One would think. But like I said, strange things happen in war. Just ask the Navy.. because when they shot down a bvr Iranian F14, it turned out to be a civilian Airbus with 290 passengers.



Missile guidance technology (when it works) is regularly defeated. Everything from electronic jamming or flares or something as simple as a side stepping laterally to avoid a missile's path or a combination of the above.

S-S, you are putting too much faith in the sales brochures from these weapons makers. So keep Murphy's Law of war in mind: Your weapon was made by the lowest bidder. http://www.ptsdsupport.net/battle_M.html

They are in this to make money, they do their testing in controlled environments, and they will tell you all kinds of wonderful stuff backed by wonderful numbers that usually doesn't apply in the realworld in a real war.




I never said it wasn't. BVR weapons have been in use since the last century.

As for when the last time the US had to dogfight; that would be anytime the USAF has had to fight somebody with an airforce.

So let's see the how the USAF's best fighter did against the Iraqis in air-to-air combat:

During the war, the Strike Eagles were tracked by Iraqi MiG-23s and MiG-29s and there were two notable opportunities for the F-15E to claim its first air-to-air kill. On the opening night one F-15E tracked a MiG-29 and attempted to engage it but had difficulties in acquiring the MiG-29's thermal signature in order to target an AIM-9 Sidewinder. The missile was eventually fired but failed to hit its target. Several other F-15Es simultaneously tried to engage the lone MiG-29 but errors and bad luck prevented them from getting the kill. One F-15E was actually flying past the Iraqi jet and manoeuvred in for the kill but the pilot hesitated to take the shot both because he was unsure where his wingmen were and because he didn’t get a good tone with the Sidewinder missile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15E_Strike_Eagle#F-15I

Notice how all that technology failed to even get one air-to-air kill (There actually was one air-to-air kill by an USAF F15... the pilot dropped a 2000lb bomb on an Iraqi helicopter flying at an altitude of 800ft.).





Now let's look at the F15 at the hands of the Israelis against the Syrians:

10 Syrian Mig-21s versus six IAF F15s. This battle lasted 3 minutes.
Final score was F15 with five kills. One by long range Sparrow (radar guided), three kills by mid range infrared missiles, and one gun kill at close range.

btw, the IAF F15's opening move was to fire a full salvo of BVR missiles... all of which failed to hit their targets. After that, it was all dogfighting.

~

For all time of Iraq war nobody from Iraq side dont used MIGs fighter.......and if they had them,its not mean,that they would fly good,its like monkey in fighter,i meant iraqians.....

You have yet to post any evidence giving me a reason not to believe them.

The systems do not have to be 100% perfect in order to give us an overwhelming advantage over our enemies. We have access to the same flares/jamming/whatever that they do. We have everything that they do. The reverse is not true.

I am unwilling to simply take your word for it that their claims are wrong.

Emphasis mine. Strike Eagles (F-15s) do not have stealth capability. They were not designed from the ground up with BVR in mind.

The F-22 and JSF were. Both fighters would have an advantages over the Migs, because they would be able to "see" and target the migs long before the Migs could do the same to them.

No one is debating that the F-15s are inferior to many 4th and 5th generation fighters. If they were not, we would not be prodicing the F-22 and JSF at all. You are making an apples to oranges comparison.

Supercruise means that even if what you are saying is true, the nextgen fighters could simply retreat, and regroup for another attempt. Current generation fighters, not being able to outrun them, would not be able to do the same thing. Nextgen fighters can attack safely from a distance. They are the ones with the initiative, even without the element of surprise.

Again, as with stealth, the F-15 does not have supercruise capability either. So it does not have this option.

That is what technology offers you; options.

I agree. But if there is a significant enough difference in technology, no amount of skill is going to bridge the gap. For example, even if you had the best fighter pilot in existance piloting a biplane, it would still fail against even a mediocre pilot flying a Mig or F-16. if there is a significant difference in technology, no amount of skill is going to make up for it.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Cos...they had MIGs of end 1970-th, its very very old,like ancient if to compare them with modern MIGs 29 or 31 and etc.....but those old MIGs was good too,because they were better in flight and speed.....20 years ago.....lol....so WHY USA trade by old technolgy and weapon..not modern things...?.....scarry or what?.... so in Iraw was american weapon too,because Iraq was good friend of USA for last 25 years....

supercruise... check.

stealth... check.

BVR? nope. Most air-to-air kills will still have to be done within visual range.

Actually there are plenty of instances when claims haven't lived up to reality. So believe the marketing hype if you want.. a lot of people did when when they built fighters without guns back in the 60s.

supercruise... check.

stealth... check.

BVR? nope. Most air-to-air kills will still have to be done within visual range.


You have yet to post any evidence giving me a reason not to believe them.

I am unwilling to simply take your word for it that their claims are wrong.
[/quote]

Actually there are plenty of instances when claims haven't lived up to reality. So believe the marketing hype if you want.. a lot of people did when when they built fighters without guns back in the 60s.

supercruise... check.

stealth... check.

BVR? nope. Most air-to-air kills will still have to be done within visual range.


You have yet to post any evidence giving me a reason not to believe them.

I am unwilling to simply take your word for it that their claims are wrong.
[/quote]

Actually there are plenty of instances when claims haven't lived up to reality. So believe the marketing hype if you want.. a lot of people did when when they built fighters without guns back in the 60s.

Are you sure?

The F-22 can mount the following missiles:

I think we can agree that 65 miles is beyond visual range.

And this is only the current generation of missiles. Missiles that are already in service.

Show me proof that this is one of them.

Your logic seems to be "it has happened before, therefore it must be happening now". I am unwilling to assume that by default.

Give me a reason why I should believe you instead of the hype.

This is not the 60s.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Found the definition for BVR:

Oh yeah, and the F-22 will come equipped with a cannon:

http://www.f22fighter.com/weapons.htm#cannon

Though it seems that we are (finally) headed in the direction of modular weapons. So even if it didnt, it could be added later.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?