-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Fight's On! The origins of TOPGUN and dogfights back in the day/future prospects
- Thread starter futrMarineBlueAngel
- Start date
heyjoe said:
Sorry, Joe .... I was "preoccupied" and U/A for the past couple of days.
But: BINGO !!! You are right on. BEWARE THE HUN IN THE SUN !!! Where do you think that little sing-song rhyme came from .... besides WW1
--- it refers to where you can't "see" the other guy ... of course.Many/most of my Adversary "kills" were when I caught the guy unaware. Hit him in the belly or the tail or a high-side, high-deflection "shot" ... in any case --- his blind side. Not all, obviously ... many "died" in a dogfight, whether from my guns or ATOLLS. Most of my Adversary "defeats" (i.e., when I got smoked ...
) were as a result of my not seeing the "shooter". Like ... if I can see 'em ..... who is going to "beat" an A-4 flown by a S/A-ware pilot-o, in any case ??? Not too many, that's who. (Whom??)
The best way to learn how to live is to keep your head on a swivel and know WHEN to ... " run away to live to fight another day .... ". Pick your fights, fight your fight, DON'T FIGHT THE OTHER GUY'S FIGHT , and know when to disengage.
The sun WILL rise tomorrow .... the question is: will you ???
The state of Air Combat/ACM
So...since we've been trying like mad to jack the thread about the exaggerating professor...I thought I would make a new home for the conversation.
I think that this statement...nothing personal...:icon_wink overstates things a bit. While I can't argue that in the last 40 years, the technology of ACM and air combat in general has changed dramatically...why wax noostalgic for the days of 300 yard machine gun engagements in the air? Death is death is it not and just because the weapons have changed, that aspect, for the thinking combatant never will.
As far as the art of the actual engagement goes, it certainly looks different but isn't it the same too? Football looked very different before 50 yard field goals and insant replay but we still recognize the game and think of it as "the same".
Finally, saying that fighter pilots are unguided seems a little dramatic. Autonomous yes...but to say that training and tactics don't guide a good pilot seems silly.
Let's talk about this...
So...since we've been trying like mad to jack the thread about the exaggerating professor...I thought I would make a new home for the conversation.
Missiles are distant and impersonal; guns are up close and very personal. Electrons guide missiles; but sweat, guts, guile and muscle guide guns. Missile guidance systems care nothing for friend or foe; gunfighters easily differentiate, yet can and do appreciate a worthy opponent. (unguided missiles are uncommon;unguided fighter pilots are the norm.)
I think that this statement...nothing personal...:icon_wink overstates things a bit. While I can't argue that in the last 40 years, the technology of ACM and air combat in general has changed dramatically...why wax noostalgic for the days of 300 yard machine gun engagements in the air? Death is death is it not and just because the weapons have changed, that aspect, for the thinking combatant never will.
As far as the art of the actual engagement goes, it certainly looks different but isn't it the same too? Football looked very different before 50 yard field goals and insant replay but we still recognize the game and think of it as "the same".
Finally, saying that fighter pilots are unguided seems a little dramatic. Autonomous yes...but to say that training and tactics don't guide a good pilot seems silly.
Let's talk about this...
First off, there's two different things here... BFM and BVR engagements. BVR (missiles at range) is its own animal, with principles and tactics which are well beyond what we can talk about here.
Sometimes you don't have the BVR option... or you can't kill him at range, and you arrive at the merge. The important thing there isn't some asinine missiles vs guns argument... it's learning how to employ your weapons suite effectively. Each weapon has its goods and others... whether it be guns, AIM-9M, -9X, AMRAAM, Sparrow, Python, Archer, Magic, or whatever. Just because you're using one weapon over another doesn't mean that the basic principles of BFM have somehow changed. It's still better to be behind the dude, in the heart of your weapons envelope, with closure under control, than not. Different weapons give you different options.
Sometimes you don't have the BVR option... or you can't kill him at range, and you arrive at the merge. The important thing there isn't some asinine missiles vs guns argument... it's learning how to employ your weapons suite effectively. Each weapon has its goods and others... whether it be guns, AIM-9M, -9X, AMRAAM, Sparrow, Python, Archer, Magic, or whatever. Just because you're using one weapon over another doesn't mean that the basic principles of BFM have somehow changed. It's still better to be behind the dude, in the heart of your weapons envelope, with closure under control, than not. Different weapons give you different options.
I am not a pilot, but this thread sounds similar to the things people were saying after the invention of nuclear weapons, or any other new technology. For all the talk about how nukes would change warfare (or air power would for that matter), you still need boots on the ground because you can't just nuke every third world dictator that threatens your interests.
It sounds like missile technology certainly adds a new wrinkle to aerial warfare, but the ability to kill beyond visual range doesn't prevent dogfighting from happening. With different ROE's it would seem like there might be situations in which you can't engage until it is too late for a BVR kill. (basically what turnandburn said)
I also like the football analogy by scoober.
It sounds like missile technology certainly adds a new wrinkle to aerial warfare, but the ability to kill beyond visual range doesn't prevent dogfighting from happening. With different ROE's it would seem like there might be situations in which you can't engage until it is too late for a BVR kill. (basically what turnandburn said)
I also like the football analogy by scoober.
Exactly! My earlier, somewhat tongue–in-cheek statement regarding guns v missiles, was to highlight the significant differences in employing these two very different weapons systems. And nothing highlights that difference more than this: With missiles, if you are in the heart of the envelope, you have a high probability of a kill. With guns, you can be in the heart of the envelope all day long and still miss your enemy until you're "Winchester". It takes a "tad bit" more skill with guns, and is thus more personally satisfying when successful. (That is one reason why old F-8 drivers were all so insufferable.
)BVR tactics and weapons have been around for nearly 50 years, but they have never yet eliminated BFM.
And it is always important to have a good variety and mix of weapons, to understand their strengths, weaknesses and envelopes, and to be able to employ each one, depending upon the tactical situation of the moment. And while their role today is very limited, guns still have had a long, successful, and colorful history.
I have a couple of questions that I hope can be answered with out violating OPSEC. If they can't I understand.
How much training is done air-to-air using guns these days?
Are guns still considered a viable air-to-air weapon?
The reason I am asking is that with the current political situations right now, chances of a BVR engagement seem to be kind of low. It's my opinion that the ROEs are going to require positive visual identification before permission will be given for any type of engagement. Kind of makes you miss that camera on the F-14.
How much training is done air-to-air using guns these days?
Are guns still considered a viable air-to-air weapon?
The reason I am asking is that with the current political situations right now, chances of a BVR engagement seem to be kind of low. It's my opinion that the ROEs are going to require positive visual identification before permission will be given for any type of engagement. Kind of makes you miss that camera on the F-14.
ROEs are rarely that clear cut (I.E. no BVR). As recently as Northern and Southern Watch, ROE allowed BVR engagement as long as certain wickets were met. There are lots of ways that a hostile declaration can be made without VID.
Brett
"But the pilots desperately bewailed the lack of a gun - a cannon shell cannot not be defeated by jamming, and has nothing whatsoever to say about an infrared decoy, or flare."
"Too, there is something comprehensively triumphant about maneuvering your jet into a “guns kill” position - this is not the work of engineers, pressing buttons. It is the work of warriors, wrestling in the mud for advantage."
[Above quote pilfered from Neptunus Lex - http://www.neptunuslex.com/2004/07/05/single-seat-fighter-aviation/ with my emphasis added.]