Comment by loloquwowndueo
7 hours ago
Isn’t that like how the F4 didn’t need to be good at dogfighting because it would shoot enemies down from BVR (first versions didn’t even have a gun, only missiles) and then rules of engagement over Vietnam nullified that advantage?
Also ignore me, all I know about air combat I learned from top gun and iron eagle.
Well in Ukraine both sides are generally too afraid to get their jets anywhere near the frontline and just use them to launch long range cruise missiles and such from a safe distance.
Air defences are just too effective and modern jets are so expensive that nobody can really afford to risk losing them.
Maybe F-35 could change that, it seemed very efficient in Iran. But AFAIK Iran didn't have anything better than the S-300 so it wasn't exactly a fair fight...
F35 main advantage is basically being able to target things provided by other assets.
For active homing missiles, the aircraft tells the missile approximately where the plane is, then the missile only activates tracking once its close. Obviously this can be defeated if the plane manages to get out of the scan range of the missile before it switches to homing mode.
Semi active homing is a bit more reliable, as it relies on the launching aircraft to track the target, but obviously aicraft needs to be in closer range to track.
With F35, you can have AWACS or ground radar or whatever else continuously updating information on where the target is, and the active homing missile can reliably navigate and switch to homing.
Without the network, F35 is as good as pretty much any other jet, with the exception that its somewhat stealth. But not against modern heatseekers.
In Iran, did the F35 got deep and low, like an A10 would? Were they used as B2 would, high altitude bombers? Or did they stayed at the border and were used as mobile EW planes to coordinate/acquire targets? Because I've read about 2 and 3, and too much internet almost made be believe 1, so I'm asking here where someone who actually know something might answer.
Rules of engagement and the fact that nobody was properly trained on tactics that worked with the missiles. IIRC only the air force added a gun to the F4, the Navy just improved their training regime, and ended the war with better kill ratios than the air force.
Plus the early missiles just had some problems that were fixed over time.
> Isn’t that like how the F4 didn’t need to be good at dogfighting because it would shoot enemies down from BVR (first versions didn’t even have a gun, only missiles) and then rules of engagement over Vietnam nullified that advantage?
Not only ROE limitations, but unreliable missile technology (see the "Red Baron" reports for example) and bad tactics as well. The Navy was better than the USAF in both respects.