Matt_W
2696
When was the last time any U.S. fighter engaged in honest-to-goodness air-to-air combat?
There were A-A kills during Desert Storm.
https://www.rjlee.org/air/ds-aakill/
The last true “dogfight” was probably the Line of Death/Gulf of Sidra incident in the 80s.
Timex
2698
Ya, that’s the thing… we’ve been doing LVC gaming in the military for ages, but when you look at what’s actually happening… it ain’t what Red6 is saying. It’s essentially just pushing synthetic datalink stuff. And generally, that stuff ain’t real well suited for fast moving stuff. The fighters that are being engaged with in the real world are actually being flown by actual planes.
What Red6 is talking about though, is pushing that constructive stuff into an AR environment, with no reference points, in real time, at a super high framerate, with entities that are moving super fast.
I’m in this industry, which is why I’ve been tracking Red6 for a while now… And while I’ve heard them talk a good game, I have yet to actually see them do any of this for real. All I’ve seen is marketing videos.
When you say they’re doing this today, have you actually seen this stuff work in the real world? Not just the kind of traditional LVC stuff we’ve been doing for years?
I know they SAY they can do it… but Magic Leap said they could do some magical AR thing, and they got folks to give them nearly 2 billion dollars, and the end result was trash.
I share the skepticism here. This is very very hard stuff.
JonRowe
2700
Fighting Iran in the 80s. But honestly Vietnam really. The conflicts with Iran were really short.
Even Vietnam was mostly short engagements.
I think that the Korean War was probably the last larger scale dogfighting war.
And of questionable relevance to today, given the technology involved. Truth is, no one has engaged in truly 21st century high-tech air to air combat, period. The last big set of engagements go back to the 1980s, with Israel and Syria and Iran and Iraq. None of those conflicts reflect modern technology very well either; compared to today, even for the IAF we’re talking orders of magnitude behind today’s capabilities. And the Syrians, Iranians, and Iraqis weren’t even close then.
RichVR
2702
ITT Defund the Air Force!!!
/s Okay?
Until they embrace the A-10!
Hush, now, lest ye draw the wrath of the mighty LazerPig!
Alstein
2708
When I was in, that was one of the two main aircraft my base serviced.
Now they have one in a museum. (The same museum that got nailed by a tornado when I was in too)
Another tornado there actualy hit a former roommate’s car while he going to get pee tested.
schurem
2709
Alright, I see your scepticism, and you may very well be right. Let’s see what happens.
schurem
2710
The 91 gulf war at least. One EF-111 even scored a maneuver kill on a Mirage F1!
Does the failed AIM-9X shot some time ago over Syria count? He finished the job with an AMRAAM.
What counts as honest air combat? Equal numbers? A neutral merge? Or just kill marks on the inlet? IMO the latter, as even the red baron scored the majority of his kills hunting down unsuspecting prey. Bushwhacking is the nature of the air combat game, a swirling dogfight is the result of a serious error in tactics and planning.
Numbers and duration, in my book. A sustained campaign with multiple engagements involving substantial numbers of planes, over a significant span of time. There are always going to be a few one-offs or incidents, but to consider trends and implications one needs more data points. IMO at least.
schurem
2712
Got a point there, but in a very real sense air combat, on a strategic level, is more akin to naval combat in the age of battleships. The planes themselves are no longer easily mass produced throw aways but apogee capital expressions of their nation’s technical abilities.
An air battle is therefore more like Mahan’s decisive battle. It is decided on night one. It can gro three was: Win, lose or slog in a decidedly diminished fashion (as we are seeing over Ukraine).
JonRowe
2713
I mean, yeah, things have changed so much. There really are not going to be large swaths of bombers needing fighter protection escorts anymore. In the seas there will always be a need for Combat air patrols, but in terms of air v air combat most fights are settled before visual contact, at least according to the technology we have today.
I don’t think that there will ever be a large scale air-war again. Nearly of the dogfights in WWII were combat escorts or air patrols defending their bombers or carrier groups. Now, we have upgraded the technology of both so much that escorts aren’t as critical. Not to mention a lot of the long range bombing tasks have been taken over by cruise missiles, unmanned drones and stealth planes.
I am an absolute fanboy for the F22, but I totally understand why it is a fighter without a huge purpose. Air to air superiority and maneuverability takes 2nd place. It is also nice that the F35 has taken some of the best bits from the F22 and added more CAS ability.
Matt_W
2714
Naw, I was just trying to understand why we maintain a large arsenal of air-to-air specialized high tech military aircraft and spend money to train operators for them. I sort of get the F35; it’s principally a strike aircraft, but do we need thousands of them? What are we preparing for?
Istari6
2715
Really interesting observation. Thanks for sharing.
