Air to air combat kills are rare because the strategic circumstances that would make them numerous enough to be unexceptional would likely tree up to minor-to-major nuclear conflict.
More directly, am struck that the average person has yet to internalize that in modern high-intensity conflict detection roughly = mission kill if not outright destruction. Everything operationally important (air, sea, ground) that wants to survive needs to avoid emission/detection long enough to detect something else first and destroy it.
> More directly, am struck that the average person has yet to internalize that in modern high-intensity conflict detection roughly = mission kill if not outright destruction. Everything operationally important (air, sea, ground) that wants to survive needs to avoid emission/detection long enough to detect something else first and destroy it.
Only if you're willing to go in the enemy's weapons engagement zones - whether that's a fighter or surface-based system. Detection/track ranges are generally much higher.
They are rare because its rare for air forces to meet in the air. Last time that happened at any real scale was 30 years ago in ODS. Since then the active air forces of the west have been dropping bombs on groups like ISIS who don't have fighters. And even in ODS there weren't that many A2A kills because most Iraqi aircraft were destroyed on the ground.
Because you're trying to shoot something flying at 500 miles an hour, piloted by a tiny lunatic who actually thought this sort of thing was a good career move and is probably on military-issued meth, with a projectile the size of your thumb, while also being the exact same sort of lunatic? :-D
But if your missiles are effective enough, they take care of the bit about finding and hitting the target for you. The article explains it as enemy forces not having anyone loony enough to think actually getting within range is going to advance their career.
Now, the A10 is air to ground, and these shells are made for killing tanks and not aircraft and you're not wrong in that the projectile isn't that much larger than a thumb, but just seeing the dang thing. I mean, it's crazy what we come up with to destroy.
I think fighter jets will go extinct some time in the near future. The maneuvering, speed and stealth of drones will soon outdo any manned fighter because they’ll push beyond the limits of human physiology. Even more, the cost of the drones will be cheaper.
Agreed; in fact I think we're already there and the only reason the human pilot hasn't shaken out of the equation is lack of a large-scale war to prove how ineffective they are. If there was such a conflict—and it somehow avoided going nuclear—who would win, the side that can make a few hundred fighters and trained pilots a year, or the side that can crank out 10,000+ drones in a month?
It's mostly because conflicts are rare. The conflicts of the past 20 years were very small and asymmetrical in nature, there was no open conflict between 2 militaries that both have significant air power.
Air combat would logically take place when air superiority is contested. If there's no contest (as one side is overwhelmingly superior), then the strategy would rather shift to ground-based anti-aircraft defense.
It seems that during active conflicts the main job of air forces remains focused on causing lots of damage on the ground rather than sweeping the skies clear. Just as in old bi-plane days, drive by and dump hand grenades into tranches from above...
On the other hand, in peace time, sweeping skies is the main job. I think each successful intercept of enemy craft or in-air detection should be counted as a kill-surrogate.
Sure there are plenty of aces on current duty by this count in Northern Europe airforces and in Alaska/Arctic zones, where intercepts of Russia's warring air-cosmic-force activities have dramatically increased in frequency recently.
I remember watching some newscast about a politician meeting at an airbase somewhere in Lithuania, with a NATO fighter jet as a background; the in-progress meeting suddenly had to be cancelled, as we could see pilots all dressed up running to the jet to scramble it for an intercept alert. Here it is:
This is true. And this holds up until enemy forces have advanced electronic warfare capabilities.
Radar and radio jammers are usual in modern warfare. And the worst case is an EMP. The Russians considered elctronic warfare already in the Russo-Japanese War. During WWII the British jammed the German radio navigation. Technology isn't making you automatically superior - you need to able to able apply it. And if not, a reliable fallback is needed. Remember the F4 which initially had no internal cannon because the US believed the "superior" rockets will do everything? It didn't worked well in Vietnam. The internal cannon is a feature of every modern fighter and the Navy founded TOPGUN.
I've no clue what happens in future. But I would keep a close look on who is doing well with electronic protection (EP). And we didn't speak about the elephant in the room, computer networks. Which are hopefully autonomous without the need of an network support. Don't connect anything important - like a fighter aircraft - to a network.
A thought about dog fights: As they fire large heavy rounds at each other (.50 BMG or bigger), have there been any accounts of ground casualties or damage from these stray rounds? Or do the bullets lose too much velocity (the .50 BMG has been shown to be effective up to 3+km)? I'd imagine the odds of getting hit are VERY slim but not impossible.
> "After the totally lopsided kill-to-loss ratio attained by the US Air Force and US Navy during the First Gulf War, it is a very rare thing for regimes under attack by the US and its allies to send fighters up in defence - since they know how it will end."
("tanker" appears to mean "truck" rather than "ship" in this context, and "drone" is probably the small quadcopter style rather than what the USAF means by "drone")
The air combat in the Falklands was largely interceptions, not dogfights. The British used Sea Harriers and the GR3 Harriers, both of which have surprising agility. They were challenged with stopping attacks from the Argentine Navy and Air Force that were targeting the RN ships transporting the RN Marines.
There were three primary Argentine aircraft used in the conflict; the Super Entendard, the Dagger (an Israeli Mirage derivative) and the A-4 Skyhawk. The Super Entendard gained fame because of its successful use of the Exocet ASM. It never engaged in A2A combat with any British forces.
The Daggers and Skyhawks could have tried to engage the Harriers, but that wasn't their mission tasking. They carried nothing but bombs and attacked the RN ships (sinking 7 and damaging many more). They were operating at the very edge of their range, and didn't have enough fuel to do more than skim in, drop bombs, and flee. The Skyhawks had airborne refueling capabilities, but this was very limited since the Argentines only had 2 tankers.
This reads like a political advert from the US weapons industry to convince people that 20% of national spending on warfare is perfectly reasonable in peace times.
I'm doubtful they're(the F-whatever) technologically superior to our little Swedish beast the "Jas-Gripen"[0].
The US just has more military than anyone they're messing with.
"This reads like a political advert from the US weapons industry to convince people that 20% of national spending on warfare is perfectly reasonable in peace times."
Because you go to war with what you have, which has long lead times to design and build and position and train and maintain and employ and resupply.
In my opinion, we are about to have another 'big one' within the next 5-10 years. When that happens, people will be saying "Why are there so many air combat kills?"
Fox 2
Do you consent to us using your HUD telemetry for post mission analysis?
The f… FOX 2
Do you consent to us using your HUD telemetry for post mission analysis?
[+] [-] sklargh|4 years ago|reply
More directly, am struck that the average person has yet to internalize that in modern high-intensity conflict detection roughly = mission kill if not outright destruction. Everything operationally important (air, sea, ground) that wants to survive needs to avoid emission/detection long enough to detect something else first and destroy it.
[+] [-] the__alchemist|4 years ago|reply
Only if you're willing to go in the enemy's weapons engagement zones - whether that's a fighter or surface-based system. Detection/track ranges are generally much higher.
[+] [-] thereddaikon|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jzellis|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notahacker|4 years ago|reply
I blame Joseph Heller.
[+] [-] lkxijlewlf|4 years ago|reply
I have a dummy shell from an A10 at my desk. Here's an image (not mine) (the nearly 12" shell on the far left):
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-23308fca719553f998cbc4...
Now, the A10 is air to ground, and these shells are made for killing tanks and not aircraft and you're not wrong in that the projectile isn't that much larger than a thumb, but just seeing the dang thing. I mean, it's crazy what we come up with to destroy.
[+] [-] _benj|4 years ago|reply
I’d say that a simulator is marginally less “lunatic” but still :)
[+] [-] galcerte|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] defaultprimate|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 2OEH8eoCRo0|4 years ago|reply
The US military issues meth? Source?
[+] [-] skhr0680|4 years ago|reply
2. No one is dumb enough to even try fighting US jets with their own. US have the best aircraft, missiles, and more flying hours than anyone else
[+] [-] vagrantJin|4 years ago|reply
Well said.
That arrogance must come in handy for bombing goat herders in the desert.
[+] [-] twobitshifter|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twobitshifter|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ericbarrett|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AdrianB1|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zoomablemind|4 years ago|reply
It seems that during active conflicts the main job of air forces remains focused on causing lots of damage on the ground rather than sweeping the skies clear. Just as in old bi-plane days, drive by and dump hand grenades into tranches from above...
On the other hand, in peace time, sweeping skies is the main job. I think each successful intercept of enemy craft or in-air detection should be counted as a kill-surrogate.
Sure there are plenty of aces on current duty by this count in Northern Europe airforces and in Alaska/Arctic zones, where intercepts of Russia's warring air-cosmic-force activities have dramatically increased in frequency recently.
I remember watching some newscast about a politician meeting at an airbase somewhere in Lithuania, with a NATO fighter jet as a background; the in-progress meeting suddenly had to be cancelled, as we could see pilots all dressed up running to the jet to scramble it for an intercept alert. Here it is:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41459/presidential-pre...
[+] [-] ho_schi|4 years ago|reply
Radar and radio jammers are usual in modern warfare. And the worst case is an EMP. The Russians considered elctronic warfare already in the Russo-Japanese War. During WWII the British jammed the German radio navigation. Technology isn't making you automatically superior - you need to able to able apply it. And if not, a reliable fallback is needed. Remember the F4 which initially had no internal cannon because the US believed the "superior" rockets will do everything? It didn't worked well in Vietnam. The internal cannon is a feature of every modern fighter and the Navy founded TOPGUN.
I've no clue what happens in future. But I would keep a close look on who is doing well with electronic protection (EP). And we didn't speak about the elephant in the room, computer networks. Which are hopefully autonomous without the need of an network support. Don't connect anything important - like a fighter aircraft - to a network.
[+] [-] raducu|4 years ago|reply
The same with cannons in fighter planes.
[+] [-] MisterTea|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krisoft|4 years ago|reply
https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/pilot-talk/2021/10/04/...
[+] [-] pjc50|4 years ago|reply
Symmetric warfare is old hat. It's all asymmetric warfare now: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/17/yemens-houthis-claim-suspect...
("tanker" appears to mean "truck" rather than "ship" in this context, and "drone" is probably the small quadcopter style rather than what the USAF means by "drone")
[+] [-] secondcoming|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greedo|4 years ago|reply
There were three primary Argentine aircraft used in the conflict; the Super Entendard, the Dagger (an Israeli Mirage derivative) and the A-4 Skyhawk. The Super Entendard gained fame because of its successful use of the Exocet ASM. It never engaged in A2A combat with any British forces.
The Daggers and Skyhawks could have tried to engage the Harriers, but that wasn't their mission tasking. They carried nothing but bombs and attacked the RN ships (sinking 7 and damaging many more). They were operating at the very edge of their range, and didn't have enough fuel to do more than skim in, drop bombs, and flee. The Skyhawks had airborne refueling capabilities, but this was very limited since the Argentines only had 2 tankers.
[+] [-] josephkern|4 years ago|reply
Asymmetry is the key to airpower, if you don't have it you won't have it.
Look-first shoot-first is only one kind of asymmetric advantage.
[+] [-] ARandomerDude|4 years ago|reply
No -- it can't be possible! I always hear people say "flexibility is the key to airpower." I feel so lost.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lillecarl|4 years ago|reply
I'm doubtful they're(the F-whatever) technologically superior to our little Swedish beast the "Jas-Gripen"[0].
The US just has more military than anyone they're messing with.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
[+] [-] thrill|4 years ago|reply
Because you go to war with what you have, which has long lead times to design and build and position and train and maintain and employ and resupply.
[+] [-] simonblack|4 years ago|reply
In my opinion, we are about to have another 'big one' within the next 5-10 years. When that happens, people will be saying "Why are there so many air combat kills?"
[+] [-] davmonk|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fnord123|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Readywater|4 years ago|reply
HOW DO I SAY YES?!
[+] [-] a3w|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnWhigham|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sokoloff|4 years ago|reply
It says nothing about surface-to-air missiles.
[+] [-] 2OEH8eoCRo0|4 years ago|reply