Myth : The days of dog fighting is over

[linkxsc]

i love that, in top gun, we learn WW1 tactics used to fight using a propeller driven plane. And we're gonna study how to use those on an F-14 or now an F-18E/F

dog fighting will never be over, basically its a constant race to make better missiles, better anti missile systems, and how to beat missiles often comes down to getting up close and getting behind them, which takes dogfighting skills

[warwolfii]

General Blesse was not only an outstanding pilot, he had a great deal to do with writing "the book" on modern fighter tactics. When I was in the Air Force in the mid 60s, our hero was Col. Robin Olds, the rather large chap who speaks from the cockpit of the jet in this video. When told that the new motto of the Strategic Air Command was "Peace is our profession," Col. Olds tersely replied, "It's not MY profession!" There was a fighter jock!

[437thx1138]

Don't you think that we will go unmanned in the near future though? Dogfighting will continue but AI not limited by a human body G limit will eventually take over. Don't like it but will happen pretty soon I think.

[ATFSCrash]

437thx1138: I dont doubt that more fighting will be done with UAVs; I just doubt and challenge any "wisdom" that claims that ALL of our aircraft should be UAVs. I think a significant portion of our force should remain piloted by humans. AI is not currently (nor in the near future) as flexible and able to wisely adapt to unforeseen circumstances (things it is not program for), and is more vulnerable to jamming, hacking, and EMP.

[Goose511th]

If we go to War against a country with a real Air Force (pretty much Russia, China or Iran), then I hope our Generals realize that dogfighting is still an essential and necessary skill.. otherwise, a lot of pilots are going to die needlessly. Iraq was trounced twice in part because their Air Force mounted no meaningful opposition, and this seems to have influenced planners thinking..

[nelsonmars]

Iran has a formidable Air Force? Better recheck your sources.

[ATFSCrash]

nelsonmars: As odd as it sounds; there could be some truth to what he says. In most ways I would think in comparison to the US and Iran's Air Force would be relatively small, primitive and in disrepair. However a word of caution; be careful not to underestimate a potential adversary; underestimating an adversary often makes them more dangerous. Learn from Pearl Harbor, 9/11, etc... A potential adversary will sometimes feign weakness; to lull an opponent to become overconfident, complacentandweak

[nelsonmars]

Point well taken.

[mossmusic]

"Boots" Blesse!! He was an awesome fighter pilot.

[garybooker]

I think this also shows that you shouldn't be so quick to draw conclusions on things in which you have not been provided evidence. The Pentagon had nothing to base their conclusions on and jumped head first into an assumption, and paid for it with the lives of American pilots.

[lolermanche]

2:16 baby thats the Canadian Avro Arrow! WOOT

[lsnows]

I thought it was an F-102.

[ClancD]

Yeah, the American roundel kinda gives it away...

[john33STEW]

it is

[soccerboy274613]

Dogfights are over ! just million dollar aircraft getting blown out of the sky with 5000 dollar missle .... its technology.

[ATFSCrash]

Soccerboy274613: Thanks for demonstrating that there are still people that are too dumb to learn from history.

Who says that missiles cant be spoofed by countermeasures? Who says that an aircraft armed with a laser couldnt shoot down million-dollar missiles? Its possible that in a decade or two from now that fighters will be armed with lasers that can kill missiles ( not just jam) and aircraft.

Missiles are heavy, slow, expensive and poorly maneuverable compared to lasers.

[irishash85]

aw man.. wanted to hear what Top Gun pilot at the end had to say

[jsr1200]

Close in fighting always has been.Always will be.Even in ACM.Although I believe it,and the maneuvers done will evolve.Besides,it makes one a better well rounded pilot in my opinion.You do/will run out of missile's,and anyone who can dogfight could decimate those who rely on gadgets.After all gadgets can fail,and pilot's skill is alweays a factor.Just my .02cents, have a good one.

[Zizou4mvp]

This isnt a myth.. its reality... now a days all they do is push a button n the fights over

[ATFSCrash]

Zizou4mvp: We have heard that story before. If you dont learn from history, youre doomed to repeat it. Complicated systems can fail, especially when countermeasures are used. So I wouldnt be entirely surprised if turning and burning type of dogfights are still possible in the future.

[rdvd7]

no matter how long time and arieal combat stretch on there will always be dogfights even in space its a fact of air combat

[Cuddlytwo]

I remember being 8 years old and taping this Nova episode on VHS. Great, great documentary. Thanks for posting this.

[Esuavio]

Perhaps i am wrong, i don't know enough about the electronic warfare package on the f-22 but i would think that the stealth on modern fighters might make dogfights impossible in the short run but when the rest of the world has stealth aircraft then the range at which our fighters can acquire targets will be hugely diminished and in order to fire on an enemy plane our fighter will have to get closer than before making dogfights much more common and expected.

[nextgenerationlibert]

You know, it's funny. Even today, people are saying the dogfight is over with the creation of "stealth" aircraft. Luckily, our F-22 and F-35 still carry a gun to get the job done ;)

[CroakerMD]

I don't think the dogfight is going anywhere so long as there are combat aircraft. Even UCAVs I expect will have guns. When missiles run out or fail, or you need an all purpose tool to take care of targets of opportunity, guns are a great option to have.

[randomusernamemygod]

With missles technology now it would be rare to even get close enough for close range missles, combat tactics now is fire of BVR missles and turn and burn in order evade enemy missles and to rearm. Lebannon and the Falklands were one of the last wars when Guns were used and that was in 1982. However I would always want to have a gun mounted, always.

[ATFSCrash]

randomusernamemygod: On the contrary. Don't plan and expect combat to always be predictable. Stealth only gives an advantage and is not always perfect and opponents might have stealth in the future.

[randomusernamemygod]

Air combat is never predictable. Never talked about stealth. NATO doctrine in wartime not skirmishes make full use of an air forces BVR capability, aircraft would roll in one at a time selecting a target and hit with BVR missles then turn round and fly away from the enemy aircraft to help evade any enemy missles. Tactics are different for many situations and the ROE for that situation. The AIM-54 was designed for fleet defense or on the offense in wartime not maritime of patrol.

[ATFSCrash]

randomusernamemygod: In recent years more US aircraft have been shot down in combat by ATA friendly fire then by enemy ATA.

The rules of engagement are generally tighter since the shoot down of; Korean Air Lines Flight 902, Korean Air Lines Flight 007, Iran Air Flight 655, Siberia Airlines Flight 1812.

The majority of kills in recent history have been WVR.

[ATFSCrash]

randomusernamemygod: Due to the rules of engagement BVR missiles often won't be used, that's part of the reason that the AIM-54 was essentially retired. To prevent friendly fire, the rules of engagement often require visual identification, therefore most combat is likely to happen WVR and increase the odds of a gunfight.

[1z1q]

woyal wair fworce

[ATFSCrash]

1z1q: Yes he does sound a little like a Bugs Bunny cartoon or alarmingly like that homosexual liberal House Representative Barney Frank.

[technoswitch]

true bro,... at the end.. when all missiles are expanded and you can't run - you face your opponent with a 20mm or 30mm cannon/gun, and may the best skilled pilot fly home... agree

[AviationFavorites]

Thanks for uploading. I was watching 'Dogfights' the other day, and on it the History Channel stated that 2/3's of all air to air kills in the Gulf War occurred beyond visual range. But that still leaves 33% of the time where winning (and living) depend on a pilots ability to get behind his opponent and shoot him down.

[steeda1984]

5:01 hit pause and look at that picture and tell me what you see. This is the problem with the US Military. Not one single Minority in that picture. I'm sure i will get blasted for saying this. But it's true.

[ATFSCrash]

steeda1984: You sound like a bigot to me. I can't tell for sure from the back of their heads what their sex are let alone what their race is. At 5:01 everyone seems to be light-skinned, however isn't it bigoted of you to assume that they are not some sort of light-skinned minority? Are we not all minorities in some sense? You need to learn not to hate and not to see things with the eyes of a bigot.

[ATFSCrash]

steeda1984: Race is not a determining factor to become a fighter pilot. There used to be discrimination against women being fighter pilots, however that policy has been changed. I'm not so sure it was a good idea to change that policy. Part of the reason it is tradition that men be in front-line combat and women be excluded from front-line combat, is because men are more expendable and women are needed to repopulate if there is severe decimation in war.

[UNspacycadet]

Though I respect your opinion, and agree with your statement over steeda's comment, I must say that when I become a pilot, I want a female wingman. I can't give real valid reason why, I just do.

[ATFSCrash]

steeda1984: In order to be a fighter pilot you have to volunteer and qualify with skills. Race, sex, religion, is not a factor in the selection Process. Should we start becoming racist and ignore qualifications and start making bigoted quotas and whom determines what the bigoted quotas will be? Should we lower our standards and start selecting and drafting individuals with less skills and qualifications, to meet your bigoted quotas?

[ATFSCrash]

steeda1984: The US military did have a racist policy before World War II, however it largely started to change during World War II. For the most part racist policies in the military ended by the end of the war. For the most part racial desegregation and equality happened in the military before it happened in the civilian population.

[ATFSCrash]

steeda1984: In order to be a fighter pilot you have to volunteer and qualify with skills. Race, sex, religion, is not a factor in the selection Process. Should we start becoming racist and ignore qualifications and start making bigoted quotas and whom determines what the bigoted quotas will be? Should we lower our standards and start selecting and drafting individuals with less skills and qualifications, to meet your bigoted quotas?

[ATFSCrash]

steeda1984 "I'm sure i will get blasted for saying this."

That's probably because you know deep down in your heart that what you say is bigoted. It's probably because you have said such bigoted things before and have experience being blasted for saying bigoted things.

[ArmAFan]

FallenPhoenix86

Are you joking? Stealth fighters not beign able to lock onto each other.... They will be able to do this. Modern radars still see stealth aircraft.

[tubub]

Haha think again... the only way to prove some people wrong is to actually have to go to war and kick someone's ass and that's what also put people into shape. I gurantee you that with a world war tearing the world apart any day emos, hippies, goths, punks and all that lot would have to shape up... war's hell though im just pointing out how stupid people are today taking things for granted. the f-22 has some top capabilities kid that you do not know of and will probably never know

[UNspacycadet]

f-22 is not the end-all of aircraft. i believe the Dassault Rafale-m, EF-2000 eurofighter, Russian Su-35/37 etc. could give the 'raptor' a run for its money.

and nothing you have said has rebutted the above statement. radar still 'detects' stealth. high-end radar can say its a plane and not a sparrow.

PS: where'd the hell you get goths and emos into this? what do they have to do w/ anything being discussed here?

[flitzer888]

right

[GordonofSeattle]

I agree, I have a hard time beleving dogfighting will be dead for some time. I am glad they learned from the mistake of not arming the Phantoms? with a cannon and supplied the F-22 with one.

The guy at 3:55 is funny

good video, thanks

[rdenham]

I absolutely love this NOVA episode I can't count how many times I watched this show in the late eighties, in fact it is one of the main reasons why I fell in love with military aviation & joined AFROTC.

It's the first time I saw Randall "Duke" Cunningham & Robin Olds on video; it sad that one is now in jail and the other has passed away.

[Tomcatter31]

The conflict was about territorial waters. Lybia claimed much of the Gulf of Sidra was theirs and declared a line of death. International rules state that only 12 miles beyond your coast is territorial water. The US Navy challenged them and held exercises in what they (and international law) considered international waters. Lybia often sent fighters to challenge US aircraft. Only 2 engagements ended up with shots fired, both ending with Lybian fighters being downed.

[atlanticl]

which is strange though on the part of the Libyans. Why "challenge" if you can't fight with all your assets? including Russian arms support which was openly vast to them...they are strange creatures.

[atlanticl]

and "example" of such conflict can be the "Falkland Wars" where the Argentinians put up a good fight (meaning a hard fight; which they lost unfortunately for them) and the conflict lasted for I believe 1-2 years.

[FallenPhoenix86]

dog fights are not over, sooner or latter russia or china will develop a response to the F-22 so what do you get when two stealth fighters encounter each other unable to lock missiles on each other?

[JetFireblade]

Thank you! I've been saying this all my life!

[nailersrule]

Fighting to the death, and your saying there should be a fair way to do it?

[tjmac7]

Well actually yeah but i wouldnt expect an american to have heard of the Geneva convention lol

[ATFSCrash]

tjmac7: Actually the U. S. is one of the few countries that takes the Geneva conventions fairly seriously. There are countries like Japan that refused to sign the Geneva Convention and promoted officers that violated it during WW II. Saddam's regime promoted individuals that violated the Geneva Convention. Whereas the US has even been known to punish its own and criticize itself for violations.

[ATFSCrash]

tjmac7: The only US celebrity that I can think of in recent history that was celebrated after allegedly committing war crimes, is Democrat John Kerry. I think his war atrocities were fake. I think his testimony was perjury. However if his testimony is true, then that means he committed war atrocities and that he falsified documents. That means the Democrats knowingly elected a war criminal that falsified documents.

[ATFSCrash]

tjmac7: So either Democrat John Kerry faked war atrocities and committed perjury or he is a war criminal that falsified documents and the Liberals elected him into office. The Liberals claim they believe John Kerry's story and call him a hero; apparently Liberals think committing atrocities makes liberals a hero. I would think that committing war atrocities would disqualify a person from being a war hero.

[tjmac7]

It was a cheap joke, most governments commit crimes when no one is looking.

[ATFSCrash]

tjmac7: I thought it might be a jab as a joke, however it can insight bigotry and fallacies as it was stated. There never has been a major war that all sides didn't commit some sort of war crime. However generally most nations try to abide by some minimal level of decency such as the Geneva Convention. To me there is a big difference between a rare and small violations that are not sanctioned by the state, compared to large and frequent crimes that are encouraged and rewarded by the state.

[tjmac7]

Yanks dont like a fair fight anyway so wtf!

[ATFSCrash]

There is nothing unfair about having a fair advantage.

[stfuensuck]

Haha cry because wherever your from can't fight

[briareos02]

tjmac7, in order for there to be a winner in a fight, one side has to have a tactical advantage over the other. So there is really no such thing as a fair fight. If both sides are trully equal, then all you'll get is a draw.

[adodgygeeza]

All well and good given 1970's technology but today there hasn't been a manoeuvring dogfight with US aircraft since 1973. The vast majority of kills were taken with AIM-7 missiles in Desert Storm and since then all of the NATO kills have been with AIM-120. At close range everyone will die at the same rate when they have all got off boresighted missiles that can hit targets irrespective to the orientation of the aircraft.

[tauqeer1]

I agree 100%

[272919]

In 1989 2 F14s engaged in a close range dogfight with Libyan mig 23s shooting both down.

[adodgygeeza]

The Libyan Migs took no evasive action and fired no weapons. None of the recent air combats with NATO forces ever progressed further than initial manoeuvring followed by a successful missile strike. Not what I would call a traditional turning dogfight.

[272919]

lol watch the guncam genius.

[atlanticl]

I read about that back in '89, when I was 12. Those Migs were unarmed, and on a training mission when the F-14's knocked them down.

[272919]

If they were on a training mission why did they keep turning towards the F14s then? They kept matching all the Tomcats maneuvers and so they had a less than friendly intentions.

[nicolas1021]

Probably because they wanted to see a tomcat up close? I'd sure want to if I was a pilot. They probably thought it would make good 'intercept pics' or something. It's still a possiblity that they were unarmed.

[272919]

lol you've got to be kidding, if the situation was reversed and the US gave the excuse you just gave "Our pilots just wanted to see a mig up close" I wonder how many people would die laughing

[Tomcatter31]

@atlanticl. Wrong! The US navy sent pictures taken with the F-14's TCS system to the UN, showing the Mig23's were fully armed.

[fludblud]

thats reason why the USAF hasnt engaged in a dogfight since 1973 is because the USAF hasnt engaged a modern air force since 1973.

how can you use under equipped and under trained lybians and iraqis as examples to discount dogfighting?

saying dogfighting is obsolete is just like saying there will never be a need for a bayonet. guess what? the last bayonet charge was by the argyll and sutherland highlanders in Iraq 2004!

[MoshotheSpear]

I saw this years ago. Col. Robin Olds is great.

[logbasher]

I like that line "I have it on good authority this is not happening!" I've seen him talk about the F4 Phantom on a Phantom Vid I have..i'll dig it out & see if there's any stuff I can upload?

[ATFSCrash]

It is a quote I love to hate and love to quote as fallacy.  I sympathize and identify greatly with the pilot that said that.

[ATFSCrash]

In reminds me of when frontline troops were being overrun and they called for reinforcements or and fire support, and their response was something to the effect. "there are no enemies in the area, you must be mistaken"

People wonder why I do not always trust or believe so-called experts.

[gangrail]

sabre is a awesome plane it was design to fight against the russian mig

[virgule888]

When the Sabre entered armed conflict over Korea the US administration HAD NO CLUE the Soviets had Jet fighters too. It was a shock to the US pilots to say the least. US broadcasted a message promising a great reward for a Mig delivered to them. They got one fully armed on top of that. Prior to the delievery, F86 and Mig15 were pretty much on par kill ratio wise but post to the delivery it flipped over to about 11:1 in favor of F86.

[atlanticl]

it is a good plane indeed. But then and I guess even today SKILL is still a main component. If you have the skills, no matter the plane, you will more likely beat down your opponent; unless the plane is generations ahead where the stakes may raise for the opponent.