2996

I’d guess the future doesn’t look like drones when it comes to dogfighting, it looks like smarter missiles. Human-controlled vehicles will never beat the lag time of satellite comms, but they’ll be used to stage AI-enabled missiles into theater then get the hell out when the enemy closes. There will be something like a more-agile, much faster cruise missile, possibly with other smaller AI missiles for engaging aircraft and soft targets while the main payload sneaks its way there.

2997

I mean, the future is no more dogfighting. I mean… when was the last actual “dogfight” outside of a training excercise?

The U.S. has had like what? 2 air to air kills in the last 25 years? Both of those not even “dogfights” in the normal usage of the term. Maybe in desert storm? But, with how advanced A2A missiles are now, nobody is going in on guns or even sidewinder kills, which is the WVR (within visual range) missile. It is all BVR (beyond visual range) now.

It is fun to think about dogfighting in newer jets, pulling G’s, getting the nose around for a sidewinder lock or guns kill, but that is basically video game stuff now. If you are in a situation where you are in a turn-fight in a modern jet, something has gone very very wrong.

Not that fighter pilots shouldn’t practice and know how to do it, for the extremely rare situation where it could happen, but it is just something that probably won’t happen in the future outside of extremely rare circumstances.

2998

This is all true but there hasn’t been a conflict between the US and a nation with an airforce so it’s kind of hard glean much from that. As you say there are barely any air-to-air kills in the last 25 years but I wouldn’t take that as an arguing we should remove A2A capability from our jets (I know you’re not saying that).

I think you’re probably right, but we don’t really know until there’s a peer conflict. And lets hope we never see that.

2999

In terms of peer-peer combat or even near-peer combat the Ruso-Ukrainian war has been a place pitting same generation fighters against eachother, and we haven’t really seen any dogfights at all there. Partially due to how advanced AA has become, but also due to the fact that the technological arms race has been in target acquisition and distance in fighter jets. The whole goal is to see him before he sees you and fire a missile before they can even acquire you as a target.

I am sure in a real shitshow of a peer-peer conflict we would see some dogfighting, but those planes are damn expensive, and nobody wants to risk them getting in visual range of the enemy. If you are out of BVR missiles or your radar malfunctioning is the situation, it is time to bug out rather than dogfight.

3000

There are a number of issues with separating the pilot from the aircraft that aren’t easy to address.

Honestly, I suspect that what’s more likely to replace human pilots in the long term isn’t going to be remote pilots… it’s going to be fully autonomous systems.

3001

The dark thought in my head, as a fighter pilot fanboy, is that the age of fighter jets is actually going to be over quite soon.

The cost of flying an extremely expensive piece of technology to ferry over some guided missiles when you can just strap that expensive missile to to a cheap drone just makes too much financial sense.

I mean, look at the ingenuity of the Ukrainians strapping grenades to consumer drones. It is devastating, cheap and effective. What is the air 2 air version of this? Because it will get invented at some point.

3002

Not only does it make financial sense in dollars spent getting the missile to the target, it opens up missions that would be considered too risky for a piloted jet to undertake.

3003

And if there is a mission that does need a pilot we have Maverick!

3004

Or we just strap the pilot into an A-10 which pretty much guarantees their safety and success.

3005

In the real world, the YF-21 doesn’t beat the X9, sorry Guld.
image

3006

The restaurant we went to last night had the restroom stalls labelled “Iceman”, “Maverick” and “Jester”. I was entertained.

3007

Uh, I mean his fighter was nose down on the runway, smoke filling the cockpit, engines cycling up, spinning out of control. He calmly waited until the wings were level and bailed at first opportunity. It’s hard for me to imagine that wasn’t the right call.

3008

Carriers should have a role for force projection for a good long while, even if they might lose value in peer to peer conflicts. (China’s put a lot into trying to neutralize carriers)

3009

Realistically, air force bases are even better for force projection. Carriers are quite limited; coastal ops only, limited fuel loads, very very expensive to operate, very high lifetime costs. They’re almost certainly not worth it. Strategic partnerships and strategically placed land based airfields are better. I was deployed on a carrier during Enduring/Iraqi freedom in the Persian Gulf, at a time when the U.S. was deploying ordinance regularly. Our own aircraft flew daily missions, never engaged enemy aircraft, never drew AA fire, only dropped a total of 7 bombs in 6 months. And that was with using the AFB at Bagram as a forward base of operations. We were effectively useless (except maybe for reconnaissance) during that conflict.

3010

As long as those land-based airfields aren’t within easy reach of the enemy. Yes, I know airbases are more durable than a carrier, but a carrier is harder to locate and hit. Drones with longer range than piloted fighters help survivability of both the land base and the carrier, but ultimately probably help the carrier more. Theoretically a peer enemy would have a drone that could hit any airbase that’s close enough to launch drones that were threatening that enemy. While the same range thing applies to the carrier, the increase in operating range leads to an exponential increase in the amount of ocean the carrier could be hiding in.

But I agree that airbases that aren’t under any real threat are better than carriers. They are bigger, easier to supply, and less costly to maintain.

3011

One of the discussions of military analysts I was following on Twitter in the before-times was on the withdraw of Air Force squadrons from Okinawa. On the one hand the argument was that removing forces from the area signaled weakness and would encourage Chinese aggression. But the opposite side was that having aircraft at a fixed location within range of some Chinese missiles was stupid, and it made much more sense to hold them in reserve outside of attack range and then fly them in after the balloon went up.

Unfortunately I’m not sure there is anything in the Pacific that’s “out of range” short of Hawaii. Even Guam is in range of Chinese missiles.

3012

Before the poxy-clipse.

3013

I was listening to a couple of Navy medical guys at dinner the other night and they were talking about how they were being trained to deal with a situation where medical evac of wounded is not available for long periods of time.

During Iraq and Afghanistan, you got wounded, you got sent to a field hospital, and then airlifted to Germany if you needed more serious treatment. You could go from getting wounded to being bedside in a German hospital within 24 hours.

In the future conflict that the military envisions, that medical airlift isn’t going to be around because the airspace is too hostile.

3014

A dogfighting AI convincingly beat a current combat pilot in a simulator a couple of years ago. So whether or not long-range missiles have already abolished ACM, we’re pretty close to having fighter drones; if the air forces of the world want them.

The next gen projects the US is working on seem to focus on drones as “loyal wingmen”. So you’ll have one human in a plane commanding 2 - 5 plane-sized drones providing specialised capabilities (sensors, EW, missile platform etc)

3015

image