Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: dyson@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (mark l dyson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: 80:20 ratio
Message-ID: <10511@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 23 Oct 89 23:09:27 GMT
References: <10409@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science
Lines: 19
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: dyson@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (mark l dyson)

In article <10409@cbnews.ATT.COM> amdcad!mjt@mcnc.org (Michael Tighe) writes:
>I tend to discount it also. It is diffcult to prove, since the person you
>would like to ask is usually deceased. Perhaps it was true at sometime.  I
>would think that most pilots know they are under attack, even if they
>cannot do anything to get out of it, and even if they only have a few
>seconds warning.

Another reason to doubt the 80/20% in modern times (at least for US targets)
is the policy to require visual recognition before committing weapons.  Some
new technology (like the image-magnifying camera in the F-14) is trying to
mitigate this disadvantage, but by and large US pilots aren't totally free to
use the BVR technology that's on their planes.  Just gives the target more time
to figure out what's up.

-Mark-