I don't think the art will ever be lost. The US made this mistake just before its 'Nam adventures in that it thought with the new super amazing missiles of the time that dog-fighting was dead, so their fighters didn't have cannons, suddenly the Migs had the edge! And a large number of American planes and personnel were tragically lost through this oversight.
This lead to TopGun being setup.
No dog-fighting isn't dead.

Ozzy

Stealth may actually tend to increase the likelyhood of a dogfight...

Just imagine, no BVR (Beyond Visual Range) missile shots, IR missiles not working due to airflow cooling techniques.

Get in there and go to guns.

Quote:


NK and Iran are technically (for now) threats; although not neccesarally to the US, but to the other parts of the world. Silverfox made a good point there, i never thought about that. But yes, 'air wars' are bound to be very short in the coming years..

like silverfox said stealth may (actually will) increase the chances of a dogfight most us planes have no ammo in their guns now. Missiles are dumb and unrelieable, for every missile there is a counter-measure but you can't trick guns.

Because coat cutting is so very expensive these days right tempest?

assuming its the russians who develop them first.

Quote:


The russians are the only one still building real dogfighters.
i haven't seen the F-22 do a 'kulbit' or the famous 'cobra' even with steerable tailpipes, while the basic flanker can do it whitout having those

Quote:


As far as I can remember, the Tornado's 30mm is the same as that in the Typhoon. It's an old gun and has been in just about every RAF type since the Hunter.

  Every ten years or so some goverment analyst says "Dogfighting is dead."  This causes a shift in air force policy that gets sadly misproven when the next war rolls around.
  As long as there are bombers or attack aircraft, either manned or UCAVs, to be attacked or protected there will be dogfighting.

The F-18 can "Cobra" with ease.

McAir (McDonnell-Douglas) proved it with their test article. It just requires a minor mod to the flight control software to allow the computer to permit that flight mode.

All operators of the Hornet declined the mod...it's a neat trick at airshows, but doesn't do anything in combat.

Turning radius in todays airbattle is not as important as the ability to "point the nose". No plane does this as well as a Hornet.

I should point out the Flanker is only rated for 10G in manned flight. Same as any western fighter. It don't matter what the plane can handle...the pilot is only rated for 10G.

No Hornet has the flight control mod...so if you've seen one do it the pilot was holding the override down and flying with one hand...forces him to not use throttle to fly out of the manuever.

USAF disapproves of the manuever because they diasapprove of all stunt flying with the exception of designated air demonstration pilots. Those pilots then have to have their routine approved by higher command. Higher command only ever approves manuevers the pilots were trained for in flight school.

Archer is a very good missile, but off-axis targetting assumes that the launch aircraft will get into a position behind the target. It doesn't really do anything for you with a close in target going the other way or crossing.  Most air combat is won in the merge...so that Archer is going to be part of the burning rubble and the Hornet crew chief will be painting another SU-27 shape under the canopy.