Best modern dogfighting airforces
- Thread starter Thorlifter
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
i dont know enough about the flight characteristics of modern ac to give a educated guess but would sure like to see the gun camera footage!
parsifal
Colonel
The A4s we used in the fleet defence role were pretty handy with a gun only approach. But with a missile environment, they striggled
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
One problem that comes to mind with modern aircraft, in a vintage-style gunfight, is the same problem the Me262 pilots experienced: rate of closure.
For example, my suggestion that an A-10 could most likely survive in a gun-only confrontation would be because it's slower speed and short turning ability is forcing the much faster attacker to show it's hand first. In a "boom and zoom" attack scenario, the jet's rate of closure would make for a very short window of opportunity to get a fix on target. Especially if the A-10 or other aircraft were using evasive maneuvers to their own advantage. This may degrade the fight into a turning contest or using tricks like the stall tactic that the MiG-29 pilots like to do.
It's certainly a thought-provoking scenario.
For example, my suggestion that an A-10 could most likely survive in a gun-only confrontation would be because it's slower speed and short turning ability is forcing the much faster attacker to show it's hand first. In a "boom and zoom" attack scenario, the jet's rate of closure would make for a very short window of opportunity to get a fix on target. Especially if the A-10 or other aircraft were using evasive maneuvers to their own advantage. This may degrade the fight into a turning contest or using tricks like the stall tactic that the MiG-29 pilots like to do.
It's certainly a thought-provoking scenario.
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
......would be the Air Force that could afford to lose the most aircraft and still fight! 
With all the gadgets around today, stealth being the biggest one, any missile you can fool, one way or another, but a bullet, it's too dumb to get fooled, just watch Mr. Olds comment in 'Dogfights', about getting rid of the cannons....
With all the gadgets around today, stealth being the biggest one, any missile you can fool, one way or another, but a bullet, it's too dumb to get fooled, just watch Mr. Olds comment in 'Dogfights', about getting rid of the cannons....
Donivanp,
I have had this conversation with many, many Raptor Drivers. As an Eagle guy the only Former Soviet Union aircraft I really had to honor in both the BVR (Beyond Visual Range) and WVR (Within Visual Range) arena was the Flanker models. So naturally I would speak with my buds about the F22 and how it handles the Basic Fighter Maneuvers (BFM), AKA dogfighting arena as compared to it (Flankers). Their answers were universal, as in "not a problem for the Raptor". Please don't confuse what you see on TV / Youtube about how maneuverable the Flanker is as compared to what you don't see from the US regarding what a Raptor can do.
The Russians put out a LOT of information and videos about that plane to help it sell on the market. They have done the same with the MIG29 as well, along with propaganda about how much better it is than our stuff. Some stuff is true, most is not.
As for the AC130 and the Tomcat, well... I have tapped (bounced) numerous special ops aircraft and all fell to the gun (in training of course). As for the Tomcat, so much has been video'd, and the guys that flew her loved her like mad, and Top Gun helped the world become aware of fighter aviation in general, and the Tomcat in particular. However, it was retired while some of the aircraft were realatively new. Ask yourself why. The AIM-54 Phoenix was retired with no replacement either. Again, ask yourself why. It was a swing wing aircraft, and how many of those were being made (by any manufacturer) in 1990's when they stopped making the Tomcat?
Be careful of the data that you assimilate from other than the leading edge (actual players versus internet myth's). The further from the leading edge, the lower quality data you will most likely get.
Cheers,
Biff
Last edited:
Don't you know Biff, if its on the internet it has to be true...
Well, first no A6M flew 300 knots faster than its target. The difference in performance between an A6M and an SBD was far less than the difference of performance between an A-10 and any modern fighter. So you can't really compare the two situations.
Moreover, even if you really want to do it, a quick look at the historical kill ratio of A6Ms against SBDs lets me think SBDs mustn't have been that good in the fighter role.
tomo pauk said:
It's a bit more complicated. Harriers, or A-4s for that matter, actually have decent subsonic performances compared to a Mirage III or even a MiG-21. Give them good missiles, as they historically got, and you do get a dangerous plane in close range combat.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
In all fairness, the F-14 was a mission capable aircraft. And unfortunately, like the F-15, caught it's share of Hollywood's attention 
Panavia Tornado: produced 1979 - 1998 (still in service)
SU-24: 1967 - 1993 (still in service)
TU-22: 1967 - 1997 (still in service)
For it's time, the swept-angle wing gave the aircraft an advantage to transition in order to change roles. But like most things in aviation, technology advanced beyond that concept.
F-14's production ceased in 1991 (though the U.S. Navy operated them until 2006)
Panavia Tornado: produced 1979 - 1998 (still in service)
SU-24: 1967 - 1993 (still in service)
TU-22: 1967 - 1997 (still in service)
For it's time, the swept-angle wing gave the aircraft an advantage to transition in order to change roles. But like most things in aviation, technology advanced beyond that concept.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
So you assume a fighter aircraft that's engaging an enemy only with it's cannon will attack at mach speeds? Now that would be something I'd love to see!
Sure I can, I just did, didn't I?
The Dauntless did actually account for kills against the A6M and other Japanese types, and while it didn't sweep the Japanese from the skies, it shot down more enemy aircraft than the Stuka (or comparable) aircraft did.
But this scenario called for "guns only"...
Indeed it was, the FAA pilots played the Argies into their area of expertise - Harriers did shoot down enemy aircraft using their Aden cannon during the Falklands - high subsonic turning fight at med to low altitude. The Sea Harrier could out manoeuvre almost anything in this arena.
So you assume a fighter aircraft that's engaging an enemy only with it's cannon will attack at mach speeds? Now that would be something I'd love to see!
Well, that's one of the reasons why at the end of the 50's fighters were designed without guns... because they flew so fast that their pilots wouldn't be able to use cannons anyway. So why bother fitting any ?
Interestingly enough, there were numerous kills achieved at very high speed even during the Korean War.
EDIT : Besides, an A-10 will barely fly at more than 300 kts. You're not even at mach 1 at low altitude with 600 KCAS.
Last edited:
me too, lightning should not have been used twice.
don't get me started on the spitfire car.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
My father in law once told me he'd love to be within visual range and have some ruskie pull a cobra on him!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The ejector seats work great on the Mig 29
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Several years ago, a friend of mine commented that it seemed that the Russians were bringing their aircraft to airshows so they could impress spectators with their ejection seat performance!
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
