Random Thoughts - Part III The Search for Spark (No Politics)

[ichitaka05]

Last month, I've entered into local pro soccer team 3 days fantasy camp thingy. Surprisingly, I've won it and gonna be meeting the players along w quick warm-up exhibition match. It's happening tonight through Saturday (2~3hrs each day), I'm excited that I can't focus on work...

[soundman98]

^congrats! have fun!

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

I'm not sure I want to know.

the only way we learn from history is to talk about the mistakes made.

i'm sure at the time, the guy felt justified and felt he was in the right doing what he did...

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by soundman98

the only way we learn from history

But we don't learn.

[Captain Snooze]

I thoroughly enjoyed watching Top Gun Maverick but I thought dog fighting was a thing of the past.

[spcmafia]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

Last month, I've entered into local pro soccer team 3 days fantasy camp thingy. Surprisingly, I've won it and gonna be meeting the players along w quick warm-up exhibition match. It's happening tonight through Saturday (2~3hrs each day), I'm excited that I can't focus on work...

Mmm the Royals? Best of luck!

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

I thoroughly enjoyed watching Top Gun Maverick but I thought dog fighting was a thing of the past.

That's what the US Navy said at the start of the Vietnam war too. Then the Navy realized they were wrong (the hard way) and made this fancy school to teach pilots how to do it right.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Spuds

That's what the US Navy said at the start of the Vietnam war too. Then the Navy realized they were wrong (the hard way) and made this fancy school to teach pilots how to do it right.

If we use 1965 as a single date point for the Vietnam war then you are looking at 20 years of technological growth from WW2 where dogfighting was the norm. Many of the Vietnam era aircraft were still "slow" enough that dogfighting was feasible. The missile designs were still in their early stages and were not reliable so guns were still trusted more.

There has now been 57 years worth of tech development since they last decided dogfighting was still needed. The missiles are reliable, the aircraft much faster and the avionics allow for "contact" distances that were not even dreamed of in 1965.

Dogfighting has been dead for 20 years and will never be a practical method of engagement again.

The US is probably within 10 or 20 years of having no pilots at all in the combat aircraft much less having Top Gun dogfighters. Hell, for that matter the Navy is planning to have almost half the fleet as completely unmanned ships and subs by 2045!

https://news.usni.org/2022/07/26/nav...manned-vessels

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

If we use 1965 as a single date point for the Vietnam war then you are looking at 20 years of technological growth from WW2 where dogfighting was the norm. Many of the Vietnam era aircraft were still "slow" enough that dogfighting was feasible. The missile designs were still in their early stages and were not reliable so guns were still trusted more.

There has now been 57 years worth of tech development since they last decided dogfighting was still needed. The missiles are reliable, the aircraft much faster and the avionics allow for "contact" distances that were not even dreamed of in 1965.

Dogfighting has been dead for 20 years and will never be a practical method of engagement again.

The US is probably within 10 or 20 years of having no pilots at all in the combat aircraft much less having Top Gun dogfighters. Hell, for that matter the Navy is planning to have almost half the fleet as completely unmanned ships and subs by 2045!

https://news.usni.org/2022/07/26/nav...manned-vessels

I disagree with your opinions on air-air combat. Dogfighting hasn't typically occurred in the last 20 years because the risk to limited material and manpower outweighs the reward for at least one side of each conflict. There are still modern situations where close air-air combat would occur.

Also, I think you read that article wrong.

“In the 2040s and beyond, we envision this hybrid fleet to require more than 350 manned ships, about 150 large unmanned surface and subsurface platforms, and approximately 3,000 aircraft,” reads the NAVPLAN obtained by USNI News.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Spuds

I disagree with your opinions on air-air combat. Dogfighting hasn't typically occurred in the last 20 years because the risk to limited material and manpower outweighs the reward for at least one side of each conflict. There are still modern situations where close air-air combat would occur.

Also, I think you read that article wrong.

ANY pilot of a modern fighter that ends up in a position where he has to battle it out in a gun to gun dogfight has screwed up really REALLY bad.
The whole idea behind the stealth capabilities of a modern fighter is to take out the enemy before he even knows you are there. It is the accepted tactic of any and all forces with modern equipment.
Now, should Argentina and Peru ever go to war you may see some dogfights but for most countries it is as dead a tactic as attacking tanks with spears.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

ANY pilot of a modern fighter that ends up in a position where he has to battle it out in a gun to gun dogfight has screwed up really REALLY bad.
The whole idea behind the stealth capabilities of a modern fighter is to take out the enemy before he even knows you are there. It is the accepted tactic of any and all forces with modern equipment.
Now, should Argentina and Peru ever go to war you may see some dogfights but for most countries it is as dead a tactic as attacking tanks with spears.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/05/04/no-plan/

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by spcmafia

Mmm the Royals? Best of luck!

It’s RSL. Royals were sold last yr.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Spuds

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/05/04/no-plan/

Not exactly what you point you are trying to make with an article about overall warfare. If you are saying that the distance "hit them first before they know you are there" tactic can fail then sure. But if that tactic fails then as I said somebody really screwed up and having a gun as a back up is just that. A back up. The probability of getting close enough for guns is so improbable now that the whole idea is laughable.

I know it isn't nearly as cool but taking a knife to a gunfight just doesn't work.

[spcmafia]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Not exactly what you point you are trying to make with an article about overall warfare. If you are saying that the distance "hit them first before they know you are there" tactic can fail then sure. But if that tactic fails then as I said somebody really screwed up and having a gun as a back up is just that. A back up. The probability of getting close enough for guns is so improbable now that the whole idea is laughable.

I know it isn't nearly as cool but taking a knife to a gunfight just doesn't work.

To be fair, certain someone brought tanks and what not, to a certain part of Europe, and now those tanks and other equipment, are in the hands of farmers.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by spcmafia

To be fair, certain someone brought tanks and what not, to a certain part of Europe, and now those tanks and other equipment, are in the hands of farmers.

AHHH but that example makes my point perfectly. That war is currently done almost exclusively from great distances not by boots on the ground. Precision artillery (these are not the "fling it and forget it" guns of even 30 years ago, guided rockets and missiles and drones are the reasons that those tanks and other equipment are in the hands of farmers not guys with rifles. The range of a M72 anti tank rocket is 600 feet if you are REALLY good and lucky. The Stinger is 3 miles and can be guided every inch of that. Which one do you think is more effective?
Your example is exactly what modern warfare looks like with he that hits from a distance lives long enough to win.
Of course you still need boots on the ground to hold and maintain your gains but they are not how the ground is being taken.