Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbfsb!cbnewsc!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: F-14 vs F-15
Message-ID: <1991Jan25.031805.11026@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 25 Jan 91 03:18:05 GMT
References: <1991Jan24.035146.21888@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 27
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz)
In <1991Jan24.035146.21888@cbnews.att.com> tighe@hydra.convex.com
(Mike Tighe) writes:

>No, the major factor in A/A is experience. This is documented in a variety
>of studies. A 100 mile missile is not all that useful against another
>fighter, and historically, US pilots are usually not allowed to shoot at
>planes that they have not visually identified.

I saw a news show a couple of years ago, which commented that the F-14
could detect and fire upon targets well before the target could even see the
F-14.  However, because there is a time lag between the release of the missile
and contact with the target and because the F-14 needs to maintain radar
contact with the missile (i.e. keep missile in a narrow area in front of
plane), less sophisticated and cheaper planes could, in the time lag, detect
and fire off their own missiles.  Result two planes gone, one expensive and
one cheap.

The "aggressor" plane used in the test was unique in that the R&D money
came not from the government, but the manufacture.  It think it was the
TigerII, but I would not bet my life on that. 

max abramowitz
madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu
my opinions are my own