Live data from Hacker News

Why are air combat kills so rare? (2017)

bbc.com

31–40 of 85 posts

Re: Why are air combat kills so rare? (2017)

#31
post #25
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iirc comparing modafinil and meth is like comparing budweiser and everclear.

So basically the same drug at different douses?

I think that's a fair evaluation, if not technically correct. But don't discount how different the effects can be: low-dose benadryl makes you sleepy. High dose benadryl makes you hallucinate people, spiders, and other things that aren't really there.

Re: Why are air combat kills so rare? (2017)

#32
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.

Re: Why are air combat kills so rare? (2017)

#33
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.

Re: Why are air combat kills so rare? (2017)

#34
post #7
post #3

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

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 :)

Ace Combat is the superior simulator.

>

Re: Why are air combat kills so rare? (2017)

#35
post #3

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

> probably on military-issued meth The US military issues meth? Source?

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

Re: Why are air combat kills so rare? (2017)

#36
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

Ace Combat is the superior simulator. >

But does Ace Combat have a dog fight a near an active volcano?

Checkmate Aceist.

Project Wingman is the superior game /s

Both games are great and crazy in their own right.

Re: Why are air combat kills so rare? (2017)

#37
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drugs_used_by_milita... Cousin of meth.

This is very strange to me considering that Adderall was a disqualifying factor when I joined the service. Very interesting, I had no idea this was used today. Appears that Amphetamine is no longer used but Modafinil is not even close to being "meth" > Modafinil is not considered to be a classical psychostimulant, but rather is classified as a eugeroic (wakefulness-promoting drug) and is used primarily for treatment…

These are only assumptions from what I've read and heard.

But from what I know, this also comes from the logistics standpoint. If you need a prescription of any kind to "function normal", they would need to supply that prescription anywhere anytime. I would assume the same with wisdom teeth. The risk of getting any problems during service are not worth taking.

So yeah, there is a difference between "I need this for functioning normally" versus "Take this in case of an emergency"

Re: Why are air combat kills so rare? (2017)

#38
post #3

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

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

And Dex

Re: Why are air combat kills so rare? (2017)

#39
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drugs_used_by_milita... Cousin of meth.

This is very strange to me considering that Adderall was a disqualifying factor when I joined the service. Very interesting, I had no idea this was used today. Appears that Amphetamine is no longer used but Modafinil is not even close to being "meth" > Modafinil is not considered to be a classical psychostimulant, but rather is classified as a eugeroic (wakefulness-promoting drug) and is used primarily for treatment…

[deleted]

Re: Why are air combat kills so rare? (2017)

#40

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.

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/...

Post reply on HN