3 ms·

"The expectation is that fighter combat will continue to evolve to become ever more information dominant." Is fighter combat a thing ? What was the last air t

by rsync 9y ago

"The expectation is that fighter combat will continue to evolve to become ever more information dominant." Is fighter combat a thing ? What was the last air to air ("dogfight") the US was involved in ? How frequent are they ? I am in favor of optimization and looking ahead to future use but when you use wording like "fighter combat will continue to evolve" that makes it sound like a thing that is happening in the world and that we are getting feedback from ... is it ?

Sharlin 9y ago
”Fighter combat” or ”air-to-air” does certainly not equal dogfighting. Air-to-air is what fighters are made for! It’s just that these days it’s most often beyond-visual-range (BVR) engagement with radar and missiles. It’s still fighter combat.
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  > ”Fighter combat” or ”air-to-air” does certainly not equal dogfighting. Air-to-air is what fighters are made for! It’s just that these days it’s most often beyond-visual-range (BVR) engagement with radar and missiles. It’s still fighter combat. Haven't they been claiming that most air combat will be "beyond visual range" since they released the F-4 in the 60s? Then it never happens because the rules of engagement require visual confirmation, because they don't want fuckups and friendly-fire incidents because someone's IFF was broken.
  - icegreentea2 9y ago
    ROE can change. Since the generation of BVR missiles with fire and forget capability were introduced, NATO forces have never engaged in near-peer combat. In these environments, strict ROE designed around minimizing political fallout makes more sense. In the case of combat against near-peer, peer opponents, I fully expect ROE to change to allow greater use to BVR missiles to their full capability. In any case, I think most groups more or less settled on the idea that you really do need both - you need sufficient WVR and BVR capability to be a useful fighter jet in the next few decades.
spacehome 9y ago
1999, Serbia; infrequent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia#Air_combat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia#Air...

by rsync 9y ago

Sharlin 9y ago

”Fighter combat” or ”air-to-air” does certainly not equal dogfighting. Air-to-air is what fighters are made for! It’s just that these days it’s most often beyond-visual-range (BVR) engagement with radar and missiles. It’s still fighter combat.

Slansitartop 9y ago
> ”Fighter combat” or ”air-to-air” does certainly not equal dogfighting. Air-to-air is what fighters are made for! It’s just that these days it’s most often beyond-visual-range (BVR) engagement with radar and missiles. It’s still fighter combat. Haven't they been claiming that most air combat will be "beyond visual range" since they released the F-4 in the 60s? Then it never happens because the rules of engagement require visual confirmation, because they don't want fuckups and friendly-fire incidents because someone's IFF was broken.
- icegreentea2 9y ago
  ROE can change. Since the generation of BVR missiles with fire and forget capability were introduced, NATO forces have never engaged in near-peer combat. In these environments, strict ROE designed around minimizing political fallout makes more sense. In the case of combat against near-peer, peer opponents, I fully expect ROE to change to allow greater use to BVR missiles to their full capability. In any case, I think most groups more or less settled on the idea that you really do need both - you need sufficient WVR and BVR capability to be a useful fighter jet in the next few decades.

spacehome 9y ago

1999, Serbia; infrequent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia#Air_combat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia#Air...