Hacker News Reader

Comment by panki27 | Hacker News Reader

Aren't dogfights a relict of WW2? I don't think modern fighter jets would ever enter one, unless they have to rely on their cannon only. I think almost all A2A kills today happen out of visual range with long distance fire-and-forget missiles.

View on HN

That is true of America (Gulf War, not WW2), which has enjoyed air superiority in nearly all of its conflicts in the last few decades.[0]

But here’s a video of a dogfight between Russia and Ukraine fighters: https://eurasiantimes.com/ukrainian-su-27-flanker-dogfightin...

[0] https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/are-the-days-of-dogfights-over-...

That article itself seems to throw doubt on whether that was really a "dogfight":

>EurAsian Times reached out to Aviation Analyst Prashant Prabhakar, who sounded a more skeptical note.

>According to Prabhakar, “Dogfights – a term used to describe close-quarter aerial combat between fighter jets has been a major component of aerial wars at least until the early 90s. Modern terminology for the same is air combat maneuvering (ACM).

>As significant as they are, such maneuvers are hardly routine in modern air combat, much less seen by civilians on the ground.

>From what is reported, a Ukrainian Air Force Su-27 Flanker fighter is said to be deploying infrared flares to spoof an infrared-guided air-to-air missile, or AAM, fired by a Russian fighter jet, which again isn’t clearly shown in the video.

>As fascinating as it looks, I’d still be more interested in a more, perhaps clear video of the said “dogfight” for a better conclusion. Dogfights in the 21st century? Sounds too good to be true? Perhaps it is. or maybe not”.

I'd agree with his take. Dogfights, as the term alludes to, is close-quarters and scrappy, on top of each other. This appears to be more of taking evasive manoeuvers and ACM is more appropriate.

Do you think what the OP article describes is likewise not a dogfight?

Yes, I agree, that's interception.

Nothing concrete in the evidence. The so called Ukrainian fighter was never in the picture.

I nominally agree, although a WSJ military reporter saying this does add credence.

Pilots train dogfights a lot. They're not what you're thinking though. A 1v1 dogfight is over in one or two maneuvers and depends heavily on what kind of planes are involved.

Honestely, the chance of getting even in a 1v1 dogfight is just super slim. Missiles and radars have beyond view range capabilities so the fighter would already be death before a visual can be taken.

A quick review of Wikipedia shows that the F-35 and F-22 are both capable (or are always equipped?) with multibarrel cannons. Why? When was the last time a US or NATO plane scored an air-to-air combat kill with a gun? I can kind of see the justification for the F-35 since it's a multi-role plane, with some configurations designed for closely supporting ground forces.

In Vietnam ROE were tight enough that the BVR sparrow couldn't be fired until within sight leading to dogfights.

Regardless, I don't think a "dogfight" would happen at Mach 11. The energy involved is staggering, I imagine you'd have more casualties due to tearing apart the airframe from g-forces than weapon's fire.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com