Why are air combat kills so rare? (2017)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-40327934

by Tomte • 5 years ago

43 80 5 years ago

fnord123• 5 years ago

Behind an illegal cookie popup.

Readywater• 5 years ago

Fox 2 Do you consent to us using your HUD telemetry for post mission analysis? The f… FOX 2 Do you consent to us using your HUD telemetry for post mission analysis?

HOW DO I SAY YES?!

a3w2• 5 years ago

You missile will launch after this ad for… Thomson‘s Coffins! Burying Tommys for decades! No unhappy customers!

Besticle• 5 years ago

BBC doesn't do adverts.

a3w2• 5 years ago

„Reader view“ in some browsers removed the banner, but not the text content.

jzellis• 5 years ago

Because you're trying to shoot something flying at 500 miles an hour, piloted by a tiny lunatic who actually thought this sort of thing was a good career move and is probably on military-issued meth, with a projectile the size of your thumb, while also being the exact same sort of lunatic? :-D

_benj• 5 years ago

Have been watching videos of DCS World (which btw, seem to do a pretty good job as a simulator) and it’s just precisely like you described.

I’d say that a simulator is marginally less “lunatic” but still :)

bencollier49• 5 years ago

The "Grim Reapers" videos are great fun. Love watching them occasionally with my sons.

Victerius• 5 years ago

Ace Combat is the superior simulator.

<< This is what V2 is for. >>

meheleventyone2• 5 years ago

Can definitely recommend IL2 for WW2 flavored dogfighting. It's easily one of the best VR games despite pre-dating the latest round of VR.

Shooting up (well trying to) some 110s in a P39 in multiplayer: https://twitter.com/meheleventyone/status/141347312227197337...

notahacker• 5 years ago

But if your missiles are effective enough, they take care of the bit about finding and hitting the target for you. The article explains it as enemy forces not having anyone loony enough to think actually getting within range is going to advance their career.

I blame Joseph Heller.

gilleain• 5 years ago

Well concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that are real and immediate is the process of a rational mind.

ashtonkem• 5 years ago

The issue with the missiles is that the other side also has them, and is quite keen to use theirs without being hit by yours. Combatants have a way of learning to neutralize each other’s advantages, and claims of weapon system capabilities are almost always overstated.

2OEH8eoCRo03• 5 years ago

probably on military-issued meth

The US military issues meth? Source?

techer• 5 years ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drugs_used_by_milita...

Cousin of meth.

polotics• 5 years ago

No but it is common knowledge amongst pilots that Dexedrine is for shizzle...

michaelt• 5 years ago

According to https://goflightmedicine.com/stimulants-sleep-aids/

in 1960 the United States Air Force sanctioned use of Amphetamine as a counter-fatigue measure in flight operations. The medication was used widely by USAF and Army aircrew during the Vietnam Conflict. [...] In the USAF, three sleep aids (temazepam aka Restoril, zolpidem aka Ambien, & zaleplon aka Sonata)and two stimulants (dextroamphetamine aka Dexedrine & modafanil aka Provigil) are approved for use by certain aircrew in particular operational situations.

I don't know whether this is done for basic 3-4 hour missions as a matter of course, or whether they're reserved for unusual, 24-hour-plus missions

ericbarrett3• 5 years ago

The Nazis issued meth ("pervitin") to all branches of their armed forces, including the Luftwaffe. So this is definitely true in a historical context.

galcerte• 5 years ago

They used to do that, but now they issue modafinil I believe. Much safer.

the__alchemist3• 5 years ago

And Dex

lkxijlewlf2• 5 years ago

... with a projectile the size of your thumb

I have a dummy shell from an A10 at my desk. Here's an image (not mine) (the nearly 12" shell on the far left):

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-23308fca719553f998cbc4...

Now, the A10 is air to ground, and these shells are made for killing tanks and not aircraft and you're not wrong in that the projectile isn't that much larger than a thumb, but just seeing the dang thing. I mean, it's crazy what we come up with to destroy.

meheleventyone2• 5 years ago

Aircraft in WW2 used even bigger caliber rounds as well. The advancement over the war from firing machine guns to cannons is pretty bonkers.

melony• 5 years ago

Is that a HEAT round?

defaultprimate• 5 years ago

Missiles and 20mm are a lil bigger than than your thumb, but your point still stands lol

josephkern2• 5 years ago

Why are we discussing an article from 2017 with no real information besides, USA number 1?

Asymmetry is the key to airpower, if you don't have it you won't have it.

Look-first shoot-first is only one kind of asymmetric advantage.

ARandomerDude• 5 years ago

Asymmetry is the key to airpower

No -- it can't be possible! I always hear people say "flexibility is the key to airpower." I feel so lost.

josephkern2• 5 years ago

John Boyd and Ben Rich would both disagree with the concept of "flexibility".

JohnWhigham• 5 years ago

TLDR: Because SAMs have gotten so good at their jobs, air forces don't even bother.

2OEH8eoCRo03• 5 years ago

The article doesn't say that anywhere.

sokoloff• 5 years ago

The article talks entirely about air-to-air combat and the imbalance caused by the superior beyond-visual-engagement capabilities of major air powers.

It says nothing about surface-to-air missiles.

AdrianB1• 5 years ago

It's mostly because conflicts are rare. The conflicts of the past 20 years were very small and asymmetrical in nature, there was no open conflict between 2 militaries that both have significant air power.

sklargh• 5 years ago

Air to air combat kills are rare because the strategic circumstances that would make them numerous enough to be unexceptional would likely tree up to minor-to-major nuclear conflict.

More directly, am struck that the average person has yet to internalize that in modern high-intensity conflict detection roughly = mission kill if not outright destruction. Everything operationally important (air, sea, ground) that wants to survive needs to avoid emission/detection long enough to detect something else first and destroy it.

the__alchemist3• 5 years ago

More directly, am struck that the average person has yet to internalize that in modern high-intensity conflict detection roughly = mission kill if not outright destruction. Everything operationally important (air, sea, ground) that wants to survive needs to avoid emission/detection long enough to detect something else first and destroy it.

Only if you're willing to go in the enemy's weapons engagement zones - whether that's a fighter or surface-based system. Detection/track ranges are generally much higher.

Tuna-Fish2• 5 years ago

Detection/track ranges are generally much higher.

This is absolutely not true. For modern weapons, the effective range is generally limited by detection, whether you are talking about heavy SAM (like the S-400, with it's 400km range) or modern AAM (like the Meteor or R77M, with ranges ~200km).

As a rule, it's relatively cheap and easy to increase missile range, so they are not limited by ability but by choice. SAM ranges are pushed past reasonable detection ranges because it allows siting the missiles more to the rear, which is safer, and for the missile batteries to provide mutual support. AAM ranges are pushed past detection to increase the size of the no-escape zone, which is usually thought to be more important than the actual maximum range.

MisterTea• 5 years ago

A thought about dog fights: As they fire large heavy rounds at each other (.50 BMG or bigger), have there been any accounts of ground casualties or damage from these stray rounds? Or do the bullets lose too much velocity (the .50 BMG has been shown to be effective up to 3+km)? I'd imagine the odds of getting hit are VERY slim but not impossible.

krisoft• 5 years ago

I'm not sure about ground casualties but there is a story about a Grumman F11 which run into its own bullets:

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/pilot-talk/2021/10/04/...

thereddaikon• 5 years ago

They are rare because its rare for air forces to meet in the air. Last time that happened at any real scale was 30 years ago in ODS. Since then the active air forces of the west have been dropping bombs on groups like ISIS who don't have fighters. And even in ODS there weren't that many A2A kills because most Iraqi aircraft were destroyed on the ground.

skhr0680• 5 years ago

1. Fighter jets in battle-ready condition are rare to start, even more so one flying in the right spot at the right time to shoot down a hostile jet

2. No one is dumb enough to even try fighting US jets with their own. US have the best aircraft, missiles, and more flying hours than anyone else

vagrantJin• 5 years ago

US have the best aircraft, missiles, and more flying hours than anyone else

Well said.

That arrogance must come in handy for bombing goat herders in the desert.

GoodbyeMrChips• 5 years ago

The drones are for bombing wedding parties. (The reader may wish to let that sentence sink in).

Link: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=drone+wedding+party

twobitshifter2• 5 years ago

2* no one the us has gone to war with.

secondcoming• 5 years ago

I believe there were regular dogfights during the Falklands War in the 1980's.

greedo• 5 years ago

The air combat in the Falklands was largely interceptions, not dogfights. The British used Sea Harriers and the GR3 Harriers, both of which have surprising agility. They were challenged with stopping attacks from the Argentine Navy and Air Force that were targeting the RN ships transporting the RN Marines.

There were three primary Argentine aircraft used in the conflict; the Super Entendard, the Dagger (an Israeli Mirage derivative) and the A-4 Skyhawk. The Super Entendard gained fame because of its successful use of the Exocet ASM. It never engaged in A2A combat with any British forces.

The Daggers and Skyhawks could have tried to engage the Harriers, but that wasn't their mission tasking. They carried nothing but bombs and attacked the RN ships (sinking 7 and damaging many more). They were operating at the very edge of their range, and didn't have enough fuel to do more than skim in, drop bombs, and flee. The Skyhawks had airborne refueling capabilities, but this was very limited since the Argentines only had 2 tankers.

pjc50• 5 years ago

"After the totally lopsided kill-to-loss ratio attained by the US Air Force and US Navy during the First Gulf War, it is a very rare thing for regimes under attack by the US and its allies to send fighters up in defence - since they know how it will end."

Symmetric warfare is old hat. It's all asymmetric warfare now: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/17/yemens-houthis-claim-suspect...

("tanker" appears to mean "truck" rather than "ship" in this context, and "drone" is probably the small quadcopter style rather than what the USAF means by "drone")

ho_schi• 5 years ago

This is true. And this holds up until enemy forces have advanced electronic warfare capabilities.

Radar and radio jammers are usual in modern warfare. And the worst case is an EMP. The Russians considered elctronic warfare already in the Russo-Japanese War. During WWII the British jammed the German radio navigation. Technology isn't making you automatically superior - you need to able to able apply it. And if not, a reliable fallback is needed. Remember the F4 which initially had no internal cannon because the US believed the "superior" rockets will do everything? It didn't worked well in Vietnam. The internal cannon is a feature of every modern fighter and the Navy founded TOPGUN.

I've no clue what happens in future. But I would keep a close look on who is doing well with electronic protection (EP). And we didn't speak about the elephant in the room, computer networks. Which are hopefully autonomous without the need of an network support. Don't connect anything important - like a fighter aircraft - to a network.

raducu3• 5 years ago

I'm sure at some point there were soldiers who could have used a sword or bayonet, but eventually those were not needed anymore.

The same with cannons in fighter planes.

twobitshifter2• 5 years ago

I think fighter jets will go extinct some time in the near future. The maneuvering, speed and stealth of drones will soon outdo any manned fighter because they’ll push beyond the limits of human physiology. Even more, the cost of the drones will be cheaper.

ericbarrett3• 5 years ago

Agreed; in fact I think we're already there and the only reason the human pilot hasn't shaken out of the equation is lack of a large-scale war to prove how ineffective they are. If there was such a conflict—and it somehow avoided going nuclear—who would win, the side that can make a few hundred fighters and trained pilots a year, or the side that can crank out 10,000+ drones in a month?

raducu3• 5 years ago

We could go a step further and think robot infantry soldiers, but airplanes are easier to automate.

I'm sure that if the same effort was put into self-driving self-shooting tanks as in teslas, the result would be more than adequate vs humans.

davmonk• 5 years ago

Don't they have some kind of homing missiles in which they can lock in targets?

lillecarl2• 5 years ago

This reads like a political advert from the US weapons industry to convince people that 20% of national spending on warfare is perfectly reasonable in peace times.

I'm doubtful they're(the F-whatever) technologically superior to our little Swedish beast the "Jas-Gripen"[0].

The US just has more military than anyone they're messing with.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

thrill2• 5 years ago

"This reads like a political advert from the US weapons industry to convince people that 20% of national spending on warfare is perfectly reasonable in peace times."

Because you go to war with what you have, which has long lead times to design and build and position and train and maintain and employ and resupply.

lillecarl2• 5 years ago

You're not wrong and it's not all bad. There are so very many useful technological advances though that spending. It still reads like an ad to me, which is weird when it's BBC

zoomablemind• 5 years ago

Air combat would logically take place when air superiority is contested. If there's no contest (as one side is overwhelmingly superior), then the strategy would rather shift to ground-based anti-aircraft defense.

It seems that during active conflicts the main job of air forces remains focused on causing lots of damage on the ground rather than sweeping the skies clear. Just as in old bi-plane days, drive by and dump hand grenades into tranches from above...

On the other hand, in peace time, sweeping skies is the main job. I think each successful intercept of enemy craft or in-air detection should be counted as a kill-surrogate.

Sure there are plenty of aces on current duty by this count in Northern Europe airforces and in Alaska/Arctic zones, where intercepts of Russia's warring air-cosmic-force activities have dramatically increased in frequency recently.

I remember watching some newscast about a politician meeting at an airbase somewhere in Lithuania, with a NATO fighter jet as a background; the in-progress meeting suddenly had to be cancelled, as we could see pilots all dressed up running to the jet to scramble it for an intercept alert. Here it is:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41459/presidential-pre...

simonblack• 5 years ago

Only "at the moment".

In my opinion, we are about to have another 'big one' within the next 5-10 years. When that happens, people will be saying "Why are there so many air combat kills?"

Why are air combat kills so rare? (2017)

Related Stories