Do we still need air superiority?

[Vulcan]

UAV's are only good for air to ground. They cannot provide the data fidelity for realtime air to air combat ops.

[JunkyII]

If you notice the last 3 wars we have fought all started with a air attack against things that would effect us from dominating the skies over the battlefield. In Korea the only thing stopping the North from invading is the capabilities of our Nimitz class carriers, and the air force units in Japan in South Korea.

[trigger2]

IIRC that's exactly what they were saying in the '60'sn and then we got into an actual war with an enemy that had actual fighters, and we realized that was a HUGE mistake, and started 1) adding guns back to our fighters, and 2)started teaching ACM again.

I'm not saying we don't need these, and I'm aware of the 60's mistakes.
What I was saying is that while we're here developing supermanuverability supercruise thrust vectoring aircraft, what would be more benificial is a new Aim-9 that's able to lock on better and pull more G's. If you look at the majority of the worlds aircraft now, you're not seeing planes like the F-86 Sabre anymore. The aircraft are designed for BVR, but are having so many 'add-ons' that it seems their purpose is to dogfight, which, as I stated, isn't going to really happen in todays world unless you get 2 REALLY unlucky pilots whos missiles just won't launch.
The odds are slim of a dogfight, and I see the need to prepare, but why not prepare for something we have the ability to do? Avoid the dogfight and get them before they can even see us.

[bozon]

...The aircraft are designed for BVR, but are having so many 'add-ons' that it seems their purpose is to dogfight, which, as I stated, isn't going to really happen in todays world unless you get 2 REALLY unlucky pilots whos missiles just won't launch.
The odds are slim of a dogfight, and I see the need to prepare, but why not prepare for something we have the ability to do? Avoid the dogfight and get them before they can even see us.

While this is somewhat true, dogfights still happen. Air combat is usually not two formations of 4 starting 50 miles from each other, HO at 20kft, over empty land. Some scenarios makes BVR almost impossible, before ranges are closed to IR missiles. For example, the Israel-Syrian border is about 70 km (about 50 miles) long. In the even of war, along this front there will be more than a few tens of aircrafts (fighters, attackers, photo, recon, helis, drones) possibly reaching over 100. Add to this a large amount of chaff floating in the air, electronic warfare and just accidental interference from so many radiation sources (add ground troops equipment) all crammed into this narrow volume and you can understand why a 50 miles missile will be of little use. The IAF puts the emphasis on short range IR missiles, with extreme maneuverability and launch envelope.

However, the advancing missile technology that require very little maneuvering from the launching platform and very fast information and control networks will allow drones to carry air to air missiles effectively. If most of your force is made of drones, even in the case of friendly fire, you just lost some equipment. The side that will rely on human pilots will suffer the casualties. The time and cost of training a new pilots will be much longer and expensive than producing a new drone - even including the extra few that were shot down by friendly fire.

We are not there just yet, but very close.

[slyguy]

While this is somewhat true, dogfights still happen. Air combat is usually not two formations of 4 starting 50 miles from each other, HO at 20kft, over empty land. Some scenarios makes BVR almost impossible, before ranges are closed to IR missiles.

I'm still skeptical that most enemy fighters would even get airborne.  And if they do, they probably won't the next day.  Not when the US can drop a thimble on a postage stamp in the dark anywhere on the planet. 

Now if they can just see jumbo jets running around New York looking for buildings to crash into.

[cpxxx]

I think the question really is whether or not the USA or it's direct allies need air superiority fighters anymore. As demonstrated in all wars since Gulf war 1. The enemy aircraft simply can't or won't get airborne, or if it does it's hacked down with a BVR missile and sometimes an IR missile, thanks to oversight from the AWACs. In GW2, I think the Iraqis didn't even try. They just hid their aircraft.

Actually the original question really should be: Do we still need air superiority fighters. Because you do have air superiority thanks to all the hardware used to suppress the enemy air force. In fact the age of the pure fighter is gone. This I think is recognised in the fact that all fighters are not in effect attack aircraft first and foremost. Which I suppose makes the F15C, the last real pure fighter in the USAF. The F14 was the last pure Navy fighter but even that succumbed to the attack role in the end. Which I think means that the Crusader was in fact the last pure USN fighter.

However to say that the era of the dogfight is over is a bit premature. It may be over for the US. But other countries with less sophisticated systems and no AWACs cover could easily end up in dogfights. Say if Peru and Venezuela came to blows to pick two random countries. But even then I suspect without checking their inventories, that their fighters are also attack aircraft.
The age of the pure fighter is gone forever though.
 

[DYNAMITE]

I don't foresee a war with China. They make far too much money from trade agreements with us. It would not be in their best interest to start a war.

drought and famine can make you do some crazy things... lets just hope it keeps raining in China

[Demetrious]

as much as I hate to say it, the era of the dogfight is over...

You know, they said that at the beginning of WWII. Because planes were traveling so much faster then they used to, naturally. We all know how that turned out. Then they said it at the beginning of the Vietnam war. That didn't end too well, either.

I'm just saying.

I think the question really is whether or not the USA or it's direct allies need air superiority fighters anymore.

Indeed. All of the people who claim we don't need them, because the only people we're fighting are tiny little madcap dictatorships with ancient equipment, amuse me. Simply because the war with an equally technologically capable foe that they say will never happen is much more likely to happen if we can the very weapons that currently make such an engagement untenable for the other party.

[Grayeagle]

UAV's are only good for air to ground. They cannot provide the data fidelity for realtime air to air combat ops.

They can and have.
Drone had it's own radar and internal decision making.
Back when the F4 was king.
Scared the *crap* out of the F4 jock.

-GE (umm .. or so I heard, long ago)

[Nemisis]

In time things could change and there's enemy fighters to knock out.  Whoever knows?  But unless I'm just behind the times and there is anything out there in the sky preventing the air force and navy from doing their thing I'm all ears.  I just don't see it.  Obviously the military doesn't see it either as the F-22 has been discontinued or whatever happened with it.

Well as far as I can see the only real competition I can see for our F22 would be the eurofighter unless that has been scraped as well.
And Narsus the I forsee no war with china thing is coming from a guy with a with Hommer Simpson as an avatar. I can just see him saying that and then the screen flashes over to the chinese generals about to fire off a nuke at us and one says "see, I told you the avrage American is so stupid they will never know what is happening untill to late". infact didn't they do something like that where homer is in a bomb shelter and everyone in sprigfield at least is dead, but his family survives. It just gives the wrong impresion.
.
And Selino that is coming from a guy with bender as his avatar. same problem as Narsus


Narsus and Selino