Not more powerful... more capable. The more power you put into a radar the more visible YOU become. Our software will become more able to distingush a bird from the F-22 which will say... this anomaly shouldn't be here, classify as target. Besides how many birds fly at Mach 2?
Dog Fights
- Thread starter AbramsM-10
- Start date
Meh, I got told last time I said we should be able to spot the supercruising pigeons that it didn;t work that way.
(not intended as a jab at you, I guess I just tangled with someone who was a more convincing fool than I was last time).
Anyway, as far as the missiles themselves are concerned, wouldn't 'more powerful' be the better solution. Your AWACS and ground stations have picked up the supercruising pigeons while remaining reasonably unobserved but a missile at Mach 4 or so has to show up like a firework right? So it may as well slather the target in high-powered RADAR and show it up. I'd think it would increase the 'basket' better than a moe sophisticated tracker (although of course the tracker system would be the size of a modern CPU chip as opposed to filling the nose-cone of the missile itself).
FutureTank
Banned Member
I'm not really someone with a lot of fighter knowledge in the current air warfare environment, but found the thread topic interesting for the following reason.
I have read quite a bit on the air combat in WW2. Many pilots recall that they always tried to have something unusual in mind to off-seat their opponent as it were, and some pilots became known for their 'special' manoeuvre by both friend and foe.
Is there still a place for surprise in air combat despite use of radars and missiles?
Is this something that is part of pilot development in the training, or do some pilots have an innate ability to develop this 'unpredictable' style of flying?
Is this considered "Hollywood" flying, or is it encouraged as part of pilot's flight repertoire?
I have read quite a bit on the air combat in WW2. Many pilots recall that they always tried to have something unusual in mind to off-seat their opponent as it were, and some pilots became known for their 'special' manoeuvre by both friend and foe.
Is there still a place for surprise in air combat despite use of radars and missiles?
Is this something that is part of pilot development in the training, or do some pilots have an innate ability to develop this 'unpredictable' style of flying?
Is this considered "Hollywood" flying, or is it encouraged as part of pilot's flight repertoire?
Not to nitpick, but seeing the age of many members in introduction section, thought a few points ought to be cleared up:
1. Dogfighting typically involves afterburner (except maybe the F-22) and they are measured in minutes due to enormous consumption of fuel....half an hour?? That range is a bit optimistic as AAMs aren't typically fired at max range. In NSW vernacular, you likely wouldn't be still engaged in a knife fight after a half hour....a "dogfight" or "furball" or "phonebooth" is a lot like a knifefight BTW.
2. The AIM-9L was first used to advantage in epic AIMVAL-ACEVAL JT&E 1976-78 at Nellis AFB and introduced head-on capability. It entered the fleet in numbers by early 80s although getting behind an opponent is always preferable to prevent your opponent from targeting you.
3.
Last edited:
Dog Fights in Military Aviation
I got to agree with you dude. The only way to win a dogfight is having a good pilot, a good plane, and proper training.The military needs to give more training on dog fights. There were so many dog fights in so many wars that it is just crazy not to train young pilots for it. IF you stick a sidewinder on a phantom you'd have a good fighter jet to use in a dog fight. I famous dog fight was in WW2 between the wildcat and the zero. The zero was faster but the wildcat was tougher. The zero had the upper hand with all it's guns. That was a good dog fight. The zero won because it's pilots new how to fight. Thus the the secret to winning a dog fight is training.