ORIGINAL: US87891
Yes, failure to understand modern warfare is, indeed, a pervasive problem. Much of the problem stems from the perception that since a thing is more modern, it must be more better. Any military professional knows what that perception is worth. As to the relevance of "dogfighting" to modern military aircraft, I would refer you to the multiple Requests for Information, series DARPA-SN-17/18, particularly SN-18-08, 18-26, resulting from the experiences of USAF/IAF joint exercises (Red Flag, Blue Flag, Pitch Black, Cope India), wherein the Israeli IAF and, especially, the Indian IAF showed that judicious tactical innovation made WVR engagement not only possible, but also extremely deadly to high-value, stand-off, air assets, to the great consternation of USAF-ATTO.ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Oh look, talking about dogfighting in modern fighter aircraft again. Dogfighting is essentially irrelevant for the US military. It is a thing of the past. There are no modern dogfights. Get over it. Modern weapons and therefore aircraft are designed to win from beyond the horizon, and the technology enables this.
What we have here, in addition to poor reporting, is a failure to understand modern warfare. +1 to all the "this is a special circumstance, you shouldn't extrapolate anything from this" comments so far. Glad to see there are some level heads present.
The internet amateur war gaming community may not be talking about dogfighting anymore, but DoD, DARPA, USAF, USN, USMC sure as hell are.
Just because they requested the information doesn't mean it's a primary part of combat. They just cover all their bases (as they should - that's their job).
Also, visual range combat does not equal dogfighting.
Nobody here is claiming to be an aerial combat expert, but attempts to discredit folks as so-called amateurs (as a so-called amateur oneself) is rather disrespectful, don'tcha think? Appeals to authority do not make for persuasive arguments.