[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by chiefs70

Well, I would probably contribute that to either tradition or the inertia of accepted terms. After all, modern cavalry units aren't riding horses rather AFVs and choppers but the name remains.

Now then, I think I hear a siren going off so I am heading for a ditch -

Yeah I agree, 101st ABN (AA), is another example. But in theory, the Cav though armored, can operate in the best traditions of the Horse Cavalry. Flank and hit the rear.
Still the Air Force hangs on to very little, tradition wise. So why not change the title to Interceptor Squadron or Tactical Wing. Still sounds cool/offensive, but is more realistic.
If the good old "Dogfight" is dead, then there are no "Fighter" pilots. I wonder if that doesn't burst a few bubbles of those wishing to be the next great fighter pilot ace? Fly a plane, but don't dare close with and destroy the bad guys. Its all push buttons these days boys. - Shawn

[flyXwire]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

If the good old "Dogfight" is dead, then there are no "Fighter" pilots. I wonder if that doesn't burst a few bubbles of those wishing to be the next great fighter pilot ace? Fly a plane, but don't dare close with and destroy the bad guys. Its all push buttons these days boys. - Shawn

Sad but true. I yearn for the days of "flying by the seat of their pants" and truly test the skill and abilities of an individual. No remote control style of killing for
this old school flyboy, that's for sure!

[skysurfer808]

For best dogfighter, I'd likely choose the Su-35 with thrust vectoring, and the off boresight capability.

I have to agree that pilot skills play a role, and that is a function of the nation's training program (unless mercs are brought in).

As for dogfighting, it certainly looks good and is an important skill, but more for teaching pilots to fly their airplanes to the limit. The best combat pilots operated in the way FVD mentioned, going after unsuspecting enemies. This has held true since WW1 and it has been estimated that some 80 percent of air combat victems never knew they were being attacked. The best pilots operated more as snipers than dogfighting martial artists. This was true since the initial days of air combat, when Immelmann and Boelcke pioneered the development of fighter tactics.

Dicta Boelcke

1. Try to secure the upper hand before attacking. If possible keep the sun behind you
2. Always continue with an attack you have begun.
3. Only fire at close range, and then only when your opponent is properly in your sights.
4. You should always keep you eye on your opponent and never let yourself be deceived by ruses.
5. In any type of attack it is essential to assail your opponent from behind.
6. If your opponent dives on you do not try and get around his attack, but fly to meet it.
7. When over enemy lines never forget your line of retreat.
8. Tip for squadrons. In principle it is better to attack in groups of four or six. Avoid two aircraft attacking the same opponent.

Erich Hartmann, who is qualified on this matter by virtue of his 352 victories....and multiple bailouts, summed up his philosophy in 4 words.

SEE
DECIDE
ATTACK
WITHDRAW

Really simple, you find the enemy, think about which one to go for, attack, then get the hell out. Not much dogfighting there. Still, I'd rather have a machine capable of dogfighting and being flown to its limits than a twitchy thing that can't manuver. Of course the best pilots are able to take full advantage of their machines. The best fighter aircraft manage to combine two dissimilar qualties, being a steady gun platform and being manuverable. So manuverability is important, but so are other capabilities. American fighters have traditionally been built big...from the P-47 and Hellcat, onto the Phantom, Tomcat, Eagle and Raptor. Of course they have to be since they are expected to fly long distances to fight. Therefore American pilots have always been at risk from more nimble opponents. So during WW2 they took advantage of their machine's strengths by not dogfighting. Instead they fought to their machine's strengths. This was best illustrated by Claire Chennault, who told his pilots never to dogfight, but merely to make a diving pass, and zoom up and do it again. That advice resulted in the AVG's fine combat record and held true throughout the war.

Finally, I don't foresee manned combat aircraft ever completely disappearing, but UAVs will definately take up a stronger role in American airpower. Coincidentally, taking the man out of the loop will remove one of America's last advantages, superior aviators, from the air combat mix. Which of 2 nations will have the advantage when UAV's take over....the one with industrial resources capable of churning them out en masse...or the power that has allowed its industry to migrate overseas?

Skysurfer808

[FormerViperDriver]

Excellent, Skysurfer, you sure know your stuff. Agree with all you wrote, including the Su-35 as first choice. Could argue Eurofighter or F-22 (particularly when it gets the AIM-9X and JHMCS some day), but it's such a close call there that you really can't say the Su-35 is the wrong choice. The only thing I would say there is the Russian helmet-mounted sights combined with the R-73 missile (AA-11) is now inferior in capability to the AIM-9X/JHMCS combination, and that makes the current F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s even more deadly up close than they were. Not sure about exact capability of the Eurofighter's helmet sight with ASRAAM (athough that missile lacks a thrust-vectoring capability, so I assume it's not quite as good right off-the-rail in a tight fight).

One last thing I would say goes against the Su-35 is its size. In the "visual arena" fight, it's obviously an advantage to be small, thatis, hard to see. "Lose sight, lose fight" as we always said. So to some extent smaller fighter such as the F-16 or MiG-29 have an advantage in this type of fight. Whether that's enough to offset superior maneuverability and off-boresight missiles is really hard to assess.

FVD

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by STARMAN 352ND

I like the way FVD answers those questions....
This is almost scary...Reminds me of my brother....
FVD is there ever a time that you will go back to flying
these fighters in the reserve?

JP

Starman, I wish... But no. My time is gone. I don't think about it too much day-to-day, but when I watch stuff on TV showing any type of fighter plane, particularly jets and particularly the F-16, it comes back to me and it's really hard.

Anyway, life goes on... I'm happy to still work in an environment where I deal with the Air Force, pilots, and crews (and Army, Navy, and Special Ops, by the way. A bit less with the USMC here in Europe). It's just that now I deal with how to run entire air campaigns, not tactical-level fights.

FVD

[Old Crow]

I am really enjoying this discussion, though it would help those of us who are less enlightened if you experts would use full names instead of acronyms. I can intuitively figure out some of this stuff but not all.

Also, I'm curious about airframe versus weapons systems and the extent to which you think a weapons system (which to me, at least, means missile + guidance system + sighting system- I don't even know what off boresight capability is) makes an inferior airframe superior. Or, in other words, where does the plane end and the weapons system begin?

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Old Crow

I am really enjoying this discussion, though it would help those of us who are less enlightened if you experts would use full names instead of acronyms. I can intuitively figure out some of this stuff but not all.

Also, I'm curious about airframe versus weapons systems and the extent to which you think a weapons system (which to me, at least, means missile + guidance system + sighting system- I don't even know what off boresight capability is) makes an inferior airframe superior. Or, in other words, where does the plane end and the weapons system begin?

Yeah, sorry about the acronym soup. I've spelled these out in other threads, and I get tired of writing the whole thing, but that's no excuse.

Anyway, I don't have time to get into the whole weapon system/airframe thing (maybe tomorrow), but I'll briefly explain the off-boresight capability. Traditionally, fighters have shot their enemies by pointing at them, and then gunning them or shooting a missile. The "boresight" refers to the area straight on the nose of your own fighter. Of course, with guns this is still the case. You have to point at the target, accounting for any required lead (due to target speed). When it comes to missiles, the first ones were rather primitive and still required the fighter to point at the target before shooting. But as missile seekers got more sophisticated, that requirement became more relaxed, allowing shooting at the target even if it was somewhat off-center in relation to your nose.

With modern technology, we now are able to combine helmet-mounted sights/displays/cueing systems (pick one) which allow aiming of the missile at targets way off your nose (even behind you with the most recent stuff) by essentially just looking at it, which automatically slews the missile's seeker head to the target and locks it up. Then, if you have an ultra-maneuverable missile (such as AIM-9X) that can perform a very quick turn right after coming off the airplane, you can just shoot that target without ever having to point your nose anywhere close ot it, even behind your shoulder (exact limits are classified, I don't even know them myself. I stopped flying before our planes got these new toys). Just amazing. It works, too.

So as you can see, having such a weapon system makes aircraft maneuvering much less important. You just let the missile do the maneuvering for you. The new set of tactics associated with the countermeasures to these systems are extremely complex and very difficult to pull off flawlessly. So these new systems have made the Within-Visual-Range combat arena extremely deadly. Furthermore, it has negated, to a large extent, pilot skill at maneuvering the aircraft. It's too bad for those longing for the days of the old guns-only pure dogfights, but that's reality.

Hope that makes sense to you. If not, let me know and I'll explain in more or better detail.

FVD

[skysurfer808]

Originally Posted by Old Crow

I am really enjoying this discussion, though it would help those of us who are less enlightened if you experts would use full names instead of acronyms. I can intuitively figure out some of this stuff but not all.

Also, I'm curious about airframe versus weapons systems and the extent to which you think a weapons system (which to me, at least, means missile + guidance system + sighting system- I don't even know what off boresight capability is) makes an inferior airframe superior. Or, in other words, where does the plane end and the weapons system begin?

Off boresight is a capability developed by the Soviets in the early 1980s. Basically it entails having a helmet mounted sight and missile tracker heads with a wide swivel arc that enables the pilot to lock on simply by glancing at the target aircraft. This gives more of an engagement area than a simple heads up display and normal missile sights, since the Off Boresight missiles can lock on to most targets within the pilot's field of view. This can give an advantage to a less manuverable airplane flying with this system against a more manuverable aircraft flying without it. The US just fielded a more advanced version of this capability with the Joint Helmet Mounted Sight, and AIM-9X sidewinder. These elements make a manuverable dogfighter even more capable. So Airframe design and manuverability is important, but so are the systems within the fighter. Modern combat aircraft are much more complex than their WW2 ancestors. They are designed from the ground up as an integrated weapons system. Of course all this adds to cost, but it sure does make for a more effective combat machine.

Skysurfer808

[Old Crow]

Thanks Skysurfer and FVD. Fascinating stuff.

[jim]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

Jim, it's actually great advice even for the most experienced pilots. As romantic as the notion of the traditional "mano-a-mano" dogfight is, it is a well known and proven way to get killed in combat, regardless of experience (see Thomas McGuire). And don't forget Hartmann and Backhorn were shot down multiple times themselves (primarily for letting themselves be wrapped up in prolonged turning engagements), and were lucky to make it out alive every time.

Modern fighter pilots are taught to avoid dogfighting like the plague. We still practice it for two reasons: as an "emergency procedure" just in case, and because it's fun (in peacetime training only), although even there, the advent ot HAOB/HMCS has made it a lot less fun. We are taught not to dogfight in combat unless there is absolutely no other option.

Getting into a furball in a multi-bogey environment is like gambling with your life, no matter how good you are. The smart pilot will try to get out of that situation ASAP and come back another day for the unobserved, easy kill.

FVD

From all the reading I have done over the years of the statements made by nearly all the WW2 pilots, fully backs up your points FVD.

Dogfights reduce combat to a lottery and even a complete rookie can get lucky in that situation.

All the great BoB pilots have been quoted as saying get in and get out quick.

However I am always very wary of making sweeping statements such as the days of dogfighting are over or planes and pilots will soon no longer be needed. I think we have been here before. I well remember Britain throwing away most of its research and development in aviation because some idiot said we would not need aircraft anymore. (and of course it was a great excuse to save defence spending).

That just about killed us off as an aircraft maker. Britain saw a mass exodus of a lot of its skilled aviation engineers etc because of that.
I bet Jetfan could add something to that discussion as he has had first had experience of short sighted governments.

Its my view that we must (even in the face of the present evidence) teach our pilots how to "mix it".
You can never have too many strings to your bow, and wars are unpredictable.

Some years ago I was present at a lecture given by a representative of Janes aircraft publishers. the lecturer said that no one really knows what the outcome of a major air conflict between major powers would turn into after the first week. He visioned a scenario of large scale initial losses for both sides and an inability to replace those losses thus making it a battle of second line aircraft.
Obviously he was thinking in terms a fighting the Soviets at that time.
Fortunately the USA has the benefit of overwhelming superiority in the air against any other nation (the huge Soviet threat being somewhat fragmented nowadays), and long may it be so.