to be honest I thought with the modern weaponary they now have, the fighters (strictly air to air not gruond attack aircraft) of today could stand of and just fire long range missiles destorying a target with out ever seeing it (by eye) and really only having to manouver if a missile cames thier way.
I just can't imagine a su-27 and a f-22 in close quaters twisting and turning in a "top gun" style air to air combat.
2007-12-10 15:42:18 · 10 answers · asked by Cooter 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Modern fighters do get into dogfights once in a while. There is speculation that with the advent of medium-range air-to-air missiles and Beyond Visual Range capabilities, fighter aircraft will never engage in dogfights. This is not true. With more advanced missiles comes advanced countermeasures. In head-on situations, the combating aircraft are going so fast towards each other that each will squeeze off at most 2 long-range missiles, and if they miss, its a dogfight. Recall the Arab/Israeli air wars in 1973 and 1982, when a significant amount of air engagements resulted in close combat kills, even with guns, despite Israeli F-4's and F-15's operating medium-range missiles. In 1982, 51 out of 55 MiGs shot down by Israel were with AIM-9 missiles, a short range dogfight air-to-air missile. With exception of the stealthy F-22, I think dogfights in modern air combat still cannot be ruled out.
2007-12-12 17:10:15 · answer #1 · answered by Charlie4590 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Aircraft have always been about putting a weapon system into an otherwise unreachable spot to achieve a suprise effect... and to counter this aircraft were generally needed. Missile's and unmanned devices can reach into this sphere of influence now but these systems have different limitations. A gun on a fighter has a limited amount of ammo so a dogfight is really a 'last resort' when things go really wrong. It would be silly not to be able to to do it extremely well, but even more silly to have it as the main benefit of the fighter aircraft these days.
2007-12-11 06:36:33 · answer #2 · answered by tacs1ave 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, people thought missiles made guns obsolete during the Vietnam War. Boy, were they wrong.
While no longer the primary armament, the gun still earns a place on modern fighters. If long range missiles really make everything else obsolete, what's the point of designing the F-22? Why not just design a floating missile rack?
2007-12-11 01:48:04 · answer #3 · answered by Gotta have more explosions! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, the F-22 was designed specifically with these things in mind. Though we have not had as many dog fights these days, the Jets that you are talking about are still very effective in dog fights. Remember! we have the most deadly air combat teams in the world. And if you have to question the capabilities of our weaponry, then you haven't studied our fighters in full detail. And to those of you that thought the idea of that Top Gun movie was not real,, obviously have not been on the ground in a hot foreign desert and seen what these aircraft are truly capable of.
2007-12-11 00:27:12 · answer #4 · answered by michael t 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We believed that the age of dogfighting was over in Vietnam. The navy even ordered fighters without a cannon. They found that in several cases missiles would fail to track and miss. Also you have a limited number. The AF would not accept Aircraft without a cannon and had several air to air victories with it.
2007-12-11 00:59:42 · answer #5 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
None of them get that close. And they all fly faster than bullets.
It is all missile, all the time these days.
I'm not saying it is all long range stand off, but twisting and turning while trying to get an enemy in your sights is long gone.
FWIW, the 'top gun' that was made famous by that annoying little twit, Tom Hanks. was way out of the gun era as well. The 1980s were missiles as well.
Guns are great for ground support though, that hasn't changed.
2007-12-11 00:20:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No not really with the advent of cruise missiles, aam and amrams there really is no need to dogfight and most times fighters dont have that much time to chase an shoot manually
2007-12-10 23:50:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
geesh so many comments that are false....yes they do but missiles has cut down on the dog fight but what if someone pops up out of the desert or comes in from behind then its dog fighting with guns or missiles or whatever......
2007-12-11 01:21:19 · answer #8 · answered by _t 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
to tell you the truth there hasent even been a real dogfight since the Vietnam War
2007-12-11 00:32:34 · answer #9 · answered by Dont get Infected 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When it is a US war ... definitely not
Now all the other wars between less developed countries still do it the old way..
2007-12-11 00:26:51 · answer #10 · answered by GoergesBenson 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋