Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!amdahl!amdcad!military From: craig@june.cs.washington.edu (Craig S. Anderson) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Air Combat Message-ID: <27214@amdcad.AMD.COM> Date: 12 Sep 89 07:48:02 GMT Sender: cdr@amdcad.AMD.COM Lines: 25 Approved: military@amdcad.amd.com > From: Randy Appleton > Why do [ oh, you all know the question by now! --CDR] The first problem with relying exclusively on BVR (beyond visual range) air-to-air missiles is that the probability of getting a kill is not 100%. With a weapon like the Sparrow (AIM-7), the attacker must illuminate the target with radar from launch until impact. If the target has a radar warning receiver, he might get a warning that a missile is on its way and be able to either attempt to maneuver out of the way, or use some kind of electronic (or other) counter-measures. Thus BVR weapons are not fool-proof. If a pilot has a maneuverable aircraft, he can gain a positional advantage on an enemy aircraft in order to use shorter range weapons, like infra-red (IR) missiles or cannon (assuming the enemy is close enough). As a historical note, many air strategists in the fifties and early sixties thought that 'dogfighting' would be made obsolete by the guided missile. The US Navy and Air Force learned that this was incorrect during the war in Vietnam. While some of the problems that the Navy/Air Force encountered had to do with poor IFF and the unreliable (at that time) Sparrow, the reports I've seen about Isreali kill statistics indicate a good proportion of the air-to-air victories were by IR missile or guns. Craig Anderson craig@june.cs.washington.edu