In message , Tony Volk
writes
Boy, I'm sure getting a lot of mileage out of my posts!
Missile effectiveness is a pretty direct function of the energy of the
launching aircraft.

Let me make an even more direct function. Missile effectiveness is an
absolute direct function of whether or not it's on your rails on in the air.

Wasted shots are wasted shots. You only have a finite weapon load: when
it's gone, you're a helpless flying target.

There are good reasons to snapshoot a weapon at a threat, even if you're
not able to guide it. But there are also times that doing so is at best
a wasted shot, and at worst a positive hazard to your own side (an
autonomous missile lofted into the blue will tend to attack any target
it sees, and they aren't yet able to read insignia).

Firstly, do you have _time_ to then calculate relative envelopes, select
the best weapon, set up the switchology and fire?

In modern fighters, this shouldn't be a problem for well-trained pilots
(the F-22 has engagement envelopes, etc.). In fact, the F-22's software is
reportedly designed to do just that more or less automatically.

Warming up a missile, providing it with a firing solution, and getting
it off the rail is not an instantaneous process. While quicker than it
used to be, you often still need time to get thermal batteries fired and
warmed up, seekers pointing in the right direction, and data messages
passed to and fro.

Switching between types exacerbates this problem, and may cause problems
when your software selects a radar-homer based on the
apparently-splendid radar echo of the target... while the pilot fumbles
for the manual override, because his radar is actually tracking the
target's towed decoy.

Secondly, does your MRAAM reliably support a high-off-boresight
short-range engagement with a low-speed high-G launch?

If the enemy is beyond the range of a short-range IR missile, you have a
much lower chance of having to resort to a high-angle, high-g launch than in
a quick slashing attack. And even then, the AIM-120C and R-77 are
reportedly quite agile.

So for BVR engagements, you want to squander the energy you're about to
urgently need in order to point your nose and fire back - rather than
surviving and evading (while your wingman fires back)?

Thirdly, assuming you fire at each other, do you want to be fast
(increasing missile lethality and your own survivability) or slow
(handicapping your weapons and carving into your ability to evade)?

This is the critical assumption. You are NOT firing at each other.
Because of your energy-gobbling turn, your missile is in the air first.

What alerted you to the enemy's presence (the target and any friends)
and how are you confident that there are not already birds inbound?

Is his nose pointed at you? If so, you'll get counterfired whether you
like it or not, and your bat-turn will probably get you killed when his
missile arrives.

He
can see it, and he'd have to be an idiot, insanely good, and/or a Kamikaze
to return fire instead of immediately initiating a break turn.

Actually, depending on range and his aspect, the break turn may come
much later in the engagement. His evasion sequence might well include a
shot back on the same "no point dying with missiles on the rails"
principle. And, of course, what is his wingman doing?

Bear in mind that one response to your shot is to turn tail and run; at
longer ranges it's quite possible to outdistance a missile shot.
Meanwhile, you're slow and helpless while your target's wingmen fire
back.

Even if you
bluff a shot a little outside of your parameters, can HE judge whether it
has sufficient energy? Not very likely (and that'd be one HECK of a
gamble!).

But then, at those ranges the enemy has more time to think over his
countermeasures (aided by your wilful reduction in weapon lethality) and
to plan his counterattack.

Would you have been better off taking a shot thirty seconds later, but
with much more chance of a kill and more chance to survive a return
shot?

So you've put him on the defensive, eliminating the need to avoid
his missile (see previous conversations for his wingman and other players),
and making him use up energy while you can safely regain yours.

Trouble is, air combat is a tag-team wrestle rather than a solo duel
(with the partner willing to jump into the ring anytime)

Meanwhile, how many missiles did you start with? You've now got at least
one less, in exchange for a shot with poor Pk. The US may have a
seemingly-bottomless supply of weapons, but most nations do not.

Are you and your wingman _both_ making brutal turn-and-shoot moves? How
long did you spend (a) making sure this really was a 2v2 and there
weren't actually four threats or a second section out there, (b)
co-ordinating your fire so that you do engage all the threats and (for
instance) don't both fire at the same aircraft, leaving the other
unengaged?

And the point remains... a missile fired from a slow aircraft at a fast
target will struggle to hit, compared to a missile fired from a fast
aircraft at a slow target. One reason modern Western missiles are highly
lethal is that the pilots are trained to use them properly and to fire

Taking a shot of opportunity is thoroughly sensible. Wasting energy to
take a shot at a poor target... is not.

The BEST way to avoid his missile is to make sure it never comes off his
rail.

By all means, but wasting your own weapons is not a successful means to
that end.

Dodging one of today's advanced missiles is an iffy proposition, it
is far better to gain the offensive, and stay in the driver's seat.

But you don't do that by marginal low-energy shots. And you make
yourself _much_ more vulnerable if you _start_ the fight by making
yourself a sitting duck.

Bear in mind that "air superiority" is a means to an end, not an end in
itself. If you make a savage turn and a low-energy shot at a passing
raid, they may well be able to simply turn away, accelerate and blow by
you (and you won't have the energy to pursue, having wasted it in that
initial turn) - and they go on to bomb their target, which it was your
job to prevent.

Better by far to shout for backup while flying a more restrained
pursuit, and making the most of your fuel and missile load in killing
them or forcing them to abort.

You can
regain all the energy you like while he's breaking away from your
missile(s).

No, you can't: I think you've got an excessive optimism about
acceleration rates.

So again, I think the best idea is to get your weapons in the
air (within reasonable, if not optimum, parameters) ASAP without worrying
about saving energy to dodge his missile or defeat other bandits. That's
the best way to win (and survive) a modern dogfight IMHO (bearing in mind
that I have no access to classified missile/aircraft performance data).

How are you detecting the foe to make this manoeuvre? (Hint - your
sensors look forward, but can be detected over a much larger arc)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk