On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 20:56:06 -0500, Ignoramus21329
wrote:

On 2015-10-08, John B wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 15:45:46 -0500, Ignoramus21329
wrote:

Let me ask a stupid question, does it need to "dogfight"?

In today's world it is doubtful that a "dogfight" in the concept of a
WW I dogfight is even possible due to the speed. Cruising speed of an
F-15, for example, is 500 MPH. Two aircraft approaching each other at
a combined speed of 1,000 MPH can't even see each other for more than
a very limited time, say 3 seconds.

If you were to go to afterburner than you are talking about a combined
approach speed of almost 4,000 MPH.

Right.

I think that fighter plane dogfight is like a bayonet attack. Both are
examples of tactics of past wars. They are no longer flying and shooting
cannons at each other. They shoot missiles from a distance. Same with
bayonetting. Still possible but not really very useful.

I do own a bayonet rifle. I would hate to have to bayonet anyone.

i

I can't comment on a fighter to fighter action as I was in SAC, but a
fighter(interceptor) to bomber action consists of ground control, who
have the big radar, controlling the interceptors until they are either
in visual, or more likely their onboard radar, contact, whereupon the
interceptors activate their rockets.

As far as I know there never was any plans for a fighter escort for
the B-52's, at least the missions where they were armed with atomic
weapons, and the B-52's that flew from Guam in the Vietnam war were,
as far as I know, unescorted. Nor do I think that the ones that flew
from Thailand were.
--
cheers,

John B.