Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: orpheus@reed.UUCP (P. Hawthorne)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: AMRAAM
Message-ID: <1991Feb13.215915.3778@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 13 Feb 91 21:59:15 GMT
References: <1991Feb7.015232.3245@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb13.031334.25993@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: Reed College, Portland OR
Lines: 47
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: orpheus@reed.UUCP (P. Hawthorne)
    orpheus@reed.UUCP (P. Hawthorne) writes:
 .  I read that AMRAAM was at a severe disadvantage when it's European sister
 .  was delayed indefinitely. It's a crying shame too. If the one in the
 .  simulators are like the ones on the drawing boards, it'd be a Godsend.

    adam@ste.dyn.bae.co.uk (Adam Curtin) writes:
 .  Do your targets in the simulators carry ARMs?


    Nope. It's unfortunate, at least in the simulator I have, that the
majority of attention is focused on the systems of the aircraft you occupy
rather than those that you are going to contend with.
    They probably bear little resemblance, after all. Not a big surprise, I
hasten to admit. If they did, they would be very impressive indeed.

    In the simulator, the long range of the AMRAAM permits one to win 
an engagement early, evade it entirely, or at least gain a speed advantage
beforehand.  If you decide to evade the engagement, the best time is while
the target tries to evade the missile. Plus, it usually hits anyway.
    Also, by the time the target is within Sidewinder range, it is a trick
to get a lock at high speeds and close range. It leaves the impression that
Sidewinder is clumsy, at least against fast targets.
    Major disclaimer here, these observations come from a simulator. Not
even a military flight simulator, more of an educated guess, really.

    From your post, I gather that the increased range of AMRAAM is balanced
by a high radar profile that can be exploited by radar homing missiles,
and that missile warfare has a dubious proven record at best. Each of these
are points well taken, and further substantiated by the effectiveness of HARM. 
    As you might have said yourself, radar works both ways.
    While I agree that depending on missiles is a dangerous proposition,
I think it is worth developing any alternative to guns for modern fighters.

    I find it ironic that the chief point in favor of AMRAAM, the increase in
range provided by radar, is also the chief point of vulnerability.

    I am alarmed to see that unfavorable test results are thrown out when
they ought to be seized upon as key data for research on countering the
threat posed by similar technology in hostile hands.


    orpheus@reed
  ''Try not to alarm the participants with the image of bright young men
    with their mathematical models and elaborate diagrams...''