Comment by tablespoon | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tablespoon | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Not really. The chance of any sort of aerial dogfighting happening in a war are next to zero. The cost of planes, and pilots, is so high that almost all the effort spent these days is on killing your enemy with over-the-horizon weapons fired from hundreds of miles away. AI-powered dogfighting in aircraft is military marketing.

People have been claiming that over-the-horizon missiles will obsolete dog-fighting since before the Vietnam war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_F6D_Missileer

> Through the later part of the 1950s and into the 1960s, military air planners increasingly believed that future air combat would be carried out almost entirely by long-range missile fire. This changed the basic requirements for a fighter design considerably. The pilots would be expected to fight primarily through their radar and fire control systems, hopefully never even seeing their opponent. Because of this, the emphasis was on "head down" combat and an all-round view was considered unimportant....

Not saying that won't eventually be true, but it doesn't mean it will be true any time soon. The lesson is to preserve the capability until it's actually been proven to no longer be needed.

If you look at the actual data from the past couple decades, far more aircraft were destroyed by SAMs or cruise missiles (on the ground) than in BVR or WVR combat. Dogfights haven't been a significant factor for a long time.

> If you look at the actual data from the past couple decades, far more aircraft were destroyed by SAMs or cruise missiles (on the ground) than in BVR or WVR combat. Dogfights haven't been a significant factor for a long time.

Data can only tell you so much. For instance, according to the data, nuclear weapons haven't destroyed any enemy equipment in the last 80 years, but you'd be going too far to infer from that conventional weapons have made them militarily obsolete.

The difference is that nobody is avoiding WVR dogfights just so they can get shot down by a missile in BVR or a SAM. Nobody is getting within range of a dogfight nowadays because these other weapons are so extraordinarily dominant.

> The lesson is to preserve the capability until it's actually been proven to no longer be needed.

And yet when faced with evidence of this, your immediate response is "data can only tell you so much".

>> The lesson is to preserve the capability until it's actually been proven to no longer be needed.

> And yet when faced with evidence of this, your immediate response is "data can only tell you so much".

That evidence probably isn't sufficient. The kind of evidence I'm looking for is: fight an actual war against an enemy with an air force, and find out your pilots never actually used dog-fighting skills or capability. Until then, maybe hold off on plans to replace all the fighters with missile trucks or something.

> fight an actual war against an enemy with an air force

Like Iraq? Or Afghanistan? Or do you mean an air force that's at least somewhat comparable to ours, like Russia or China?

Case one is that we're up against an enemy with a drastically inferior air force, in which case WVR is never going to happen. Their air capability will be devastated whether on the ground or in the air.

Case two is that we're up against a country with a powerful air force. Assuming we're somehow tiptoeing around the issue of full-blown nuclear war, we're now talking about a situation where combat is somehow happening hundreds of miles away from either side's radar-guided mobile SAM systems (Russia's S-400 has an operational range of at least 400km), both sides have managed to evade multiple BVR missile launches per airframe, both sides have an equal number of jets in the engagement, and the area objective is so important that it's worth gambling multiple $50+ million jets on.

Do you realize how comically implausible this scenario is?

If you can think of a more realistic situation in which the US will actually engage their fighter jets in dogfighting, I’m all ears.

> People have been claiming that over-the-horizon missiles will obsolete dog-fighting since before the Vietnam war:

This is exactly what this article from yesterday is claiming. I have to agree with it TBH.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-40327934

> People have been claiming that over-the-horizon missiles will obsolete dog-fighting since before the Vietnam war:

If you're interested in this line of thought, the book "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War" is a really great read.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com