Best modern dogfighting airforces

[timmy]

Well if this thread was started in 1984, I would have voted for the Dominican Air Force

They had P-51d's in active service. That aircraft could turn inside all those mentioned above

 

[davebender]

Bombers will be killing ground troops from 30,000 feet using JDAM. A-10 cannot catch bombers at that altitude. Not even the 60 year old B-52.

BTW, do laser guided weapons exist in this scenario? How about wire guided? With radar and IR guided weapons gone an air to air version of Hellfire or TOW offers a considerable range advantage over aircraft cannon.

 

[vikingBerserker]

The A-10 had has an air to air kill though it was a helicopter and it can carry the AIM-9 Sidewinder.

 

[Donivanp]

I've watched the A-10 demo A v A before and it would be a deadly opponent, but, and that is a huge but, it would require a very stupid opponent . Save for that or the first lucky shot the A-10 would not be in a dog fight, any opponent can engage and disengage at will save for a wherrly bird or a Su 25. As far as avionics goes, once 1v1 happens and a Furball is the issue, all you are concerned about is you gun sight and staying in the air. The F-22 has already been proven to be just another fighter once 1v1 happens. Stealth has no use once it goes to guns. The Su 33/35/37 or the latest MiG29. Also the super hornet or Rafeal would be on mt list for a Furball dog fight. The F-16 is one mean ass dogfighter. That's my input.

 

[davparlr]

Max effective range of aircraft cannon is only about 1,000 meters. I doubt you can make an aircraft stealthy enough to get that close without detection.

I think stealth would allow a pilot to get into a more advantageous position. I think the old adage still applies, the first pilot to see the enemy has the advantage, even with radar.

 

[BiffF15]

Donivanp,
Where do you get your data from (regarding the F22 is just another dogfighter, the MIG-29, and advanced Su series A/C)?
Cheers,
Biff

 

[GrauGeist]

If we're not talking current aircraft inventories, then the F-14 gets a serious nod for being capable in a gunfight.

 

[Greyman]

Absolute madness in this thread. Good thing we only claim to be WWII experts ...

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Dont dismiss the F-22 as "just another dogfighter", its post stall manuvering capability is unmatched, even when compared against 360 degree vectored thrust Sukoi's. The Indian MKI's got their asses handed to them at a recent Red Flag, they were a little over confident after the Cope India fiasco.

 

[stona]

Am I the only one who thinks this thread is ridiculous ?

Cheers

Steve

 

[GrauGeist]

One aspect of the aircraft of WWII, was their ability to engage and overcome an enemy in a dogfight. It was a close up and personal action that pitted man and machine against the other. That was the current standard of engagement at that point in aviation history.

Modern aircraft can stand off and elinimate an enemy at considerable distances using various means of modern weaponry and technology.

I don't find this sort of discussion ridiculous, it takes into consideration just how well a modern aircraft can perform under WWII combat conditions, which involved more than just getting a "lock". Conditions then were very physical.

If one were to get downright technical, nearly everything that could be discussed about WWII has been examined, counted, argued and rehashed countless times in the 60 some-odd years since...therefor we can close the forums and move on to something else, right?

 

[Donivanp]

USAF test. I get my info from friends still and from the AFA. It was found that the advantages of the F-22 and other stealth were in byr. Once you close in then the best man wins. Most fighters can monover beyond human capability ie 9+ G. And a turning dog fight ends up in the 400mph range. So even with TV and all the added in gadgets you are still mid level and at high end WWII dogfight range. A gun is still a gun. Give me an AC-130 and let fly my left side. Well see how well you do. You give me my missiles back and I'll buy a tomcat every time. AIM 54/7/120 and 9, then we look at the guns.

 

[gjs238]

Am I the only one who thinks this thread is ridiculous ?

Cheers

Steve

I don't think so...

Absolute madness in this thread. Good thing we only claim to be WWII experts ...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

USAF test. I get my info from friends still and from the AFA. It was found that the advantages of the F-22 and other stealth were in byr. Once you close in then the best man wins. Most fighters can monover beyond human capability ie 9+ G. And a turning dog fight ends up in the 400mph range. So even with TV and all the added in gadgets you are still mid level and at high end WWII dogfight range. A gun is still a gun. Give me an AC-130 and let fly my left side. Well see how well you do. You give me my missiles back and I'll buy a tomcat every time. AIM 54/7/120 and 9, then we look at the guns.

Just FYI, the guy who asked you about your info is a former F-15 pilot from the USAF...

 

[fastmongrel]

Sopwith Camel armed with AIM 9X and a pair of Mauser 27mm cannons.

 

[buffnut453]

Replace the metal cowling with fibreglass and 3D print the guns and you also have a pretty stealthy machine, too!

 

[vikingBerserker]

I am curious to what the radar signature of a Sopwith Camel would be.

 

[eWildcat]

On the other hand, if it gets you with even ONE depleted uranium bullet, you're toast. And if you want to kill it, you have to go down and GET it because the A-10 isn't going to be hunting F-15s or MiGs at 35,000 feet.

But if he's killing your ground troops and they yell for help, whatcha' gonna' do? Let 'em die?

Well, even one "normal" 30-mm round (such as one fired from a DEFA or ADEN cannon) or a couple 20-mm rounds would cause great damage to a modern fighter and at the very least makes it unable to fight any longer anyway, if it doesn't shoots it down.

Then, an A-10 would sure fly low, but that doesn't mean you have to stay low to shoot it down : you could "boom zoom" just as well as Spitfires B&Zed Ju-87s, because there's no way an A-10 can follow a climbing F-16 or F-15. At best, a good A-10 pilot could negate a good shot opportunity, but the plane doesn't have what's needed to be really offensive against enemy fighters, unless fighter pilots try to fly both low and slow, which no decently trained fighter pilot would attempt.
Even if you have a good cannon, you can only destroy what you can put your gunsight on, that's the core of the matter.

 

[gjs238]

The A-10 had has an air to air kill though it was a helicopter and it can carry the AIM-9 Sidewinder.

And don't forget the A-10's anti-shipping exploits.

 

[GrauGeist]

Then, an A-10 would sure fly low, but that doesn't mean you have to stay low to shoot it down : you could "boom zoom" just as well as Spitfires B&Zed Ju-87s, because there's no way an A-10 can follow a climbing F-16 or F-15. At best, a good A-10 pilot could negate a good shot opportunity, but the plane doesn't have what's needed to be really offensive against enemy fighters, unless fighter pilots try to fly both low and slow, which no decently trained fighter pilot would attempt.
Even if you have a good cannon, you can only destroy what you can put your gunsight on, that's the core of the matter.

"boom zoom" is assuming that the attacker has not been seen by his quarry.

In the Pacific Theater, the SBD would turn to face their attackers, giving a greater chance at survivability. So in a situation where the A-10 does not have the advantage of altitude, the same tactics could be used.

I cannot think of any single pilot on earth that would risk flying into the business end of a Thunderbolt II...