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through" from pre-WW2; "the dogfight is obsolete because jets fly too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fast" between WW2 and Korea; "the dogfight is obsolete now that we've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 key thing here is the Off axis targeting for the SRAAMs. The 
fights between USM F-18 pilots and Israeli (F-15s I guess) really 
shows that.

>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 think what they are calling dog fights is the need to get the other 
guy in your front and zap him. Its getting to the point that you 
don't need to be behind him to zap him. You can be beside him (or in 
a hard turn) and get a lockup with your Short range Air to Air 
Missile. The Python 4s and 5s do that nicely now.

>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.

They somewhat address that. Not the USAF and the USMC's attitude 
about guns in the UCAV argument.

>
>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.

There is an article on Jane's site about this very thing. UCAVs. Take 
a look at that one too....

>
>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
>Email: Phillip.Atcliffe@uwe.ac.uk

--
- Ryan Montieth Gill		DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
- ryan.gill@SPAMturner.com  I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- rmgill@SPAMmindspring.com	     www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/ -