Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: urbanf@yj.data.nokia.fi (Urban Fredriksson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: AMRAAM vs ARM
Keywords: missiles AMRAAM ARM
Message-ID: <1991Feb19.033859.19634@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 19 Feb 91 03:38:59 GMT
References: <1991Feb7.015232.3245@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb13.031334.25993@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb13.215915.3778@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb15.072118.11667@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 15
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: urbanf@yj.data.nokia.fi  (Urban Fredriksson)

   Yes, you could reduce the time you have the radar switched
   on when firing AMRAAMs, but at least at long range not
   completely eliminate it, since the target's predicted
   position may change too much for the AMRAAM to find it
   without updates from the firing aircraft.

   As to how large volume a AMRAAM can search, and achive a
   kill, I have no idea.

| Urban Fredriksson |"The best way to get rid of an  | I do NOT speak   |
| Stockholm, Sweden | enemy is to make him a friend."| for my employer! |