When the aircraft are equal in capabilities it's the pilot who makes the critical difference. If two opposing stealth fighters can't pick each other up on radar or get a radar lock, the only way for them to fight each other is to get within visual range. At that point you have a dogfight.

I felt this video missed out on the more transformative technologies that have affected dog-fighting over the last decade: 1) Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (HMCS) - you can get a target lock simply by looking at the intended target. You don't need to jockey for position behind the enemies '6. 2) High Off-Boresight (HOBS) missiles - which can hit targets at an ever increasing wider angular difference to yourself. 3) Lock-On after Launch - your jet (or another advanced jet like another F-35) can communicate with the missile to guide in cases where the target is outside the sight of the missile seeker head. This allows HOBs missiles to hit targets even at 90 degree angles to itself. And worse for the target, it will only lock-on for itself in the final phases of approach (meaning there's little advanced notice from the enemies radar-warning system).

Re: F-35 dogfighting prowess Thirty-one experienced pilots currently flying the F-35A were asked to rate the energy and maneuvering characteristics of their previous fourth-generation fighters in a combat configuration throughout the dogfighting maneuver envelope in a combat configuration after jettisoning their external stores. They were then asked to rate the performance of the F-35A using the same scale, with fuel and internal munition loads associated with a combat loadout under their current G and CLAW restrictions. The F-35A compared well to the four other fighters (F-15C, F-15E, F-16C, and A-10) in most every regime. (For the total results and responses from the pilots of each respective fighter, see Chart 1.) Each pilot was then asked to select which fighter he would rather fly in combat if he were to face a clone flying the other jet in six different air-to-air situations. (See Chart 2.) If the pilot selected an F-15C in a short-range setup, for example, he felt he could outperform a pilot of equal abilities in the F-35A. Pilots selected the F-35A 100 percent of the time in beyond-visual-range situations and over 80 percent of dogfighting situations where energy and maneuverability are critical to success. The F-35A was not designed to be an air superiority fighter, but the pilots interviewed conveyed the picture of a jet that will more than hold its own in that environment-even with its current G and maneuver restrictions. In the words of an F-16C Weapons School Graduate and instructor pilot now flying the F-35A, “Even pre-IOC,this jet has exceeded pilot expectations for dissimilar combat. (It is) G-limited now, but even with that, the pedal turnsare incredible and deliver a constant 28 degrees/second. When they open up the CLAW, and remove the (7) G-restrictions, this jet will be eye watering.” Read full article here: www.heritage.org/defense/report/operational-assessment-the-f-35a-argues-full-program-procurement-and-concurrent

Also ironically stealth would once again increase the chances of dogfights occurring if the planes in the engagement on both sides are stealth. Against a stealth plane, the tracking range of most missiles is less than a dozen miles, which considering the speed of fighter jets is not that many seconds away from visual range. In the confusion of an engagement with many planes, entering visual range and even merging is quite likely. Thus 5th generation planes and soon to come 6th generation planes may be in fact making dogfighting more likely.

Dogfights have been declared dead for like 60 years now. Yet they keep happening. Fact is, most interceptions have an identification in visual range first. Unless you are at a full scale war, shooting at random airplanes just isn't that great of an idea.

The F35 not performing against an F16 was a one-off training exercise. The F35 was put into a disadvantageous position because it was a brand new airplane, it hadn't been tested, the software hadn't been updated, we didn't know it's capabilities, et cetera. If you read the complete AAR you'll see that it read it was done on purpose. They took what they learned to improve the F35 tactics and FBW systems. The F35 today would beat the snot out of anybody's F16.

There aren't many bayonett and sidearm kills in infantry combat anymore, but soldiers still deploy with them and those engagements do still happen.

Great job on the channel growth Alex, I was here when you had around 30k subs. I wished you good luck and exponential channel growth! Loving the videos and still watch them all.

Really enjoy your videos and insights. Keep up the great work!

Modern "Dogfighting" is taking the wisdom of self-defence: The best way to win a fight is to not fight.

This idea became deadly during the Vietnam War. We actually depended heavily on our primary fighter which had no gun. F4 fantom btw. They later added a gun because the flickering light finally came on.

Love this video, Keep up the good work Alex :)

Awesome as usual Alex!

man what a great analysis I really enjoyes the video please keep the good work up

Thanks again Alex. Spot on.

Everyone says the F-35 doesn't need to dogfight because it fights BVR. What they don't realize is the second it launches a Fox 3 the enemies RWR is pointing in the direction the shot came from so he's going low and closing in.

Very nice video with good analysis 👍 One scenario though in favour of dogfights and i.e. if high altitude mountain ranges like Himalayas are in the backdrop then fighters can use terrain masking flying using the mountains to avoid early detection (even if detected by AWACS will be difficult to engage in BVR combat) and in those cases dogfights are inevitable

Love the new visual of "Never miss a drop from SandBoxx News" air drop at the end of the video. Love your videos - keep them coming - Be Great. Go USA!

Excellent analysis

The idea of a 6th generation fighter does sound interesting. Something with a 3 or 4 man crew and drone escorts with 6th generation weapons would really change how things work. If there is ever a breakthrough that cancels stealth technology then 4.5 generation comes back in a hurry.

Nice presentation👍

Love the vids brother

The minute we declare the end of dogfighting is the minute that our adversaries start planning to exploit that shortcoming.; The NVAF did it with MiG-17s and 19s to our century-series and early F-4 fighters, and their modern-day equivalents will seek a way to do the same. Never forget that the enemy gets a vote...

Thanks for fixing the audio!

Hell yes for the Ward Carroll shout out!

Not too bad of an analysis but missing the most important point: dogfights are stupid and to be avoided at all cost. Don't take my word for it (even though I am a former F-16 pilot), just read what Erick Hartmann, highest-scoring fighter ace ever (352 kills in W II) said himself in interviews. This is even more true in the age of HOBS missiles and helmet-mounted cueing systems. Long range unobserved kills are the way to go. Dogfighting is great fun in peacetime training, but total folly in actual combat.

Two reasons dogfighting may prove not to be dead: 1) If you have two stealth aircraft facing off, won't they ONLY be able to detect each other visually? 2) Related to #1, IRST exists, and nearly all Chinese and Russian Gen 4++ aircraft have it.

Rules of engagement often require positive identification so we must always be ready to fight up close.

Dog fights will take place as long as the rules of engagement call for identification visually before engaging. When that is eliminated (ROE) then BVR will take place and no more dogfighting

There's a reason most pilots spend most time in uncontested airspace: We tend to frequently shoot down planes contesting our area. Ask Iraq or Libya.

An article worth reading on the subject : *"The Last Ace" in The Atlantic.* Covers the last fighter ace Cesar Rodriguez in the Iraq War with 5 confirmed kills (that's right. 5 kills to be considered “an Ace”).

Close quarters fighting will continue to be a real thing for as long as battles are fought human versus human, weather it is in the air or on the ground. The F-4 Phantom is proof that a cannon for close work is a wise investment. What do you do when your missiles are missing and then gone, but the enemy is in visual range and sees you. (Never forget that Mr. Murphy of Murphy’s Law firm may show up during the fight.)

I should think maneuvering requirements would be based more on weapon envelopes- think fixed gun vs trainable gun vs stern-chase missiles vs all-aspect missiles. If the weapon can go the distance fast with precise guidance and can pull the Gs, then the launcher doesn’t have to.

Dang, with the quality of analysis you put out, why don't you have a million subscribers? ?

Fascinating video. The older I get the more impressed I am by those super intelligent people who have studied for years. I am also more depressed by those in Washington that think they know better.

If stealth works, and two stealth fighters face off against each other, then it stands to reason that planes will get quite close to each other to actually engage in combat.

The dogfight will never die. There will always be a need for a gun or close point defense system on a plane, wether it be a Raptor, Felon, or even a Drone like the Reaper or Bayraktar. The lessons of Vietnam should never be forgotten, overlooked or passed off as inferior. Just like a grunt in the foxhole, they still have a combat knife and pistol for those unpredictable CQB events that will also never go away. Keep the gun, keep Topgun and Red Flag, keep teaching BFM and how to use the gun, even if the pilot is at a desk controlling a ucav.

So as the bad guy I just need to do 2 things. Both of which I believe will be doable in time. 1. More easily detect the current stealth fighters. 2. Develop ways to close the distance with them.

Ukraine is definitely the elephant in the room here. For as much as we can talk about US combat experience, we can't deny what's currently happening there and what will more likely happen in the future. The Russo-Ukraine war has shown what a war with prolonged contested airspace looks like. The US has been spoiled with all of its recent engagements either having air supremacy right off the bat or within a matter of days. For a smaller country (or possibly an oversees US air base), claiming air superiority might not be an option leaving contesting the airspace all it could do. And with a prolonged contested airspace means more opportunities to merge. The other possibility I don't think gets mentioned is what happens when two stealth aircraft engage each other. Achieving a radar lock beyond visual range would be hard especially if both aircraft turn off their radars to remain undetected. IRST might help, but its range is much less compared to radar and highly susceptiple to weather. Basically, the chances of an F-22 and a J-20 merging is much higher.

I'm curious to see the impact of laser pods capable of blinding IR missiles...

The performances of radars and air-to-air rockets have progressed so much that the fights are done at long distances, so no dogfight! During the Gulf War in 1991 there were none out of 37 aircrafts shot down !

In spite of great rifles and sidearms, there isn’t an army on the planet that doesn’t teach hand-to-hand combat to their troops. The air forces will always have a need pilots skilled in the fine art of the furball no matter how advanced the high-tech weapons become. You discard the skill of the dogfight, a clever adversary will find a way to take advantage of your weakness and make you pay. Bank on it.

Love that closing thought. Let's keep all wars where they belong - in the past.

Personally I think dog fighting should never take a back seat to stealth and missles. Great video 👍🏾

I agree with this. Yet oddly enough, SIMULATED dogfighting will still come into play as drones take over. Guided weapons will always be more expensive than projectiles.

Everybody knows that fighting within visual range went out with the 1950's. That's why they didn't put a cannon on the F-4 Phantom II or the Sea Vixen.

I'd like to think that future of air to air combat will include a mix of unmanned but supersonic, well-armed stealth drones along with "fighters" manned by a pilot and perhaps a drone weapons operator (kinda like a RIO). Fly out as a formation during a mission, send in the drones to complete the attack or as a sacrifice to draw out and expose your enemy.

Besides the "chaos and confusion" scenario described in this video, I'd also suggest that even if stealth holds up as a dominant capability that another possible concern is the adversary's defense against American offensive weapons. It American BVR tactics depend on "first shot" it should be recognized that any shot will likely reveal the American aircraft's existence and position. If the Adversary can avoid the missiles fired at it, and especially up to the 4 missiles a typical American aircraft can carry internally, then the American aircraft becomes a sitting duck likely with a low top speed compared to its adversary, to say nothing of flying supersonic on afterburners would likely make the escape attempt very unstealthy. No kidding, situational awareness would have to be superb to survive... Both to avoid untenable scenarios and to bring reinforcements if necessary and available.

The concept of UCAV wingmen will add a lot more complication. This could easily lead to protective UCAVs countering missiles coming in on the manned fighter, and offensive UCAVs might be out chasing the enemy foe's manned fighter. Once you start getting robotic drones that can pulled those dozens of Gs their frames can sustain, then you will get back to some aircraft literally dodging and out performing air to air missiles.

thanks for this vid . its so obvious the dogfight is still relevant but so many are so stupid and act like war is a video game and electronics is all we need

Someone made the comment on the internet that the F35 is networked into every weapons system on the battlefield, and if you attack an F35 you are attacking a network. It said further that three F35's could function as an airborne radar system like our AWACs I also saw the comment that the Chinese J20's primary mission is to get within range unnoticed, and then should down high value support targets. I hope we've got that covered.

In a near peer conflict where both the U.S. and China have stealth fighters, when these fighters face off, neither side can engage the other beyond visual range which leaves only engagements within visual range. Whichever side can fight most effectively at close range wins.

The kinematic performance of ordinance still matters, and that relates to relative orientation, heading, etc. But it's sure a different game with not needing to nose-sight on a target anymore. I wouldn't enjoy being in an F-35 which was out of missiles and down to just a gun... but if actually armed, I think the technical jargon is that it's F'n deadly as F. Oh, it's also stealthy, but that's just icing, I was just speaking of the HOBS+HMDS+EOTS+AIM-120D. You could cover an F-35 in tin foil streamers, and it'd still be D as F.

i feel like there will not be an army with mostly stealth jets until RAM are cheap enough, because any army can only afford so many stealth jets we would find ourselves in a situation where there are only a few jets in a fight. Then it would be really efficient to just build cheap non stealth aircraft.

ACM is also vital for evading missiles. This never gets mentioned.

Just pair the newest generation stealth fighters with older fighters with good dog fighting capabilities.

The more important question is how would such a fight develop than how it would go. If you don't see it coming you've lost before it starts.

Y’all should do a video on synthetic training. Goes along well with this topic. Look up Red6 if you haven’t heard of them.

Thanks Alex. Your channel does a real service. The very ability of western powers to engage and win in dog fights plays a big part in why dog fighting is not needed; for now.

That F-16 was the oldest and had fuel tanks attached

In my mind, Dog fighting is to the Air war as Melee combat is to the ground war. It's not the primary mode of engagement, and you probably shouldn't optimize for it at the expense of more useful features. But at the end of the day, someway, somehow, the enemy will close, and you need to have training and tactics to deal with that eventuality.

My vote is that a stealth vs stealth engagement would end up in a dog fight.

YUH GOOFED SANDMAN NO AUDIO

Stealth is great, but any pilot who is visually sighted by an enemy pilot is probably dead without a gun.

If the NGAD has energy weapons and drones, it’s ‘dogfights’ would look very different.

As long as the pilot is required to visually I.D. the incoming aircraft, possibly placing his missiles unusable, dogfighting will be a part of engagements. FYI, also requiring guns.

🏆🏆🏆👍🇺🇲🙏 Thank you for sharing

I remember the historical arguments, at the dawn of the jet age, this was the prevailing wisdom. Here we are again. Similar position (dog fights are obsolete), different circumstances Stealth vs. raw speed and missiles determining who one or lost. That dog fight between the F-35 and F-16 pitted a fully capable and tested aircraft against one still teething. I am sure the results would be different now. The only place I would differ with folks citing "when was the last time an American pilot shot down an enemy aircraft in air to air combat" - to which I wonder, when was the last time we had air to air combat involving thousands of aircraft with a near peer enemy, in large aerial engagements? Almost 80 years ago I reckon.

dogfighting is a thing of the past when an F22 fights an F16, but nowadays with all these stealth fighters the jets arent going to get radar lock or sight until they can see each other with their eyes, and at this point they cannot run away or they will be missiled, and a forced dogfight ensues. this is why we should continue dogfighting practice

So from the research I've done the ngad program is going to have drone swarms and missile swarms and be extremely stealthy with high payload so when it counters and air to air it can release drones and extended range seeker misses wish hypothetically would be much more effective than trying to get a lock it could be a fire and forget drone swarm that's pretty cost-effective in comparison to an AGM and they could fly for extended periods of time constantly locking on to enemy aircraft and constantly making that enemy aircraft break their neck trying to find where all of these locks are coming from wow the mothership so to say I focus on maneuvering for kill shots and we still have plenty of ammo left all hypothetical but definitely within the realm of possibility

Thanks Alex....Shoe🇺🇸

It seems to me that is stealth advances, fights will require visual confrontations, and guns as opposed to missiles, since they don’t need radar.

Just because we haven't fought anyone capable of defending themselves doesn't mean that nobody in Earth can today.

The problem with all of these people arguing that dogfighting will never go away, is that they don't have a clear definition of just what "dogfighting" even IS. If you define a non-changing definition of just what counts as a dogfight... how close the planes have to be, for how long, and at what speeds, what altitudes, and threatening each other with what weapons... And further, how often it has to happen... what percentage of air-to-air engagements involve meeting that definition,.. you will find that regardless of what definition you chose, dogfighting has already died. Of course its also be revived and reborn in a new shape conforming to a DIFFERENT definition, but the new dogfighting only bears a similarity to the old ones that came before. The only way out of this is to adopt stupendously vague dogfighting definitions... something like: "All combat" in which two or more aircraft maneuver to bring weapons to bear on one another." That might be an acceptable definition in that it includes nothing that shouldn't be included, and excludes nothing that shouldn't be excluded, but it also is basically useless... Under that definition, the statement "Dogfighting will never die"... reduces to "Air to Air combat will remain A Thing."... true, but pointless. The useful question is: Will stand-off long range weapons continue to dominate? And that answer pretty much HAS to be "Yes". I mean... bayonets are not dead yet either... I believe they were used in anger by American troops only a few years ago in Afghanistan... but that doesn't mean that firearms don't dominate modern infantry combat. Dogfighting is a bayonet.

the better the stealth of BOTH opponents the greater the odds of a close in dogfight

15:38 why is the F-15EX rated for 20K hours, and the F-35 rated for such less? Can you explain?

Rules of engagement will make dogfighting necessary. They always have.

Business Insider” interview,is all you need to know about where that expert stands.

Dog fighting isn’t dead, it’s just no longer prominent like it was in WW2 and Vietnam. Another way to see it is, are ship to ship engagements at sea strictly missiles and aircraft 100% of the time? No. That’s why destroyers still have small guns. Is CQC useless for modern infantryman? No, extreme scenarios are not impossible and it’s better to have a bayonet than not. Most aerial engagements will be decided beyond visual range, but there’s still a chance a small number of squadrons will get caught without missiles and must resort to BFM/AFM. But let’s reconsider the three scenarios. The destroyer that won because it had a close combat gun, the infantry squad with bayonets, the squadron built for high AOA maneuvers, will it pose a significant threat to the battle space as a whole? Not a chance.

What's your take on the future of fighting with drones like the Russian SU-70 with AI coming into play? I would love to see an in depth video on this subject.

If you have 5th generation vs 5th generation with both aircraft having stealth technology would this not result in increase likelihood of a merge and old fashon dogfight? Even with helmet mounted sights and off boresignht capability the most it did was make the dogfight even more deadlier

Dogfigting capability is something that's better to have and not need rather than need and not have. Gunpowder weapons became mainstream in the 1300s but soldiers still carry combat knives.

Excellent conclusion. Generally I'm of the opinions that dog fights are essentially dead, but you bring up the excellent point that the US air command hasn't actually had an air to air engagement and its possible they will actively avoid doing so due to cost of the pilot and vehicle. You are incorrect however. The F22 is being mothballed. The fleet is expensive to maintain, expensive to update, and there's really no competitor for them on the world stage. Russia has shown themselves to be a paper tiger while China still hasn't actually had any experience in war and their actual performance is unknown. It's also fascinating the fact that the F22 and F35 were designed in the 90s, so who knows what kind of designs the black budget programs have come up with since then. The Airforce is working on distributed drone networks and laser communication systems to share target and other data with the goal possibly being a pilot in a stealth fighter operating as a commander in a swarm of AI drones to select and confirm targets but fire missiles from out of battlefield assets to be able to retain the low radar profile on the pilot's plane

With modern communication is there a need for pilot to use sign language to communicate with it's peer ?

Once in a while I see the German Luftwaffe (I am a German) do some practise fligths and I sometimes see them practising dogfights in their Eurofighters. So it appears that the German high brass does not join the opinion of american high brass that dog fights were out.

we need something transitional that can dogfight and be compatible with modern electronics something like the Euro fighter both great dog fighting and BVR capabilities. even if its not stealth witch is useless when modern radars are starting to be able to detect it

They said this same shit in the 50's, then again in Vietnam, and every time they are proved wrong. Just look at the knife fights that have been occurring in Ukraine. Dogfights will always be a thing as long as Air, and Space combat exist.

No. Dog fighting is, at worst, the last defense of an air warrior.

Stealth plane ambushes should be called "cat fights"

When a real battle takes place, the radars will be jammed, fights will come within visual range and dogfighting will be a necessary evil.

"thousands of air assets"???? even if every airforce on earth got involved in a single engagement, I don't think we'd get to THOUSANDS!

With all the hightech missiles and radars it seems its less needed.Eyes in the sky with jamming supports and long range pin point strikability

As long as near pears have fighters, there will be a need for fighter planes.

Its all air to ground atm And i didn't even realize that until now

Dog fighting a air-to-air missile does that count as dog fighting

Maverick proved no when he shot down two Su-57s in an old F-14.

“It’s Not The Plane, It’s The Pilot.” - Maverick Pete Mitchell at 50. 🇺🇸

Here's the thing actually, manned pilots are going the way of the biplane, and very soon. This is because no human pilot is capable of out-flying a CPU.

Most important is the plane against missile dogfight. Can better speed and maneuverability help to shake a missile?

I used to think like you too, but the aeronautical world is changing, completely. We're now right about halfway trough the 5th gen period, so situation is different from 40, 20, even 10 years ago. That is because 5th generation fighters are usually better at, passively, defending, then attacking. Immagine the F-22 and the Su-57 (either variant 1 or 2) getting into a fight. Let's say 2 F-22s are patrolling the airspace over Alaska. Suddendly, on the datalink, a bogey appears: the ground radars have detected something, and it's (relatively) close. It's not a strong signal, but the pilots are sent to investigate anyway, just in case. The leader orders his wingman to take some distance from him. Soon after, a few second apart, both Raptors have the target on their own radar, but signal isn't really strong. They then get an RWR signal, according to wich it's 2 Su-57s flying together, and they've almost crossed the borders. As they close in, radar signal gets strong enough to launch a missile, and soon after both US pilots get warned of a missile launch from the MAW. As the targets reveal to be hostiles, the Raptors engage. The russian missiles have missed and the F-22s launch an AIM-120D each. Just as it goes pitbull, they defend 2 more R-77 from the enemy. The targets are now within 10 - 9 nautical miles, so they're in range for AIM-9Xs (but also for R-73). Both sides are now close to the deck due to the constant defending. About 5 nM apart. The US wingman launches another Fox-2 while his flight leader decides to try a flank, and the Su-57 flight lead follows him. As missiles keep missing, they end up in a dogfight. The reason why this is possible is (ecluding from the political chances of this hapening): 1) The weak radar signature of all 4 planes 2) The low IR signature, that is lowered further more by the laser turrets present on both planes 3) Both of these, combined with countermeasures 4) The high agility and speeds of both fighters, wich allows for easier missile dodging 5) To this you might want to add that Alaska's territory is irregular enough to hide behind mountains / cliffs 6) Even if all this isn't convincing enough, wich is understandable because I did exclude some things like SAMs, just remember that dogfights have happened in Ukraine too, a basically flat area where the only 5th gen fighters were a few russian Su-57s, and there's some (rare) actual footage of these dogfights, as well as witnesses, of wich most have escaped or are at least still alive