Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!amdahl!amdcad!military From: mchinni@PICA.ARMY.MIL (Michael J. Chinni) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Air Combat Message-ID: <27212@amdcad.AMD.COM> Date: 12 Sep 89 07:47:44 GMT Sender: cdr@amdcad.AMD.COM Lines: 33 Approved: military@amdcad.amd.com From: "Michael J. Chinni" > Why do our fighters have to be so manuverable? The answer is a leason the U.S. learned in vietnam. Military brass decided before Vietnam that since air-to-air missles were so good there was no need for U.S. planes to have machine-guns/cannon armament, just missles. Sometime after the U.S. had fully entered the war, someone checked the losses of planes due to the enemy. It was found to be much higher than had been predicted. The military needless to say wanted to know why. The answer: SURPRISE, most losses were due to close-quarters plane-to-place encounters (i.e. dog-fights). Given this planes were re-armed with machine-guns/cannon. Since, in dog-fights manuverability is very important (i.e. to attack and to avoid attack) and the U.S. has learned from vietnam and from various other countries wars that there will always be dog-fights, we make our planes has manuverable has possible within the limits of structural integrity and pilot physical limits. Sources: various television documentaries dealing with flight, war, etc. Michael J. Chinni Chief Scientist, Simulation Techniques and Workplace Automation Team US Army Armament Research, Development, and Engineering Center User to skeleton sitting at cobweb () Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey and dust covered workstation () ARPA: mchinni@pica.army.mil "System been down long?" () UUCP: ...!uunet!pica.army.mil!mchinni INSERT STANDARD DISCLAIMER HERE