3 ms·

This is argument goes back at least 50 years. The F-14 and before that the F-111 didn’t need to be good dogfighters because the AIM 54 phoenix was a 100 mile mi

This is argument goes back at least 50 years. The F-14 and before that the F-111 didn’t need to be good dogfighters because the AIM 54 phoenix was a 100 mile missile and would kill anyhting before it got remotely close. That turned out to be false as we learned against Libyan fighters and as the Israelis could have told us (or anyone who served in Vietnam).

lumost 4y ago
Fair, however modern sensor and control mechanics are much better than they were 50 years ago. If the media is to be believed, we're reaching the end of a fighters ability to defeat a missile through anything other than kinematics/stealth.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  That's not really true. Have you considered stealth vs stealth engagements and BVR kinematics? As an aside missiles have always been evaded through kinematics. The F-35 doesn't have great kinematics. Those include the ability to maneuver, to do so while maintaining kinetic energy, and the ability to accelerate as well as maintain high altitudes and high velocities. None of which the F-35 is especially great at.
  - lumost 4y ago
    Chaff and flares were the main defeat mechanism into the 90s. In a BVR fight range is the main goal, there is no reason for a stealth jet to close within 15 miles as they would lose stealth. Even in a seemingly missmatched dogfight between an f-16 and f-22… it’s still plausible for the f-16 to win (sometimes). If we need a dogfighter, then we should build a drone for the task.
- swagasaurus-rex 4y ago
  There's a lot of investment in directed energy weapons again and talk about deployment on 6th generation fighter platforms (which are planned to be optionally manned). Promising but also defeated by cloud cover.