Forum: Air Power

Unfortunately some of the people were so adamant about their predictions that dog fighting was over, were regrettably in charge, they foolishly left guns out of some aircraft, which put us at a great disadvantage.

Since the end of the Vietnam air war in '72, do you know how many air-to-air GUN kills have been achieved by U.S. military (USAF, USN, USMC, USA, Coast Guard, etc.) aircraft?

I do. It's less than 3. Thirty-six years, this would be a trend.

regards, O.L.

(BTW, fighter on fighter is zero, zip, nil, goose-egg)

I respectfully disagree.

I understand and agree with much of what you say, however I still think there will be some dog fighting.

Remember that we were told a few decades ago that dog fighting was over, that from now on pilots would just be fighting pushbutton warfare and pilots would not engage in dog fighting and even the aircraft itself would vanish in just a few years. Aircraft’s were to become missile platforms and pilots were to be bus drivers and missileer ( there would be no more traditional dog fighting, and all combat would be BVR with missiles). It was predicted that even the aircraft itself would become obsolete and replaced by missiles.

Because of friendly fire and accidental civilian airline and other aircraft accidentally being shot down, our rules of engagement mostly require visual identification. In times of major war that protocol MIGHT change. However I expect that the vast majority of combat will happen WVR.

I wouldn’t be so positive that the days of the gun are over either. Even your figures suggest that even now some victories are achieved with guns even though it may be a low as 1%. I suspect the future might be kill lasers, however I would also categorize them as guns in this argument.

Remember as this thread points out, UAVs are becoming more prevalent. I suspect as UAVs become more prevalent, that gun kills may reemerge. You may ask why. I reply that it is not cost effective in many cases to use a very expensive missile against a relatively cheap UAVs. UAVs might be used as bait to lure fighters using their missiles so that an enemy fighter can come in for the kill. So I suspect that missiles may be rationed for more high-value threats and the guns may be used more cost-effectively against unarmed or lightly armed UAVs.

Another reason I think that most combat will likely be WVR because to an attack an opponent at longer range gives them more of an early warning and more of a likelihood of being able to detect and spoof or evade an attack.

Even though many modern weapon systems have high off bore capability, I still think the preferential way would be to get a visual and ram a heater up the tailpipe to have a better hit probability and to better identify the target. So I still think that there will be close in turning engagements that I call dogfights; whether it be with missiles, guns, kill lasers, kill radar/EMP or other EM weapons.

I don’t think that dog fighting will stop in the near future. I think it is going through some changes/metamorphosis that may not so much fit in some peoples stereotypical definition of dogfighting

That is a prediction that turned out to be true in an overwhelming number of cases.

visual ID can be done dozens of kilometers away.

RF-based non-cooperative target recognition techniques range even further

if our opponents had shot down US aircraft achieved air to air victories using the gun, the number of aircraft loss would be statistically insignificant.

You have to remember, UAVs can shoot back. The frequency of that will increase.

One persistent surveillance UAV on station for 24 hours, is doing the work of several manned platforms due to the limits on human endurance. So shooting one down with the missile is very cost effective.

What? That doesn't even make sense. While your enemy is showering you with long-range missiles, you're spending all your fuel and disposable countermeasures evading, and then you're going to close within visual range to make your kill? Does that make sense to you? Again, read the experiences of the Serbian pilots. Many of them, did not know they were being engaged until after they were hit by long-range missiles. There is also a low probability of intercept technology. Not all radar warning receiver's are created equally either. And then there's the electronic warfare. Technology has evolved well beyond the methods you are suggesting. Look at this video;

That way would get you killed. It's as outdated as sword fighting! While you are trying to position your jet behind the opponent, all aspect weapons will kill you.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=U49n1JuWAmc

Did it look like there is time for what you described in that video above?

That has already happened.

Again look at the data from the last major air war. (Serbia)

If you're relying on within visual range methods in a situation like that you can lose a lot of jets.

I disagree. Even though most ATA combat has occurred with missiles it has happened using dogfight tactics. The fact is that aircraft are still a major component of warfare.

Sure under the right conditions. Like they say it depends on the variables. The size of the target, the time of day, the weather, etc… remember that Korean Air Lines Flight 007 was allegedly misidentified at close range even though it was a very large aircraft.

As I said the vast majority of recent ROE dictate that visual identification is necessary. Unless warfare or the threats escalate and the gloves come off: I suspect that the politically correct atmosphere will dictate that the visual identification is necessary.

Remember that Scott Speicher was apparently largely shot down, because of the cautious ROE to prevent friendly fire. Remember that the RF identification methods failed to identify the enemy as hostile, even though Scott Speicher seemed pretty sure it was a hostile.

I largely agree with many of the things you say, however it is not necessarily true. Remember that the loss of one aircraft or one individual can often cause a domino effect. So the loss of one aircraft or one individual may end up resulting in many, it may even turn the tide of the war. Thusly the loss of one may result in the loss of many vastly changing the statistics.

I obviously had that in mind when I posted as is evident by my post. How many aircraft have been shot down by UAVs (if you exclude missiles as UAVs)? I can’t think of any. As I said I think that unarmed or lightly defended UAVs are likely to be vulnerable to gunfire and that it may not be cost effective or strategically wise to use missiles against them in many cases.

On paper and as rhetoric that may sound very good. However if you lose because you have us stretched yourself so thin, that is hardly what I call cost effective. As I said before it’s best to have a selection of weapons and to deploy them appropriately, rather than to use the most expensive weapon possible on easy targets and leave yourself vulnerable to more capable threats recklessly expended your missiles and left yourself vulnerable to more capable aircraft.

Remember that the enemy doesn’t always engage you on your terms.

On the contrary, your post doesn’t seem to make much sense and your video seems to contradict your claims. Did not the missiles fail? Did not the fighter use dogfight tactics to evade the missiles, or did the pilot just fly straight and level and rely on other countermeasures?

I obviously know that all radar warning systems are not equivalent, why do you seem to assume that the US will always have an advantage? The US economy is faltering, that may result in loss of US military power. There are other countries that are booming economically, some day the US will likely be surpassed as a military power. Part of my point was that not all detection systems are as capable and that we cannot always assume that we will have a warning and the adversaries won’t. The facts seem to suggest that the enemies have detected our missile launches many times and on several occasions have even able been to evade the missiles and it has alerted the enemy to our position and intent and has enabled them to launch a counterattack.

If long-range missiles are so important, why was the AIM-54 retired? How come they haven’t put missiles like the AIM-155 into service?

On the contrary, the video you posted describe much of what I was talking about. Did the MIG use high off bore capability, or did he maneuvered himself into a position for a good kill probability and ram the missile into the tailpipe of the UAV?

I really wouldn’t consider that to have been a major air war. Apparently the Serbians didn’t exercise the same ROEs as the US, or perhaps the Clinton administration wasn’t as concerned with friendly fire and civilian casualties?