Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!amdahl!amdcad!military
From: dlj@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (david.l.jacobowitz)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Air Combat
Summary: maneuverability
Message-ID: <27211@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Date: 12 Sep 89 07:47:34 GMT
References: <27188@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Sender: cdr@amdcad.AMD.COM
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 38
Approved: military@amdcad.amd.com



From: dlj@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (david.l.jacobowitz)

In article <27188@amdcad.AMD.COM>, randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:
> 
> Why do our fighters have to be so manuverable? Given that a good
> air-air missile can knock out an enemy aircraft from 20 miles away,
> why do we spend all the time/energy/money on manuverability as opposed
> to other things, like IFF.

I'll take a stab at this:

Suppose your medium-range missile misses?
   You will shortly be at close range with your opponent.

Suppose your opponent fires his (her?) medium range missle first?
Suppose a SAM (surface-to-air missile) is fired at you?
   You will need to out-maneuver these missiles to stay alive.

Suppose you're on an intercept mission, and your rules of engagement
prevent you from firing a medium range missile before closing to
visual range?
   You may find yourself in a dogfight at close range.

Suppose you successfully launch all your missiles, and meet up with
a hostile aircraft on your way back?

Your question has been asked and answered several times
in the past 20 years.
Maneuverability is required in the current "age of missiles" just as
much as it was during WWII.
Aircraft that were built in the past to be unmaneuverable missile
launching platforms are being retired (F-101 Voodoo, F-106 Delta Dart),
while others never left the drawing board (the Missileer).
-- 
Dave J.                                             This space for rent
usual disclaimer implied                               Call 555-3838