Return to dog fighting

[Pangur]

From my limited understanding of events after the Ault report the US military setup various schools to train fighter pilots to dog fight and that the efforts paid of relatively quickly with a favourable change in the loss to kill ratio in Vietnam. I am curious is there was a similar need for retraning for other NATO counties and indeed is the Soviets & Warsaw pact had negelcted dog fighting in the first place. There is a second question which is that from what I can see the Israelies never made the mistake in the first place

[Kome]

From a technical point of view the Russians would probably benefit the most from that. In modern day a lot of their fighters are superior than Western counterparts when it comes to traditional dogfighting capabilities.

Of course they make up for that by failing in a lot of other regards.

[Legosim]

Originally Posted by Kome

From a technical point of view the Russians would probably benefit the most from that. In modern day a lot of their fighters are superior than Western counterparts when it comes to traditional dogfighting capabilities.

Of course they make up for that by failing in a lot of other regards.

Namely electronics. As far as I know, that's the real killer.

[midnight77]

There is a chance for a return to dogfighting eventually. If, by some series of events, ECM and stealth technology outpace missle technology; you could have a world were air-to-air and surface-to-air missles exist, but modern planes cannot be shot down because the missles are unable to get a lock. It is highly unlikely, but possible.

[Delta Force]

Originally Posted by midnight77

There is a chance for a return to dogfighting eventually. If, by some series of events, ECM and stealth technology outpace missle technology; you could have a world were air-to-air and surface-to-air missles exist, but modern planes cannot be shot down because the missles are unable to get a lock. It is highly unlikely, but possible.

It would also need to somehow leave aircraft able to detect each other (other than straying very close to each other and finding each other by chance) and also leave gun radars (or something like it, perhaps computerized optics) able to work. It would be very difficult for a person to have to manually lay the guns on a fighter going hundreds (or even thousands) of miles per hour.

[Riain]

Yes and no. I think the rule of thumb is that where there were guns the aircrew were trained to use them.

The British Sea Vixen and some versions of the Lightning had no guns so presumably they eased up on the close in training and doctrine. Other Lightning kept their cannon so presumably kept up the training required to use them, the RAF is a well trained air force. As for others, Israeli Mirages only had Matra R530 missiles in 1967 and didn`t like it much, most of their air to air kills were with guns until they introduced the AIM9D sidewinder in 1969.

[Abe Lincoln1865]

LOL I thought this was about dog fighting

[Riain]

Just as a matter of interest, what the Ault Report found was that experienced fighter pilots, using their best judgement and skill, were firing missiles from outside their performance parameters about half of the time. The pilots could fly, and their planes were good, but they weren`t properly trained to use the weapons at their disposal.

What the Naval Air Weapons School taught pilots, using instrumented training ranges, was the engagement envelopes of their weapons. Once pilots knew the position they had to be in to get the missile kill their kill rates went up markedly.

[Snake Featherston]

The problem here is that the development of missile technology and full-fledged gunships makes this rather hard to do. It's much easier and potentially less costly to fire air-to-air missiles than chance the problems of dog-fighting and given how expensive war is easier and less costly trounces more difficult and more costly every time.

[Riain]

But you have to dogfight; if you don`t your missiles don`t get the hits and you don`t get the kills you need to win the air battle. The Phantom was expensive because it was the best fighter in the whole world at the time; in the second engagement of Op Bolo 2 F4C took on 4 Mig21 at a hieght disadvantage and came out 2:0 victors.

Early missiles were in reality an extension of a fighters gun, they allowed engagement from longer ranges and greater deflection angles. Instead they were seen as magic talismans which could swat aircraft out of the sky without any effort or risk. When the latter attitude changed to the former the US started winning the air battle, kills went up and losses went down.

[truth is life]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

The problem here is that the development of missile technology and full-fledged gunships makes this rather hard to do. It's much easier and potentially less costly to fire air-to-air missiles than chance the problems of dog-fighting and given how expensive war is easier and less costly trounces more difficult and more costly every time.

But as Riain notes, this isn't actually true in practice, as we saw in Vietnam. The USAF and USN neglected traditional dogfighting doctrine before the war and, despite flying technically superior aircraft with significant AAM capabilities, had a decidedly mixed record against the North Vietnamese. The more pure dogfighting aircraft, like the F-8, did much better.

This is not to mention that plenty of modern AAMs are essentially dogfight missiles anyways...all of the super-maneuverable (mostly) IR missiles, the Archer and Sidewinder and so on.

[SAVORYapple]

Originally Posted by truth is life

But as Riain notes, this isn't actually true in practice, as we saw in Vietnam. The USAF and USN neglected traditional dogfighting doctrine before the war and, despite flying technically superior aircraft with significant AAM capabilities, had a decidedly mixed record against the North Vietnamese. The more pure dogfighting aircraft, like the F-8, did much better.

This is not to mention that plenty of modern AAMs are essentially dogfight missiles anyways...all of the super-maneuverable (mostly) IR missiles, the Archer and Sidewinder and so on.

but that was then. Now, BVRAAMs really do work. you just need skill to know when to fire them.

[truth is life]

Originally Posted by lookupshootup

but that was then. Now, BVRAAMs really do work. you just need skill to know when to fire them.

There are still doctrinal issues with the use of BVRAAMs which can limit their use--just as in Vietnam, actually. One problem there was that US fighters were required to be WVR to identify enemy aircraft, IIRC so that they could avoid shooting down Chinese or Soviet aircraft. Not to mention the advent of ECM and stealth technology such that one might be, hypothetically, forced into a dogfight against one's will.

Anyways, all past pronouncements about "the end of dogfighting" have been incorrect...this one probably is as well. If the US has not been dogfighting recently, it is because it is fighting air forces which have significantly worse technology, equipment, and training, combined with relatively loose ROEs.

[stalkere]

Originally Posted by Abe Lincoln1865

LOL I thought this was about dog fighting

You mean two canines fighting for the entertainment of humans?

How bizarre.

I actually had that problem. As far as I'm concerned, the term "dogfighting" strictly refers to Air Combat Manuvering...but I have to explain that to the occasional dipstick that thinks I'm talking about canines.

[Riain]

These days BVR combat and dogfighting are not mutually exclusive they they almost were in the 60s. 60s fighters could go fast can carry a radar and weapons system but at the cost of agility, and at times guns.

But in the last 50s years aircraft, weapons and sensors have improved to a point now where a single fighter can be the master off all air to air combat from the outmost reach of his aircrafts weapons to point blank with the superb cannon that modern fighters are fitted with.

[AdA]

There was one NATO country that still built pilot's aircraft and not just missile platforms in the late 50s, early 60. That was Britain, that built the Ligtning as an interceptor that could outmanouver and outrun anything. RAF pilots never lost their dogfighting focus, and it was only with the F15A that the Lightning faced a fighter it could not trash in a dogfight, either by ouclimbing, outrunning or outurning it.

[Perkeo]

Originally Posted by midnight77

There is a chance for a return to dogfighting eventually. If, by some series of events, ECM and stealth technology outpace missle technology; you could have a world were air-to-air and surface-to-air missles exist, but modern planes cannot be shot down because the missles are unable to get a lock. It is highly unlikely, but possible.

Especially unlikely because a return to dogfighting riquires not only that modern planes cannot be shot down by missiles, but also that they can be shot down by human pilots. The range of parameters were both conditions are met doesn't appear very large to me.

[Riain]

Originally Posted by AdA

There was one NATO country that still built pilot's aircraft and not just missile platforms in the late 50s, early 60. That was Britain, that built the Ligtning as an interceptor that could outmanouver and outrun anything. RAF pilots never lost their dogfighting focus, and it was only with the F15A that the Lightning faced a fighter it could not trash in a dogfight, either by ouclimbing, outrunning or outurning it.

The Lightning F3 did not have guns. It relied on its 2 missiles both of which (firestreak and red top) I presume had minimum ranges, which is less than awesome in a dogfight!

[PhilKearny]

Fixed it for you.

Originally Posted by AdA

There was one NATO country that still built pilot's aircraft and not just missile platforms in the late 50s, early 60. That was France, which built the Dassaults that could outmanouver and outfight anything in actual combat. Israeli pilots demonstrated this.

[AdA]

Originally Posted by Riain

The Lightning F3 did not have guns. It relied on its 2 missiles both of which (firestreak and red top) I presume had minimum ranges, which is less than awesome in a dogfight!

The F2 had 2x30mm Adens. All F3 were upgraded to F6 standard and allways flew with a 2x30mm combination gun pack/fuel tank. The Red Top was a very capable missile for it's day. RAF pilots flew against Mirages in countless exercises and they regarded them as easy meat...
The israeli pilots were flying against badly trained pilots with downgraded export aircraft. The Lightning could outclimb, outurn and outacelerate any mirage until the advent of the 2000C in the 80s. The only way a mirage could be sure of beating a (well flown) lightning would be to run away and wait until the Lightning run out of fuel. It wouldn't have to wait long...
Recently read a interview with a veteran lightning pilot and the only contemporary fighter they respected was the saab draken, and only if pulled into a slow and low fight.
Granted the Mirage could carry a BVR AAM from the start, but that was the original 530 that would be hardworked to hit a Tu16 and were talking dogfighting here...