Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why are air combat kills so rare? (2017)

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 85 posts

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

#71

Post by zoomablemind »

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...

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

#72

Post by foxyv »

bencollier49 wrote: post #12
_benj wrote: 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 :)

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

Check out Hellreign82. I love his stuff. I'm sure you've already seen Growling Sidewinder as well!

https://www.youtube.com/c/Hellreign82

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

#73

Post by greedo »

secondcoming wrote: post #45

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

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.

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

#74

Post by meheleventyone »

_benj wrote: post #7
jzellis wrote: 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 :)

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...

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

#75

Post by GoodbyeMrChips »

vagrantJin wrote: post #48
skhr0680 wrote: post #44

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

> 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.

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

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

#76

Post by melony »

lkxijlewlf wrote: post #42
jzellis wrote: 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

> ... 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…

Is that a HEAT round?

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

#77

Post by laverya »

melony wrote: post #76
lkxijlewlf wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... 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…

Is that a HEAT round?

Blue is generally training [0], but the standard loadout for the A-10 was a 5:1 mix of depleted uranium API and HEI rounds. (per wiki [1]) I think there was a move to change that ratio given that they were much more likely to be shooting unarmored technicals than T-69s, though. (And you wouldn't put HEAT in a 30mm projectile anyways, far too small diameter)

0: https://fbcinc.com/source/Northrop_Resources/30_x_173mm_Full...

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger

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

#78

Post by thrill »

zeroflow wrote: post #37
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

The US military has no requirement to preemptively remove wisdom teeth.

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

#79

Post by thrill »

lillecarl wrote: post #65

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

"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.

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

#80

Post by lillecarl »

thrill wrote: post #79
lillecarl wrote: post #65

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

"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.

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
Post reply on HN