dogfighting

There were some actually good reasons to believe that dogfighting was a part of a bygone era.

What really makes dogfighting unlikely, is the fact that United States hasn't fought anyone with airplanes in 40 years.

If you have no maneuverability or power advantage, then just forget about dogfighting altogether and take more weapons and countermeasures.

The focus of your previous post was that electronic gizmos make dogfighting obsolete and unnecessary.

Had they really felt that dogfighting was obsolete, the F-35A wouldn't have a gun.

Then better countermeasures and anti-missile tactics were developed, and suddenly dogfighting was relevant again.

Most fighter-to-fighter mid-air collisions occur during dogfighting practice, or during formation join-up.

The F-35 has been hyped and sold as a good dogfighting aircraft.

My assessment of dogfighting capabilities would be my own personal assessment.

I'm interested in your assessment of its dogfighting capabilities based on that test or others.

There is, of course, always the possibility that we develop new countermeasures that can beat modern missiles, returning dogfighting to relevance.

Frankly, it doesn't matter how unrealistic the idea of dogfighting is.

Every time I hear "dogfighting is obsolete" or "the F-35 will kill its opponents at range with missiles", I wonder.

> "What really makes dogfighting unlikely, is the fact that United States hasn't fought anyone with airplanes in 40 years." This is flat out wrong.

Dogfighting was supposed to be archaic and improbable in 1968 as well, since who was going to get close and maneuver when you had guided missiles?