In the FWIW department ... The following article. They make a big deal about an F-35 v. F-16 (mentioned in earlier post) attack where the F-16 won ... but article ails to mention experienced F-16 pilot vs. inexperienced F-35 pilot. I'm not a big fan of the F-35 - really don't care one way or t'other - except for exorbitant costs, and take my cue for 'what really works' from actual pilots in the family - which is often different from the 'accepted' line. Yes, there were 'dogfights' over NORTH VIETNAM - little, if any, in SOUTH Vietnam - so save ya'll the trubble of 'keerectin' me on that issue. Korea, however, WAS the Waterloo of re-evaluation of TRAINING making a huge difference.
Anyhooz - here's an article from an obvious supporter of the 'need for dogfight' capability. It is rare- but it does happen. However, as the Armed Forces in Korea discovered, it ain't the plane that matters near as much as the training.
Air to Ground capabiity (imo) is far more important today than dogfighting. That, and missile avoidance- whether air launched or ground launched.
http://warisboring.com/the-u-s-air-force-promised-the-f-4-would-never-dogfight/
BTW: My dad trained on the F-4E at Luke AFB - prior to going to Vietnam. Used to have one of the 20mm casings from the guns on that plane. Strafing practice was pretty hairy - one could easily shoot oneself down from ricochets. He flew the O-1 there as a FAC (forward Air Controller) - supporting our US Army (and Marine) troops on the ground. My opinion, flying a low-altitude prop plane in combat takes far bigger ones than those required for 'fighter/bomber' jets. *s*
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...
| 
