Re: Fighter Fur Balls a thing of the past?

On Thu, 31 May 2001 02:41:18 -0400 Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> 
wrote:

> A bloody interesting article at Janes. <

True, but haven't we heard this before? "The bomber will always get 
through" from pre-WW2; "the dogfight is obsolete because jets fly too 
fast" between WW2 and Korea; "the dogfight is obsolete now that we've 
got missiles" in Vietnam and after...

The analysts may be right; missile technology, with or without help 
from supercruise, etc., may have finally advanced to the point where 
the furball is never to be seen again, but I doubt it. For dogfights to 
truly vanish, it implies that one side or the other in a combat would 
have to be wiped out or scared away, and I can't see that happening. 
And then there's those pesky Rules of Engagement, as cursed by many a 
US airman over 'Nam...

I know that I wouldn't bet my life on it; were I a fighter jock, I'd 
want a gun in my metal-and-composite steed, and I'd want to train and 
train in ACM in an aircraft that had the capability for high 
manoeuvring, because when the kimchee hits the fan, I would _not_ want 
to rely solely on a superwondermissile to keep me and my mount in one 
piece.

What could happen if this is the case is the decline and passing of the 
fighter _pilot_. If the weapons become the all-important arbiter of 
success or failure, then aircraft become pure weapons platforms, so why 
weigh them down with jocks and their egos? Far better to make 
higher-performance missile-toters with lots of sensors, controlled by 
someone sitting in comfort at a workstation.

Phil
------------------------------------------
(Dr) P.A. Atcliffe
Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Engineering
University of the West of England, Bristol
Phone: +44 (0)117 344 2496
Fax:   +44 (0)117 344 3800