Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!pyramid!amdcad!military
From: gardiner@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (David Gardiner)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Air Combat
Message-ID: <27230@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Date: 13 Sep 89 08:15:42 GMT
References: <27214@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Sender: cdr@amdcad.AMD.COM
Organization: CSci Dept., University of Minnesota, Mpls.
Lines: 15
Approved: military@amdcad.amd.com



From: gardiner@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (David Gardiner)
Most of the issues relating to why dogfighting is still important have
been covered.  I will add one more:

The Vincennes (sp?) incident showed the danger of beyond visual range
weapons.  BVR weapons are really useful in all-out war situations only, and
the US is unlikely to be involved in any of those in the foreseeable future.
Hence, visual identification of the target is essential.  In this age of 
supersonic fighters, if you can visually identify the enemy aircraft,
you are basically already in a dogfight.  Assume that you spot the enemy 
at a range of 10 miles and have a 1800 kt closure rate.  You have 20 seconds 
until you are canopy to canopy.  All-aspect missiles are nice but your best 
shot is still from the rear quarter.