4 ms·
> ”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 bey
by 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 agoROE 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.