/AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

what happens when defence industry is based on bullshit for profit useless tech and not actually making good military hardware

cant wait to see all the 100000 trillion dollar burger planes get blown up by 100k chines SAMs

Yeah I heard about this. Though to be fair that training jet isn't exactly a slouch either.

The magic word is "dogfight".
The F-22 is a fifth gen jet designed for long range and beyond visual range attacks using missiles.
In a regualr combat scenario, the F-22 can fire missiles at the FA-50, before even getting detected by radar.
Fifth gen jets regularly lose gun dogfights to fourth gen jets because stealth design and general considerations for BVR engagements reduce the ability to turn fight while being subsonic.
And this is totally irrelevant for combat as the last two decades have seen virtually zero dogfights in jet to jet engagements. The future of jet fighting is slinging missiles at each other over more than 100 km range.

>>4615
This is retarded. Dogfights absolutely still happen and is both proven in previous wars -from Vietnam to Lebanon - and in modern simulations of a US air-battle with Chinese and Russian air forces
>the last two decades have seen virtually zero dogfights in jet to jet engagements.
The last 2 decades have barely HAD any jet to jet engagements because most air-force activities have been ground attack against under-armed guerillas and terrorists or civilians. However dogfights do occur.
- In Syria an F/A-18 shot down a Su-22
- In India a MiG-21 modernization shot down a Pakistani F-16 and more than one skirmish of this kind has occurred between them.
- During the late 90s Yugoslav and Serbian wars dogfights happened quite often, with MiG-29s and MiG-21s engaging F-16s, Panavia Tornados and other aircraft in close-range combat.
- Russian fighter jets, primarily the Su-35, have shot down drones with auto-cannon fire over Ukraine

Dogfighting was declared dead in the 1960s and Vietnam disproved that, which is why all fighter-jets today still mount autocannons. Dogfights would continue into every conflict of every war after. The first Gulf War had an F-15 engage two MiG-29s and there were a few more close range engagements in that war.

The idea that BVR will end dogfighting is retarded because counter-measures against such missiles will improve with the missiles and never guarantee a hit. This was proven in Iraq when F-15s with AIM-120s failed to shoot down MiG-25s because they simply avoided, out-maneuvered and out speeded the missiles, with the F-15s likewise avoiding the R-40s fired back at them. DFRM and other countermeasures mean Active RADAR seekers are vulnerable to spoofing, Semi-Active missiles force the firing aircraft to reveal its position by actively using RADAR and IR-guidance is primarily used for close range engagements and is vulnerable to flares and decoys.

Finally the F-22 was built specifically to outperform the F-15 Eagle, including in maneuverability and IS more maneuverable than it, so no the excuse of "stealth design and general considerations for BVR engagements reduce the ability to turn fight while being subsonic." is absolutely untrue.

>>4619
Most of what you listed from the last two decades weren't dogfights and all of them are irrelevant border skirmishes.
Dogfights are just beyond irrelevant in real wars like Ukraine, as ground based air defence utterly denies enemy jets ever meeting within visual range. And yes, the F-22 and F-35 regularly lose mock gun fights against F-16 because it is not the role they were designed for.

>>4620
Yes those were dogfights - close range shoot-outs within visual range, the same applies to Cope Thunder and other previous F-22 involved exercises.
>ground based air defence utterly denies enemy jets ever meeting within visual range
And yet they have, because air-defense is not perfect and counter-measures exist. The primary reason we don't see many air-air battles in Ukraine is because the Ukrainian air-force is operating older units, in much smaller numbers and most of them were destroyed on the ground, along with bases that were close to Russia. In turn the VKS doesn't push deep into Ukrainian territory because there is no need for long range aerial operations against a nearly non existent air-force and the primary target are ground-based, not aerial.
>the F-22 and F-35 regularly lose mock gun fights against F-16 because it is not the role they were designed for.
Excuses. The F-22 is extremely maneuverable as a design and has thrust-vectoring. Both it and the F-35 are supposed to outperform the F-16 and F-15 in aerodynamic capabilities as well as BVR and stealth. The F-22 achieved this, being more maneuverable than any of its 4th Generation predecessors, the F-35 failed and this is part of the reason the F-35 is criticized as a replacement to the F-16 and F-18. The F-22's main problem aside from technical issues is the lack of an IR targeting system and its prohibitive expensive and complicated production per unit, which is why the program never reached 200 planes. And just because the F-22 is supermaneuverable, and superior to its predecessors does not mean other air-craft are incapable of shooting it down in WVR and BVR combat.

TL;DR: Any turning aircraft bleeds off energy. Some more than others. The F-16 is one of the best fighters for holding energy through transonic turns, better at that even than an F-15C but not nearly as good as F-22 with its thrust vectoring.
Dog-fighting may be a reduced quality, but it absolutely still exists and the F-22 was absolutely designed with being superior to the F-16's, F-18's and F-15's capabilities in mind.