> Yeah, aircraft are as obsolete as tanks, the Ukrainian War showed us as much
I wouldnt go THAT far yet because there are still some uses for the aircraft. Especially very long range missions are economical by using aircraft. Ie, 2000 km and more ranges. Including interception and air defense. There are missiles that can travel such distances, but they are expensive still.
However true, very soon that kind of range will also be covered by drones, making aircraft totall obsolete.
> As far as dogfights are concerned, they were declared dead prior to Vietnam. To the point fighter jets didn't get cannons anymore. Vietnam caused the creation of Top Gun, when the Navy realized their pilots were not up to par in airial combat.
That was a time in which the missiles were still in their infancy. Hence the miss rate and the need to dogfight. Today its not like that.
> one of the following scenarios will happen
I propose that none of those scenarios will happen. Existing air defense systems now can reach distances up to 500 km and shoot down literally, actually anything. (S-500 and above). Suicide drones can travel 1700 km. Strike drones even more.
There is no need to have any aircraft take off and do mission at a long distance, in which they would get promptly shot down by advanced air defense systems. Just spam drones.
I think there are very valid reason every Gen 5 fighter has a cannon. I also think neither manned fighters nor tanks are going anywhere soon. The war in Ukraine just painted a fastly wrong picture, for valid reasons for sure, but still wrong concerning modern weapon systems.
As long as someone needs something on the ground been blown up from up close, or protect infantry from being blown up frok up close, tanks are your weapon of choice. You want something on the ground blown up from a distance comparatively cheap? Artillery, idealy self propelled for mobility, is your friend. You want to blow up stuff on the ground far away, and fast, you go for fighter aircraft. Or if you don't want to your enemy to do just that, as those are fast, can cover a lot of groind and controlled locally, so no jaming of any kind. If you want to do the same thing from really far away, use a cruise missile. Or in contested airspace where your piloted aircraft are too valuable? Use a drone, same for long endurance surveillance of uncontested airspace.
I wouldnt go THAT far yet because there are still some uses for the aircraft. Especially very long range missions are economical by using aircraft. Ie, 2000 km and more ranges. Including interception and air defense. There are missiles that can travel such distances, but they are expensive still.
However true, very soon that kind of range will also be covered by drones, making aircraft totall obsolete.
> As far as dogfights are concerned, they were declared dead prior to Vietnam. To the point fighter jets didn't get cannons anymore. Vietnam caused the creation of Top Gun, when the Navy realized their pilots were not up to par in airial combat.
That was a time in which the missiles were still in their infancy. Hence the miss rate and the need to dogfight. Today its not like that.
> one of the following scenarios will happen
I propose that none of those scenarios will happen. Existing air defense systems now can reach distances up to 500 km and shoot down literally, actually anything. (S-500 and above). Suicide drones can travel 1700 km. Strike drones even more.
There is no need to have any aircraft take off and do mission at a long distance, in which they would get promptly shot down by advanced air defense systems. Just spam drones.