5 ms·

You can conceptualize all you want about dog fights, the truth is nobody wants to be the pilot having fired all the missiles and having nothing left to engage t

You can conceptualize all you want about dog fights, the truth is nobody wants to be the pilot having fired all the missiles and having nothing left to engage the remaining enemy planes. It's a bit like saying a soldier doesn't need a bayonet / combat knife. 99.99999% of the time yes, but would you bet YOUR life on it?

namdnay 6y ago
The question isn’t “do pilots want it”, it’s “does the taxpayer want it”?
- Voliokis 6y ago
  I get the line of thought and the idea of inflated military budgets but I'm not sure your average Joe should get any say in whether a new weapons system should be funded or not. They have no military expertise and no concept of what might be necessary to win the next war. While I do think there needs to be more oversight over how budgets are allotted to military projects, it shouldn't be decided by "do taxpayers want to pay".
  - salawat 6y ago
    So, you're a fan of military juntas then? That's what you get when you remove a civilian guiding hand from military policymaking. I'll give you that civilians absolutely need to keep their nose out of the how, but guidance in terms of the what is absolutely essential. Otherwise you get the MacArthurs of the world calling the shots. The military industrial complex is absolutely a beast that requires oversight and restraint. Just as the intelligence complex does. I wish more people understood and appreciated it. It doesn't need to be dismantled by a long shot necessarily, but BS needs to be called.
    - Voliokis 6y ago
      I'm sure there are civilian experts and they absolutely should be involved, as well as elected representatives who are (preferably) guided by experts. Your average citizen has no business chiming in.
- seanmcdirmid 6y ago
  Since there is military competition between countries, it’s more like, if we choose A and China chooses B, are we still at an advantage or will China overwhelm our superior trained manned fighters with lots of cheap drones?
adrianN 6y ago
How much of a chance do you have if you don't have missiles, but your enemy still has some? Isn't it better to just retreat?
- gomox 6y ago
  If your enemy still has missiles and you proceed to give him ample time to shoot them at your tail while you peacefully retreat, you might regret the approach.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    I know very little about air-to-air combat, but I had the impression that the effective range of missiles is such that you'd have a hard time reaching your enemy before they had ample time to fire at you.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > How much of a chance do you have if you don't have missiles, but your enemy still has some? Isn't it better to just retreat? It probably depends on the situation and what you do. IIRC, missiles lose effectiveness at the kinds of short ranges where you'd use guns. In some situations, running might put you in a more vulnerable situation while closing to a gunfight might even things up.
- foxyv 6y ago
  If you are within a certain distance you can stay outside of the weapons engagement zone for missiles. Retreating at that point presents a target for a short range missile. Missiles are great in themselves because they force your enemy to stay out of your WEZ while you are slotting in for a guns kill. If they try to extend out for a better turn rate you hit them with the missile. If they turn too hard they lose energy and you can gun them. The fights tend to end earlier because it's so much easier to make a mistake. Also with missiles, countermeasures can be employed which are pretty effective. Can't fit much brain in a 40G missile that is mostly solid rocket and explosives. Missile warning systems and automatic countermeasures are remarkably effective. Not so much against 30mm
- 6y ago

namdnay 6y ago

The question isn’t “do pilots want it”, it’s “does the taxpayer want it”?

Voliokis 6y ago
I get the line of thought and the idea of inflated military budgets but I'm not sure your average Joe should get any say in whether a new weapons system should be funded or not. They have no military expertise and no concept of what might be necessary to win the next war. While I do think there needs to be more oversight over how budgets are allotted to military projects, it shouldn't be decided by "do taxpayers want to pay".
- salawat 6y ago
  So, you're a fan of military juntas then? That's what you get when you remove a civilian guiding hand from military policymaking. I'll give you that civilians absolutely need to keep their nose out of the how, but guidance in terms of the what is absolutely essential. Otherwise you get the MacArthurs of the world calling the shots. The military industrial complex is absolutely a beast that requires oversight and restraint. Just as the intelligence complex does. I wish more people understood and appreciated it. It doesn't need to be dismantled by a long shot necessarily, but BS needs to be called.
  - Voliokis 6y ago
    I'm sure there are civilian experts and they absolutely should be involved, as well as elected representatives who are (preferably) guided by experts. Your average citizen has no business chiming in.
seanmcdirmid 6y ago
Since there is military competition between countries, it’s more like, if we choose A and China chooses B, are we still at an advantage or will China overwhelm our superior trained manned fighters with lots of cheap drones?

adrianN 6y ago

How much of a chance do you have if you don't have missiles, but your enemy still has some? Isn't it better to just retreat?

gomox 6y ago
If your enemy still has missiles and you proceed to give him ample time to shoot them at your tail while you peacefully retreat, you might regret the approach.
- adrianN 6y ago
  I know very little about air-to-air combat, but I had the impression that the effective range of missiles is such that you'd have a hard time reaching your enemy before they had ample time to fire at you.
ardy42 6y ago
> How much of a chance do you have if you don't have missiles, but your enemy still has some? Isn't it better to just retreat? It probably depends on the situation and what you do. IIRC, missiles lose effectiveness at the kinds of short ranges where you'd use guns. In some situations, running might put you in a more vulnerable situation while closing to a gunfight might even things up.
foxyv 6y ago
If you are within a certain distance you can stay outside of the weapons engagement zone for missiles. Retreating at that point presents a target for a short range missile. Missiles are great in themselves because they force your enemy to stay out of your WEZ while you are slotting in for a guns kill. If they try to extend out for a better turn rate you hit them with the missile. If they turn too hard they lose energy and you can gun them. The fights tend to end earlier because it's so much easier to make a mistake. Also with missiles, countermeasures can be employed which are pretty effective. Can't fit much brain in a 40G missile that is mostly solid rocket and explosives. Missile warning systems and automatic countermeasures are remarkably effective. Not so much against 30mm
6y ago