> targeting hasn't improved as much as you think (hell, 1920s mechanical computers have about as much accuracy as a modern day cpu, so you can tick more in a second, so what?)

The primary advances are the ability to distinguish signals returned by chaff/flares from the real aircraft, and to have a model of the target aircaft's capabilities, so that on each targeting step the missile simulates the most extreme maneuvering it's capable in all directions, aiming the missile so that it is capable of keeping it's seeker on it and following regardless of how the plane flies. That's something that a higher tick rate is quite useful for.

(I'm agreeing with the parent post, just elaborating.)

Also, much like the weather, sometimes you can only make accurate predictions if you make a small prediction and correct it once you get feedback.

Much like you can get insanely high correlations on your predictions about the weather if you never predict more than 15 minutes out, the problem of predicting the other plane's response only become tractable when you can predict and correct over very short windows.

The higher clock rate doesn't just do more of the same faster, but rather, enable a sort of "phase shift", where the speed enables a new form of computation to work in a meaningful way.

Doesn't that imply that anti-missile missiles are just around the corner?

> Doesn't that imply that anti-missile missiles are just around the corner?

Anti-missile missiles already exist (missiles designed to intercept air-to-air missiles are still a ways off.)

>the US doesn't believe its going to get into a fight with a peer competitor, that's why they are ill concerned with dog fighting abilities.

Then why don't they buy more AC-130?

I'm not saying they are right in that assumption, and I'm not sure why you would suggest the AC-130.

they are more focused on drones for better or for worse

The focus of your previous post was that electronic gizmos make dogfighting obsolete and unnecessary. You can put far more electronics and weapons in an AC-130 than in an F-35. I'm only half-joking here. If you have no maneuverability or power advantage, then just forget about dogfighting altogether and take more weapons and countermeasures.

If they field this thing and try to rely on it, someone will build a purpose-built F-35 killer for a fraction of the cost and field 10x of them against it in battle; assuming anyone ever wants to have an air war with the US.

>they are more focused on drones for better or for worse

I agree drones and remotely piloted will eventually supplant piloted craft, but I think the Air Force is a generation of leadership away from that change.

> assuming anyone ever wants to have an air war with the US.

If the past serves as a guide, it's usually the other way around.

Because the AC-130 is far more vulnerable to MANPADs and so has had periods even in Iraq where it was restricted to night flying only due to losses.