The Fate of the Dogfight and Fighter Jets

The Birth of Air Combat

Until the First World War, aviation was not regarded as a serious or game transformative field; individuals engaged with it on a personal level. However, as is well known, the owners of aircraft were the most powerful actors in the domain of defense, and thus the most significant development scenarios emerged from aerial combat. Indeed, the development of aviation itself began with the First World War and reached its greatest momentum by the end of the Second World War, after which it continued routinely alongside other technological advancements. During this period, one of the most effective and striking war methods of military aviation—the “Dogfight” model—demonstrated aviation’s game-changing role in warfare strategies.

During the First World War, aircraft that were slow and weak compared to today’s models entered the battlefield. Initially used for reconnaissance and intelligence gathering, they were later armed with bombs and began carrying out bombing missions. Enemy forces seeking to prevent these bombings began mounting machine guns behind the propellers of their own aircraft to shoot down the heavily laden bombers. Aircraft sent to protect the bombers took on the role of fighters, thus igniting the dawn of air combat.

At first, the roles of bombing, interception, and fighter aircraft were strictly limited by the payload carried and the mission type. Over time, specialized designs were developed for each role. The categories “Bomber Aircraft,” “Interceptor Aircraft,” and “Fighter Aircraft” were formally established.

When fighter aircraft encountered each other or interceptor aircraft in the sky, pilots attempted to neutralize their opponents as if playing a game of chess with their planes. They fought to render their adversaries defenseless and achieve a firing position. This dynamic created a combat model and visual pattern reminiscent of chess.

The Logic of the Dogfight

The earliest phase of air combat, in which fighter aircraft engaged each other at close range, saw pilots relying on the primitive technology of their aircraft. Fixed guns mounted at the front of the fuselage required pilots to align their aircraft directly with the enemy to score a hit. To achieve this, a pilot had to position his aircraft directly in front of the opponent’s path, while simultaneously avoiding exposing himself to enemy fire. Naturally, the safest combat scenario became maneuvering behind the enemy aircraft. Aviators, noting that this maneuver resembled dogs chasing and grappling with each other, began referring to this combat model as the “Dogfight.”

Kobra maneuver (Photo: Robert Sullivan, flickr.com)

Single circle dogfight (Photo: David Cenciotti, Alessandro 'Gonzo' Olivares, The aviationist)

Flat scissors dogfight (Photo: David Cenciotti, Alessandro 'Gonzo' Olivares, The aviationist)

In the early days of air combat, the aviation field lacked standardization; many concepts remained unexplored, numerous techniques unrefined, and few systems optimized. Consequently, minor details and new discoveries significantly influenced the outcome of aerial engagements.

Examples of such minor factors include: a pilot’s exceptionally sharp vision enabling early detection of enemies and granting tactical advantage; aircraft equipped with advanced machine guns capable of disabling opponents within a few seconds; small innovations on the wings reducing turning time and preventing the aircraft from becoming easy prey; and differences in engine power providing a decisive advantage at high altitudes, far outweighing benefits gained in bombing-focused engagements. In short, every innovation meant a new advantage and, therefore, operational success. However, as optimization progressed, simple innovations ceased to provide meaningful advantages. Initially, a novel wing profile enabled high-energy maneuvers that granted superiority over opponents; once standardized wing profiles became common, this detail no longer offered a competitive edge.

For instance, when determining the decisive criteria in a dogfight, characteristics such as whether the aircraft had wings or whether the pilot had good eyesight are no longer considered relevant. Ultimately, in any assumed dogfight scenario, specific categories were defined and minimum standards were assumed. As time passed and research and development efforts advanced, standards became clearer. As minimum standard features increased, the number of distinguishing criteria decreased, and innovative approaches began to be sought.

German Standards and Innovative Breakthroughs

With the onset of the Second World War, Germany began combat operations using aircraft developed to high standards following the First World War. In the early stages of the war, Germany led in optimizing existing technological capabilities. However, these efforts were not viewed as merely a race of incremental improvements.

The Germans, who took the first step toward changing their doctrine and standards, invented the X-4, a remotely controlled missile system. Although the X-4 was not a game-changer, it represented an innovative step. While previous developments aimed only to improve existing processes, the X-4 introduced a fundamentally new concept by focusing on tracking the enemy. Its practical shortcomings and failures forced Germany to explore new innovative avenues. Behind this door, the Germans developed the V-1, history’s first guided missile. Although the V-1 had no direct impact on dogfighting, it indirectly transformed the doctrine of dogfighting and ultimately rendered the dogfight model obsolete.

As guided missiles were designed for use in air combat, critical changes occurred in dogfighting. In standard dogfights, aircraft must approach each other closely and align their noses with the target to fire. In contrast, the fundamental principle of guided missiles requires only that the enemy be detected by the missile’s guidance system. The missile then tracks and intercepts the target using its own guidance. Initially, guided missiles were not sufficiently optimized to follow sharp enemy maneuvers, but over time they became capable of doing so.

After the war, research and development continued. Independent nations, primarily the United States and Russia, persisted in aviation research. With technological advancement, by the mid-1950s, missiles capable of striking enemy aircraft at distances of up to ten kilometers began to emerge. Radar systems were developed to allow pilots to detect enemy aircraft at ranges beyond visual range and to identify their models.

With the advancement of radar technology, the practice of pilots chasing each other to disable opponents with automatic weapons began to be regarded as a relic of early aviation. At the same time, according to some perspectives, electronic countermeasures or high-tech weapons could disable guidance systems and potentially revive the dogfight concept in certain operations. In such cases, it remains unclear whether the returning platform would be a manned aircraft or an unmanned aerial vehicle capable of withstanding high G-forces.

Pilot and aircraft costs provide predictable data. Although modern aircraft appear expensive, in an active combat scenario these costs would be disregarded, and a high-intensity engagement process would commence. While destroyed aircraft represent material losses, these losses are generally considered tolerable. However, the loss of a pilot signifies the irreversible loss of years of training and experience, making it a far more serious loss. With the advancement of Artificial intelligence technologies, remotely controlled or fully AI-managed combat aircraft are becoming an increasingly plausible reality. Today, the G-forces that new-generation aircraft can withstand are beyond the physical limits of any human pilot. The high-precision movement of control surfaces and the extreme complexity of their in-flight configurations make human piloting an impractical limiting factor.

Another emerging combat model is visible on the horizon. In a hybrid model, manned aircraft operate at a safe distance from the battlefield but remain close enough to intervene when necessary, coordinating with unmanned systems.

The Jet Engine Misconception

Jet engines, first used by Germany, did not significantly impact dogfighting. Their deployment in the final stages of the war also had no decisive effect on its outcome.

The two primary advantages of jet engines are altitude and speed. Propeller engines operate by pushing air backward through their propellers, achieving superior performance at lower altitudes where air density is higher. However, at higher altitudes where air becomes thinner, propeller engines suffer performance losses. Jet engines, by contrast, compress incoming air and combust it with fuel to generate thrust, and they possess the capacity to draw in vast quantities of air even under vacuum-like conditions. As a result, they operate far more efficiently at high altitudes than propeller engines. Furthermore, by compressing and burning air, jet engines produce thrust at velocities far beyond what propeller engines can achieve.

These two factors did influence dogfighting; however, altitude and speed advantages are considered optimized enhancements rather than game-changing innovations. In contrast, guidance technology is recognized as a revolutionary innovation that fundamentally redefined aerial combat.