4 ms·
> back then they argued that missiles had eliminated the need for agile fighters, but the Vietnam War's rules of engagement meant that agility was crucial. Ple
by nether 11y ago
> back then they argued that missiles had eliminated the need for agile fighters, but the Vietnam War's rules of engagement meant that agility was crucial.
Please stop this. Vietnam era missiles were little more than firecrackers with IR seekers that flew into the sun. That's why pilots needed their guns, because guided missiles were so shitty at the time. Modern missiles are basically immune to passive countermeasures and have directed warheads, thrust vectoring etc. and would be the first choice of any fighter pilot interesting in staying alive.
- justin66 11y agoDo any air to air missiles in the U.S. inventory offer thrust vectoring?
- dubyah 11y agoAIM-9X Sidewinder
- cbd1984 11y agoModern missiles aren't immune to rules of engagement which prohibit beyond-visual-range engagement. The actual solution to this problem is to establish air superiority by sending in autonomous drones to down all aircraft and destroy all anti-aircraft munitions in a given region, and then send in human-flown craft for other work. Yes, this entails robots being given the ability to kill humans. No, this is not currently politically feasible in this country right now.
- titzer 11y agoReally? It seems like there is relatively little objection in the US to the ongoing drone warfare across the middle east. That might mostly be due to ignorance. Unfortunately, the government likes to foster ignorance to prevent embarrassment and outrage, and it seems likely that the powers that be are emboldened to creep one step closer each year to fully autonomous weapon systems. Despite all the dangers and warnings, we're still slipping right into this trap due to inertia.
- vlehto 11y agoYet modern missiles are lot more effective when shot from the rear quarter of the enemy. Any fighter pilot interested in staying alive still tries to get there.