[skysurfer808]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

Good stuff again, Skysurfer. Just to clarify, I don't believe the dogfight is "dead," but I do believe that it has lost any prevalence in air combat. If you analyze air-to-air kills in the last 30 years, particularly the last 15, you'll see what I mean, and that trend is going to get ever more pronounced. And someday (not too far from now, believe me. You and I will see it in our lifetimes), we'll but laser weapons on jets and the dogfight will indeed be dead.

FVD

I don't doubt that will happen, and this will help make nuclear weapons obsolete as well. Still, it is my humble hope as a citizen that the laser equipped fighter aircraft we do see will be made in the USA and Western Europe rather than China.

Skysurfer808

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

Well then, that settles it, you are indeed beyond reach. Oh well, I won't lose any sleep over it. Everyone else on the forum will know what I meant.

FVD

Good, I'm happy that you won't lose any sleep over it. I hear that old men tend to become grumpy when they miss thier naps.


I guess The Dicta Boelcke should be amended to include FVD Rule 9--- Maneuverability is irrelevant, so keep her straight and steady.

[flyXwire]

Originally Posted by TopHat

Good, I'm happy that you won't lose any sleep over it. I hear that old men tend to become grumpy when they miss thier naps.


I guess The Dicta Boelcke should be amended to include FVD Rule 9--- Maneuverability is irrelevant, so keep her straight and steady.

You kill me, dude!

[Shawn 507]

Boy the things I miss when I go out and play Army with the studs. Where is the popcorn again?
- Shawn

[Shawn 507]

One other question, and someone mentioned it earlier. But what does the wonder bird do when its spent its long range missles that allow it to kill without being seen. But has many other targets to engage? Does it tuck tail and run or run the risk of a knife fight by staying in the fight?
- Shawn

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

Oh, here we go again, where do I even start...

The AIM-9L was FAR more effective than any previous version of the Sidewinder. Quoting from memory, I believe in the Falklands the kill effectiveness was about 60% for that missile, compared to around 11% in Vietnam for the B and D models (which is what the Argentinians had). The fact that all kills were from the rear aspect is much more a factor of training than anything else. The Brits were not used to that missile and its full capability, and it showed. I've flown with the AIM-9L and M (an improved version of the L), and they work great from head-on, as long as the adversary does not use proper counter-IR tactics (which the Argentinians did not). The Argentines had NOTHING equivalent to the AIM-9L, by a long shot. And even if the kills were from the rear, the cone from which they were taken was much larger than for older versions of the AIM-9, again showing the vastly improved launch envelope of the new missile.

The thrust vectoring on the Harrier is of a COMPLETELY different nature as on the F-22 or Su-30MKI. By its nature, the Harrier's exhaust nozzles are right around the center of gravity of the aircraft, and therefore CANNOT be used very effectively to increase pitch rate of the aircraft at very low speeds. The main advantage of VIFFing in the Harrier is very fast longitudinal deceleration, and assist to lift from the wing (which certainly needs it, as the wing is small and is NOT very good at generating high turn rates by itself). I have yet to see one mention of thust vectoring being used by Harrier pilots in the Falklands during an air-to-air engagement (and Skysurfer seems to agree on this point). In fact, even though I never engaged a Harrier myself while flying the F-16, I've talked to RAF, Italian Navy, and USMC Harrier pilots and they all agree VIFFing is NOT something they do.

And I see the story about Harriers being able to operate in sea states that conventional carrier aircraft can't handle seems to persist. It's mostly propaganda from British Aerospace. It is true that in very extreme sea states, the STOVL has a slight advantage, but in practice, the difference it makes is insignificant. The true price the RN paid for not having a conventional carrier capability was lack of a carrier-borne AEW/AWACS platform, for which it paid dearly. And the subsequent fielding of the AEW version of the SH-3 (after the war) can only be described as a very poor subsitute, compared to an E-2C or similar aircraft.

FVD

Now come on FVD, admit it. The "improved" AIM-9L gave no practical advantage to the Harrier pilots above the earlier AIM-9G Sidewinders they could have used, purely because IR missiles don't work so well from head on. I still reckon that it's ironic that the only succesful head-on missile lock (and fire) during the Falklands War was achieved by an AAF pilot using a Shafrir-2 IR missile made by Israel and based on an earlier Sidewinder design And it came very close to being a kill for the AAF pilot, just before he got wacked by another Harrier

Surely we shouldn't discount entirely the factor of the maneuverability of the Harrier at lower airspeeds and altititudes.
For example, check this link: http://www.combatsim.com/memb123/arc...2/f15_shar.htm

Not bad for a VTOL aircraft designed in the 1950's, and it certainly kicked arse in the Falklands, where everyone learnt some valuable leasons.

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

Now come on FVD, admit it. The "improved" AIM-9L gave no practical advantage to the Harrier pilots above the earlier AIM-9G Sidewinders they could have used, purely because IR missiles don't work so well from head on. I still reckon that it's ironic that the only succesful head-on missile lock (and fire) during the Falklands War was achieved by an AAF pilot using a Shafrir-2 IR missile made by Israel and based on an earlier Sidewinder design And it came very close to being a kill for the AAF pilot, just before he got wacked by another Harrier

Surely we shouldn't discount entirely the factor of the maneuverability of the Harrier at lower airspeeds and altititudes.
For example, check this link: http://www.combatsim.com/memb123/arc...2/f15_shar.htm

Not bad for a VTOL aircraft designed in the 1950's, and it certainly kicked arse in the Falklands, where everyone learnt some valuable leasons.

Please do some research before writing stuff like that. I'm willing to bet I've flown with the AIM-9L a few more times than you have, and I know you can take head-on shots with it all day long, no problem (although there are countermeasures. But the Argentines weren't using those). I'm not exactly sure why it's so hard to take the word of a pilot who's flown with the darn things. I mean, you really have to be full of yourself! You obviously know NOTHING of IR seeker theory/employment and what the differences are between a G and L model Sidewinder. Please stop embarrassing yourself (yet again).

And for the last time, yes, I am discounting the (relatively poor) maneuverability of the Harrier as a factor in the Falklands conflict. Read the books again. It's all there.

FVD

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

Please do some research before writing stuff like that. I'm willing to bet I've flown with the AIM-9L a few more times than you have, and I know you can take head-on shots with it all day long, no problem (although there are countermeasures. But the Argentines weren't using those). I'm not exactly sure why it's so hard to take the word of a pilot who's flown with the darn things. I mean, you really have to be full of yourself! You obviously know NOTHING of IR seeker theory/employment and what the differences are between a G and L model Sidewinder. Please stop embarrassing yourself (yet again).

And for the last time, yes, I am discounting the (relatively poor) maneuverability of the Harrier as a factor in the Falklands conflict. Read the books again. It's all there.

FVD

LOL, no one could be more full of themselves than you. The combat effectiveness of the US Sidewinder series has never matched its simulated performance. Which is why Israel built their own improved versions, Shafrir then Python. The British pilots were so disappointed with its performance in the Falklands War that the UK decided in the 1980's to produce a better AA missile system, being the ASRAAM, which is what our RAAF F/A 18's are equipped with.

[STARMAN 352ND]

Just a reminder to keep it civil on this topic...
Thank You.
JP

[F-104 Paul]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

I'll stay clear of that one. Even Erich Hartmann said he never got into a dogfight if he could avoid it... A wise man (as his kill tally would seem to indicate).

FVD

As far as "dogfights" go any one who would like to read a fantastic book about the Battle Of Britain read "First Light" this will shed more light on the whole "dogfight" myth.This is of course only IMHO.