The dogfighting scenario is pretty much extinct.
The F-16 is sort of old by now, except the drone version, which is reportedly for use as a training target.
Probably it's a drone F-16 against a Su-27?
The F-16 is sort of old by now, except the drone version, which is reportedly for use as a training target.
Probably it's a drone F-16 against a Su-27?
"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter proponents’ riposte has been that the AIM-120 is a 100% reliable and 100% kill probability missile, so each F-35 carrying four AIM-120’s will account for four Sukhois or MiGs. This is a dangerously naive assumption. Operationally, the AIM-120 has achieved 10 BVR kills from 17 shots – a Pk or “kill probability” of 0.59 (59 percent) against benign or “dumb” targets. The AIM-120 has been tested in over 200 test firings, with a reliability of about 85 percent, so statistically speaking, about one of those four AIM-120s will be a dud." > http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-070109-1.html
also, once the 6-10 aa missiles you carry are spent, if you aren't faster than the enemy you cannot just disappear.
I didn't realize it's that bad. I guess action and sci-fi movies make you believe military equipment is much more reliable than it really is.
Fyi, frequencies are not probabilities. That was one of the points that, as he neared the end of his life, lead Ronald Fisher to say that mass confusion over stats would be the downfall of the next set of nations:
"We are quite in danger of sending highly trained and highly intelligent young men out into the world with tables of erroneous numbers under their arms, and with a dense fog in the place where their brains ought to be. In this century, of course, they will be working on guided missiles and advising the medical profession on the control of disease, and there is no limit to the extent to which they could impede every sort of national effort." Fisher, R N (1958). "The Nature of Probability". Centennial Review. 2: 261–274. http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/fisher272.pdf
Here is another good paper from him on that: http://www.phil.vt.edu/dmayo/PhilStatistics/Triad/Fisher%201...
Chapter 9 here also covers it from a different perspective: http://omega.albany.edu:8008/JaynesBook.html
That's been a common theme since the advent of the air-to-air missile.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, we routinely get a lot of Asian air forces over here on exercise (in Australia). I go to their open days all the time and talk to the pilots and take photos of the planes.
Interestingly, the Royal Thai air force has the older Block 30 airframes, whereas the Singapore Air Force as the newer Block 50 airframes fully fitted out with ECM packs etc. They almost look like two completely different aircraft models if it wasn't for the iconic under fuselage intake.
This is oft repeated but not true. As advanced as missiles are, counter-measures are equally advanced. When two equally sophisticated planes engage each other, there's always the possibility that neither will shoot down the other, and they'll wind up in a dogfighting scenario.
Of course in recent history warfare has been highly asymmetrical, with advanced militaries only engaging weaker forces.
The F-16 is massively exported and now many countries have them, so that's why I was speculating about a variation.
Do you have any references on that?
Should take that with spoons of salt though.