When was the last time an American "fighter" aircraft actually engaged in an air to air battle with another enemy "fighter"?
John
Not in a dogfight, that's for sure. And I don't remember any such loss even via a long-range missile shot.Desert Storm. We even lost an F/A18 to a Mig25.
Not in a dogfight, that's for sure. And I don't remember any such loss even via a long-range missile shot.
Wasn't that LCDR Scott Speicher? Originally thought to be from a surface-to-air missile, then later claimed to be a long range shot from the Mig-25? I have a friend who still gets pretty passionate about that shot not coming from a Mig.
One last time -- the issue of outmaneuvering is only an issue in a dogfight. Dogfighting is today an extremely low priority on the "fighter" totem pole. With the weapons systems we have today, our air dominance has been achieved by other means. The need for the person in the cockpit is more an issue of independent operation not relying on jammable datalinks than anything else, and no matter how maneuverable a UAV is, if you can't talk to it, it's useless. Also, you can't sneak a UAV in anywhere if it has to electronically transmit data back to base to operate. Until we can achieve the same level of control of the EM spectrum as we have of the air, UAV's will be a complement to, not a replacement for, occupied* aircraft.
*Almost said "manned," but that's a 20th century term.
...or the guy (or today, gal) who plans the tactics. A long time ago, I watched a squadron of Marine F-4J's wipe out a squadron of Air Force F-15A's at Red Flag by taking the initiative and using tactics which played to the F-4's strengths in speed and acceleration while avoiding any kind of a turning fight the F-15's would win easily.Right on the cranium Cap'n Ron! Pulling G's is the magic thing that everyone talks about as the limiting factor for a fighter. Yes, pulling G's is an important part of what we do, but just because a fighter can pull 69 G's doesn't make it better (necessarily) than another fighter. It has a lot more to do with E-M diagrams (thank you John Boyd!) and experience. I've seen lots of footage of "less capable" aircraft beating something they should get crushed by. It has much more to do with the guy in the aircraft than the aircraft itself (in many cases).
Concur.UAV's have come a long way - yes we are a dying breed, but we aren't dead yet! I still firmly believe that there are oceans between where we are now and where the sensors would have to be to successfully participate in A/A combat.
I agree, but I think that day is a very long way off -- like several decades.With no disrespect for Ron intended, I believe that as UAVs become more sophisticated, an occupied jet fighter would have no hope in h ell should it come under attack by one.
For now, they are, but with the current life cycles of fighter aircraft (30 years or so), the generation coming on line (F-22 and F-35) may be the last. I just don't think I'll live to see the total replacement of occupied air combat vehicles by UAV's.I'm not so sure our military would be all that interested in spending the money to keep it's fighters occupied.
I agree, but I think that day is a very long way off -- like several decades.
For now, they are, but with the current life cycles of fighter aircraft (30 years or so), the generation coming on line (F-22 and F-35) may be the last .I just don't think I'll live to see the total replacement of occupied air combat vehicles by UAV's.
...
Fear not, it is coming sooner than you think... The flight hardware is there now... The air to ground weapons are present... The AI computer control needs only development funding to move it along within months... The only thing lacking is the political will to do it..
denny-o
They also were not allowed to shoot anyone without a positive visual ID to confirm that it was an NVAF aircraft. You get that close, you're inside your missile's Rmin. Today, we have more effective technology to confirm what and who we're shooting at, and don't need the visual ID before shooting. That allows more missile shots, including BVR shots.Dogfighting is more or less dead, I know, they said that in 'Nam, but back then they did not have the reliable guided missiles they do now.
I agree. But that's not the only mission of tactical jet aircraft, and for many weapons delivery situations, you have to get up close before firing, and then make a fast decision.Odds are most fights these days are going to be over before the aircraft even come close.
Assuming you have absolute freedom of electronic communication. Unfortunately, that's not here yet. There's the risk of loss of signal, as well as jamming/interference, and the loss of stealthiness inherent in transmitting a signal from the UAV back to the control site. For those reasons, occupied tactical aircraft will be here for quite a while yet.For what our fighters do in this era UAVs are more than adequate.
...or the guy (or today, gal) who plans the tactics. A long time ago, I watched a squadron of Marine F-4J's wipe out a squadron of Air Force F-15A's at Red Flag by taking the initiative and using tactics which played to the F-4's strengths in speed and acceleration while avoiding any kind of a turning fight the F-15's would win easily.
Concur.
Sure, but just try retargeting a Tomahawk after launch, or getting it to abort the mission because the targeted folks on the ground just authenticated their identity.Cruise missiles can hit targets feet across from hundreds of miles away using 20 year old technology. I have little doubt that UAVs can be programmed to function autonomously in the event of signal loss to prosecute their targets return to base using current technology.
And your point is? I didn't say manned systems would eliminate friendly fire (although at the end of the day, all systems are human-controlled/programmed, and a bad coordinate punched into a Tomahawk could result in a friendly fire incident), but rather that a Tomahawk can't be retargetted or recalled after launch -- an F-35 can. Maybe someday we'll have the capability to put real-time off-board control over UAV's in a way which is 100% reliable and does not compromise the vehicle's location, but that day is a long way off.Soldiers have died from friendly fire from manned weapon delivery systems.
What I'm saying is that collateral and friendly casualties have not caused us to cease making war, and I doubt the potential will slow down UAV or UCAV production one iota. While such a hypothetical occurrences would be enormously regrettable, they are as inevitable as those with manned weapon delivery systems. One needs conditions for autonomous function along with the initial mis-targetting. Put together a sufficiently long accident chain and any weapon system can misfire.
You also assuming that all future weapon platforms will conform to the limitations of the current crop. You should know better.
Again, the only thing lacking right now is the will to win...
denny-o
a pps on the carrier-able UAV X47B