Looking at this past war, it seems to me like a shift has occured.  With all the major air forces of the world allied now, is dogfighting going to become a lost art?  The only real threats today (as far as air power goes) to the NATO forces is China and we're not likely to be in any kind of a shooting war with them any time soon.  In Gulf War version 1 and 1.1 there was no aerial combat, only ground attacks.  So what do you think?  Is there a shift away from air to air combat?

Nope, it probably isnt dead. China is not the only 'threat': Iran, NK...and maybe some others.
Remember that dogfighting is when two planes rattle around each other trying to shoot each other down. It doesnt matter if its with missles or guns. In the first Iraq war there were actually at least 30 kills or so i heard. most of them by F15s. Anyways dogfighting isnt dead....its dormant...for now.

Yeah, but let's be real; North Korea or Iran are NOT a threat to US or Britain (or Canada, don't feel left out).  I'm not saying there wouldn't be any action or that we wouldn't take any losses.  But any air war where the object is to achieve superiority is going to be short and sweet from now on.

the thing is how many air battles will we actually ever here about? remember bush likes to keep much of his activitys secret and an air battle would prob be one of them. notice how there was no reports of the iraqi airforce at all, doesnt mean they wernt up there it could just mean it was kept a secret.
i personally think dogfight will always be around and a great art, in a sense it will only become a better art as the tactics have to change with technology

I read recently that RAF Typhoons will not have the gun option included, but all other nations will keep it. I just hope this does not mean we are going the way of the US in the years between Korea and Nam when they built fighters without guns because they thought the missile would be the only weapon they needed. Although missiles are now much more advanced than in the 60's, I'm sure most pilots would feel a bit better knowing they had the gun if needed.
The ommission of the Typhoons gun is most likely due to coat cutting rather than the fact that Typoon will have good missiles. Once again, people behind desks are deciding the fate of the men on the front line.

as soon as someone manages to make a laser gun in such a compact package that can be mounted on a fighter jet, any missile will be useless because it can be used as a defensive weapon.
Then you have to revert to dogfights once again, and you will see the Vietnam guns problem being repeated, with again the russians on the winning site in the beginning

could someone explain the math in the ommision of a gun in the Typhoon, each plane will cost £50m and the UK is getting 230 something, what percentage of the overall cost will be saved? Also if they dont want to buy new guns what the hell is wrong with the Tornados guns, they wont need em sinse they will be melted down when the Typhoon comes on the scene.

no, but then again have we really seen what it is  fully capable of, one way or another no other fighter will compare for a long time with the F-22, and thats what it was developed for, the cobra is a very risky manouvere to do in combat in my opinion and if the plane was fully loaded with missiles i doubt it would be a a good idea to attempt it, i am not much of an expert on russian aircraft not really my interests so you can correct that,
if i remember rightly i read somewhere about the flanker not being able to do the cobra with a fully loaded plane but again just what i have read. so again correct if i am wrong