth v. stealth became a thing, you would probably see a jump in IR missile defensive systems, they already have the DIRCM systems that will basically blind even something with a seeker head like an AIM-9X IIRC, it just isn’t sized to be on a fighter yet nor is there much interest “because BVR.” Hehe if that scenario plays out then it is back to guns ;D
FWIW, I also have moral qualms about drones and the unmanned thing. When used by the good guys it’s great way to not put them at risk, but the flip side is that you are now conducting air campaigns without human risk which then makes it more palatable to bomb those backward guys over there since we aren’t going to lose anybody anyway. If those guys are really “bad guys” and “deserve it” then that’s fine in my book, which is what I mostly think happens today, but that may not always be the case in the future.
I have a moral dilemma about war becoming “easy” or “less risky” overall…it’s the sheer horror of war that stops or makes one hesitant to go to war in the first place, IMO. But what I think is not going to stop “progress”…
-
Very OT, but hardly. E.g. look at the Romans, a bunch of (by today’s standards) genocidal maniacs in a time when it got as brutal as it ever could and compare that to how many conflicts we have today. Technology comes further and further, and wars fewer and fewer.
-
.lol fewer? But ultra extremely massive on human loss.
In the past an army was for a city, a city like a today village. Even civilian loss was way much low.The thing is we humans don’t understand that we have to live with what we have. No need to prove to the whole world which has it bigger. We talk about bullying in schools when we "the grown-ups " enforce on and blackmail, maybe not on a personal state, but for sure on as nation.
-
…just because you don’t notice, don’t mean it isn’t being done. And/or that fighter pilots aren’t worried about having jobs…
Well, show me an airforce equipped with lots of “cheap artillery platforms” for air-to-air combat. That’s what we’re talking about here.