[unspun]

The authors do not seem to accommodate in their argument the revolution in military affairs that has increased lethality and efficiency by orders of magnitude. The question is, does this increased capability compensate for the decrease in units? Here in amateur-land the answer seems to be yes. The accuracy of bombs and missiles has reduced the number of sorties required to destroy a target by several orders of magnitude. What required hundreds if not thousands of sorties to destroy in WWII now requires 1 or 2. That ought to count for something in their analysis.

Well said. Modern and future fighter planes are more like very fast flying destroyers than dogfighters.

[DesScorp]

"Well said. Modern and future fighter planes are more like very fast flying destroyers than dogfighters."

I'm sorry, but bullsh*t. We went through this line of thinking once already, in the late 50's... dogfighting is obsolete, maneuverability isn't necessary, missiles are all we need on a fighter, etc etc etc, bullsh*t bullsh*t bullsh*t. We had to learn the hard way in Vietnam that dogfighting wasn't obsolete, that high thrust to weight ratio's mattered, and that a sidewinder was no substitute for a gun at close range.

Apparently, your post confirms the old saying... those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

Some principles of warfare never change. Dogfighting is one of them. And if our leaders are thinking like you are, then once again, just like Vietnam, a lot of our pilots will have to die before the leadership pulls their heads out of their asses.