Q? We don't need no stinking Q!

"Speed is life" was drummed into my brain starting with FAM-1 in the F-8.
Particularly vital in an era where any likely adversary would eat you alive
in a slow turning fight. Also useful when it was time to leave the scene
.... max speed to disengage and get to feet wet and safety. We're not
talking big mach numbers at altitude, but big knots(AKA Q) relatively low
.... shrinking missile envelopes and generating separation from the bad guys.

Had an interesting conversation with a PXO (former Bug driver) who just
finished 4 years at the puzzle palace. He claimed we didn't need speed in
tactical aircraft.

By default we don't have it in USN aircraft. The F-18C/D can't exceed 700
knots on a good day. The E/F is slower. They're impressive at high alpha
(only the F-22 and modded flankers are better), but they're not dragsters
(they're also a bit weak in endurance and range). But no matter.

Alleged reason: It's cheaper to design a missile that'll kill anyone giving
chase than it is to design an airplane that can egress. As the AIM-9X is
developed further, it will be able to engage a bogey at or near dead six
(!?!). Of course, the argument overlooks the fact that we've been flying
F-18's for some 20 years without this capability. In certain Pacific Rim
scenarios, an intrepid aviator in a Mig series aircraft could give chase and
run down the Bug and put one up where the sun don't shine.

Any thoughts? There aren't many potential adversaries that could put up a
significant A/A defense and current tactics are to neutralize them early
(Six day war style, as opposed to Vietnam), but it only takes one late
arrival in the furball to ruin your day. Is the day of the 800+ egress
over?

R / John

"John Carrier" wrote in message
. ..
"Speed is life" was drummed into my brain starting with FAM-1 in the F-8.
Particularly vital in an era where any likely adversary would eat you
alive in a slow turning fight. Also useful when it was time to leave the
scene ... max speed to disengage and get to feet wet and safety. We're
not talking big mach numbers at altitude, but big knots(AKA Q) relatively
low ... shrinking missile envelopes and generating separation from the bad
guys.

Had an interesting conversation with a PXO (former Bug driver) who just
finished 4 years at the puzzle palace. He claimed we didn't need speed in
tactical aircraft.

By default we don't have it in USN aircraft. The F-18C/D can't exceed 700
knots on a good day. The E/F is slower. They're impressive at high alpha
(only the F-22 and modded flankers are better), but they're not dragsters
(they're also a bit weak in endurance and range). But no matter.

Alleged reason: It's cheaper to design a missile that'll kill anyone
giving chase than it is to design an airplane that can egress. As the
AIM-9X is developed further, it will be able to engage a bogey at or near
dead six (!?!). Of course, the argument overlooks the fact that we've
been flying F-18's for some 20 years without this capability. In certain
Pacific Rim scenarios, an intrepid aviator in a Mig series aircraft could
give chase and run down the Bug and put one up where the sun don't shine.

This sounds like one of those scenarios where "by the time he's in position
to shoot me down, I can shoot him down too"... Ok, so you shoot each other
down... Not a trade-off which would make the Navy happy.

On the other hand, there are few scenarios today where any opponent is will
go toe to toe with the US in the air, so it may be a moot point. The Mig-29
pilot can't shoot you down if his airplane is a smoking ruin sitting on the
ramp.


Any thoughts? There aren't many potential adversaries that could put up a
significant A/A defense and current tactics are to neutralize them early
(Six day war style, as opposed to Vietnam), but it only takes one late
arrival in the furball to ruin your day. Is the day of the 800+ egress
over?

R / John

KB

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 10:37:29 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:


"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
"Speed is life" was drummed into my brain starting with FAM-1 in the F-8.
Particularly vital in an era where any likely adversary would eat you
alive in a slow turning fight. Also useful when it was time to leave the
scene ... max speed to disengage and get to feet wet and safety. We're
not talking big mach numbers at altitude, but big knots(AKA Q) relatively
low ... shrinking missile envelopes and generating separation from the bad
guys.

Had an interesting conversation with a PXO (former Bug driver) who just
finished 4 years at the puzzle palace. He claimed we didn't need speed in
tactical aircraft.

By default we don't have it in USN aircraft. The F-18C/D can't exceed 700
knots on a good day. The E/F is slower. They're impressive at high alpha
(only the F-22 and modded flankers are better), but they're not dragsters
(they're also a bit weak in endurance and range). But no matter.

Alleged reason: It's cheaper to design a missile that'll kill anyone
giving chase than it is to design an airplane that can egress. As the
AIM-9X is developed further, it will be able to engage a bogey at or near
dead six (!?!). Of course, the argument overlooks the fact that we've
been flying F-18's for some 20 years without this capability. In certain
Pacific Rim scenarios, an intrepid aviator in a Mig series aircraft could
give chase and run down the Bug and put one up where the sun don't shine.

This sounds like one of those scenarios where "by the time he's in position
to shoot me down, I can shoot him down too"... Ok, so you shoot each other
down... Not a trade-off which would make the Navy happy.

On the other hand, there are few scenarios today where any opponent is will
go toe to toe with the US in the air, so it may be a moot point. The Mig-29
pilot can't shoot you down if his airplane is a smoking ruin sitting on the
ramp.


Any thoughts? There aren't many potential adversaries that could put up a
significant A/A defense and current tactics are to neutralize them early
(Six day war style, as opposed to Vietnam), but it only takes one late
arrival in the furball to ruin your day. Is the day of the 800+ egress
over?

R / John

Let me see if I can put this in context--it seems to fit right into
the "we'll never need a gun" or maybe "there's no need for a new
aircraft, we'll just build more (insert current obsolescent system
here.)"

No one is willing to go toe-to-toe with the US in the air because we
have technological superiority. Yet, we see new airplanes being built
and bought by potential adversaries every year. Typhoons and
Eurofighters and MiG-97s or whatever are coming along to someday
challenge us. "Wish Him Dead" missiles are on drawing boards around
the world.

We know from experience that every new weapon generates a new counter.
SAMs didn't kill us, IR seekers didn't kill us, auto-tracking guns
with high rates-of-fire didn't kill us, super-agile Cobra-popping
fighters didn't kill us, etc. etc.

Why? Because we continued to get FASTER, more AGILE, better ARMED,
better TRAINED, more EXPERIENCED, better LED, etc. etc.

Q? I need it. I want it. I've got to have it. I've NEVER been TOO
FAST--and I know it is way too easy to be TOO SLOOOOOWWWWW.

Your mileage may vary.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 10:37:29 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:


"John Carrier" wrote in message
m...
"Speed is life" was drummed into my brain starting with FAM-1 in the
F-8.
Particularly vital in an era where any likely adversary would eat you
alive in a slow turning fight. Also useful when it was time to leave
the
scene ... max speed to disengage and get to feet wet and safety. We're
not talking big mach numbers at altitude, but big knots(AKA Q)
relatively
low ... shrinking missile envelopes and generating separation from the
bad
guys.

Had an interesting conversation with a PXO (former Bug driver) who just
finished 4 years at the puzzle palace. He claimed we didn't need speed
in
tactical aircraft.

By default we don't have it in USN aircraft. The F-18C/D can't exceed
700
knots on a good day. The E/F is slower. They're impressive at high
alpha
(only the F-22 and modded flankers are better), but they're not
dragsters
(they're also a bit weak in endurance and range). But no matter.

Alleged reason: It's cheaper to design a missile that'll kill anyone
giving chase than it is to design an airplane that can egress. As the
AIM-9X is developed further, it will be able to engage a bogey at or
near
dead six (!?!). Of course, the argument overlooks the fact that we've
been flying F-18's for some 20 years without this capability. In
certain
Pacific Rim scenarios, an intrepid aviator in a Mig series aircraft
could
give chase and run down the Bug and put one up where the sun don't
shine.

This sounds like one of those scenarios where "by the time he's in
position
to shoot me down, I can shoot him down too"... Ok, so you shoot each
other
down... Not a trade-off which would make the Navy happy.

On the other hand, there are few scenarios today where any opponent is
will
go toe to toe with the US in the air, so it may be a moot point. The
Mig-29
pilot can't shoot you down if his airplane is a smoking ruin sitting on
the
ramp.


Any thoughts? There aren't many potential adversaries that could put up
a
significant A/A defense and current tactics are to neutralize them early
(Six day war style, as opposed to Vietnam), but it only takes one late
arrival in the furball to ruin your day. Is the day of the 800+ egress
over?

R / John

Let me see if I can put this in context--it seems to fit right into
the "we'll never need a gun" or maybe "there's no need for a new
aircraft, we'll just build more (insert current obsolescent system
here.)"

No one is willing to go toe-to-toe with the US in the air because we
have technological superiority. Yet, we see new airplanes being built
and bought by potential adversaries every year. Typhoons and
Eurofighters and MiG-97s or whatever are coming along to someday
challenge us. "Wish Him Dead" missiles are on drawing boards around
the world.

We know from experience that every new weapon generates a new counter.
SAMs didn't kill us, IR seekers didn't kill us, auto-tracking guns
with high rates-of-fire didn't kill us, super-agile Cobra-popping
fighters didn't kill us, etc. etc.

Why? Because we continued to get FASTER, more AGILE, better ARMED,
better TRAINED, more EXPERIENCED, better LED, etc. etc.

Q? I need it. I want it. I've got to have it. I've NEVER been TOO
FAST--and I know it is way too easy to be TOO SLOOOOOWWWWW.

Your mileage may vary.

How true. Egress from adversary in F-5s. My comms: "Your right three low,
accelerating. Say your airspeed."

Reply with much exuberance, "600 knots!"

"Well, I'm passing 700 and I'm NOT fast enough."

R / John

Speed isn't important? Speed is life! Hell, I flew a turning fool of
an airplane, the F102. Wing loading about 45 psf. All that turn could
do was let me go around in tight circles when a faster airplane hawked
me. And that only lasted as long as my fuel did. But next I flew the
F104A - and 800+ was there if I needed it, even with its original
engine. The one with the Dash 19 engine would really step out. AMAF
two friends of mine took the birds out to 2.5 - 'only' 300 past the
redline. Speed is good!
And I bet Ed agrees with me; when you've just PO'ed Charlie by
taking out an SA2 site and the other 5 sites are still there looking
for you, 745 (all our F4Ds could do with all the junk hanging on them)
heading out for feet-wet was very nice indeed. - 745 because our
engines were right at the top of the trim band - they sure weren't
that fast back home.
I don't ever recall complaining about an airplane that wasn't
slow enough . . .
Walt BJ

Three armchair thoughts:

1- The need for speed going into a dogfight is increasingly irrelevant.
Speed = life was the motto before modern engines. It still applies, but to
a lesser degree IMO. The thrust of the F-22 is sick. You can regain energy
unlike the Camel, P-51, F-86, F-105, F-4, or even the F-15. You absolutely
still need energy, but with better enginges, you have less need for
pre-existing speed to provide that energy.

2- "lleged reason: It's cheaper to design a missile that'll kill anyone
giving
chase than it is to design an airplane that can egress." Ideally, that
makes very good sense. Let the missile do the dogfighting. In reality, I
don't think missile technology is there yet, so you still need the agile
jet, with the ability to disengage.

3- Speed shrinks tail-on missle envelopes. Both S-A, and A-A. I bet the
Iraqi's wish they were all flying F-111s when they tried to run on the deck
to Iran! Might not have saved them all, but it would have probably saved
some of them. Speed increases head-on envelopes. The hit and run tactics
of Mig-21s and -25s have proven to be among their better options probably
because speed decreases detection time and hence increases surprise.

So I think it's clear that speed is, and always will be, an important asset
even if engines and missiles continue to improve. It matters for a lot more
than just egressing dogfights.

TV

On Jul 4, 11:11 am, "John Carrier" wrote:
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message

...





On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 10:37:29 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:

"John Carrier" wrote in message
m...
"Speed is life" was drummed into my brain starting with FAM-1 in the
F-8.
Particularly vital in an era where any likely adversary would eat you
alive in a slow turning fight. Also useful when it was time to leave
the
scene ... max speed to disengage and get to feet wet and safety. We're
not talking big mach numbers at altitude, but big knots(AKA Q)
relatively
low ... shrinking missile envelopes and generating separation from the
bad
guys.

Had an interesting conversation with a PXO (former Bug driver) who just
finished 4 years at the puzzle palace. He claimed we didn't need speed
in
tactical aircraft.

By default we don't have it in USN aircraft. The F-18C/D can't exceed
700
knots on a good day. The E/F is slower. They're impressive at high
alpha
(only the F-22 and modded flankers are better), but they're not
dragsters
(they're also a bit weak in endurance and range). But no matter.

Alleged reason: It's cheaper to design a missile that'll kill anyone
giving chase than it is to design an airplane that can egress. As the
AIM-9X is developed further, it will be able to engage a bogey at or
near
dead six (!?!). Of course, the argument overlooks the fact that we've
been flying F-18's for some 20 years without this capability. In
certain
Pacific Rim scenarios, an intrepid aviator in a Mig series aircraft
could
give chase and run down the Bug and put one up where the sun don't
shine.

This sounds like one of those scenarios where "by the time he's in
position
to shoot me down, I can shoot him down too"... Ok, so you shoot each
other
down... Not a trade-off which would make the Navy happy.

On the other hand, there are few scenarios today where any opponent is
will
go toe to toe with the US in the air, so it may be a moot point. The
Mig-29
pilot can't shoot you down if his airplane is a smoking ruin sitting on
the
ramp.

Any thoughts? There aren't many potential adversaries that could put up
a
significant A/A defense and current tactics are to neutralize them early
(Six day war style, as opposed to Vietnam), but it only takes one late
arrival in the furball to ruin your day. Is the day of the 800+ egress
over?

R / John

Let me see if I can put this in context--it seems to fit right into
the "we'll never need a gun" or maybe "there's no need for a new
aircraft, we'll just build more (insert current obsolescent system
here.)"

No one is willing to go toe-to-toe with the US in the air because we
have technological superiority. Yet, we see new airplanes being built
and bought by potential adversaries every year. Typhoons and
Eurofighters and MiG-97s or whatever are coming along to someday
challenge us. "Wish Him Dead" missiles are on drawing boards around
the world.

We know from experience that every new weapon generates a new counter.
SAMs didn't kill us, IR seekers didn't kill us, auto-tracking guns
with high rates-of-fire didn't kill us, super-agile Cobra-popping
fighters didn't kill us, etc. etc.

Why? Because we continued to get FASTER, more AGILE, better ARMED,
better TRAINED, more EXPERIENCED, better LED, etc. etc.

Q? I need it. I want it. I've got to have it. I've NEVER been TOO
FAST--and I know it is way too easy to be TOO SLOOOOOWWWWW.

Your mileage may vary.

How true. Egress from adversary in F-5s. My comms: "Your right three low,
accelerating. Say your airspeed."

Reply with much exuberance, "600 knots!"

"Well, I'm passing 700 and I'm NOT fast enough."

R / John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

as a current hornet driver i have to say i agree wholeheartedly.
though i love the big alpha hog as much as the next guy, i would trade
the unlimited alpha for
the ability to put more smash on my 120C5 any day (i only dream about
what kind of A/F poles the Raptor guys get up in the bozosphere
running around at those knots), as well as the ability to run from
well, any airplane, which we cannot do now. Funny, we just had a BFM
phase brief and we were talking about how our tacmans are total bs
when they talk about separating from a fight. Though it may be great
swaggering bar talk to speak of how we better be good at BFM, because
"once we anchor its either win or die" - I wouldn't be so keen on
getting into a vis fight at war not because of what the flanker/
fulcrum/insert adversary here will do, but my complete inability to
get away from all of the other dudes either smelling blood or looking
at his fireball and chasing me down. Only real Hornet deficiency - too
slow!!! We can talk about the gas issue some other day hahaha!
phase brief yesterday..our

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 4, 11:11 am, "John Carrier" wrote:
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message

...





On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 10:37:29 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:

"John Carrier" wrote in message
m...
"Speed is life" was drummed into my brain starting with FAM-1 in the
F-8.
Particularly vital in an era where any likely adversary would eat you
alive in a slow turning fight. Also useful when it was time to leave
the
scene ... max speed to disengage and get to feet wet and safety.
We're
not talking big mach numbers at altitude, but big knots(AKA Q)
relatively
low ... shrinking missile envelopes and generating separation from
the
bad
guys.

Had an interesting conversation with a PXO (former Bug driver) who
just
finished 4 years at the puzzle palace. He claimed we didn't need
speed
in
tactical aircraft.

By default we don't have it in USN aircraft. The F-18C/D can't
exceed
700
knots on a good day. The E/F is slower. They're impressive at high
alpha
(only the F-22 and modded flankers are better), but they're not
dragsters
(they're also a bit weak in endurance and range). But no matter.

Alleged reason: It's cheaper to design a missile that'll kill anyone
giving chase than it is to design an airplane that can egress. As
the
AIM-9X is developed further, it will be able to engage a bogey at or
near
dead six (!?!). Of course, the argument overlooks the fact that
we've
been flying F-18's for some 20 years without this capability. In
certain
Pacific Rim scenarios, an intrepid aviator in a Mig series aircraft
could
give chase and run down the Bug and put one up where the sun don't
shine.

This sounds like one of those scenarios where "by the time he's in
position
to shoot me down, I can shoot him down too"... Ok, so you shoot each
other
down... Not a trade-off which would make the Navy happy.

On the other hand, there are few scenarios today where any opponent is
will
go toe to toe with the US in the air, so it may be a moot point. The
Mig-29
pilot can't shoot you down if his airplane is a smoking ruin sitting on
the
ramp.

Any thoughts? There aren't many potential adversaries that could put
up
a
significant A/A defense and current tactics are to neutralize them
early
(Six day war style, as opposed to Vietnam), but it only takes one
late
arrival in the furball to ruin your day. Is the day of the 800+
egress
over?

R / John

Let me see if I can put this in context--it seems to fit right into
the "we'll never need a gun" or maybe "there's no need for a new
aircraft, we'll just build more (insert current obsolescent system
here.)"

No one is willing to go toe-to-toe with the US in the air because we
have technological superiority. Yet, we see new airplanes being built
and bought by potential adversaries every year. Typhoons and
Eurofighters and MiG-97s or whatever are coming along to someday
challenge us. "Wish Him Dead" missiles are on drawing boards around
the world.

We know from experience that every new weapon generates a new counter.
SAMs didn't kill us, IR seekers didn't kill us, auto-tracking guns
with high rates-of-fire didn't kill us, super-agile Cobra-popping
fighters didn't kill us, etc. etc.

Why? Because we continued to get FASTER, more AGILE, better ARMED,
better TRAINED, more EXPERIENCED, better LED, etc. etc.

Q? I need it. I want it. I've got to have it. I've NEVER been TOO
FAST--and I know it is way too easy to be TOO SLOOOOOWWWWW.

Your mileage may vary.

How true. Egress from adversary in F-5s. My comms: "Your right three
low,
accelerating. Say your airspeed."

Reply with much exuberance, "600 knots!"

"Well, I'm passing 700 and I'm NOT fast enough."

R / John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

as a current hornet driver i have to say i agree wholeheartedly.
though i love the big alpha hog as much as the next guy, i would trade
the unlimited alpha for
the ability to put more smash on my 120C5 any day (i only dream about
what kind of A/F poles the Raptor guys get up in the bozosphere
running around at those knots), as well as the ability to run from
well, any airplane, which we cannot do now. Funny, we just had a BFM
phase brief and we were talking about how our tacmans are total bs
when they talk about separating from a fight. Though it may be great
swaggering bar talk to speak of how we better be good at BFM, because
"once we anchor its either win or die" - I wouldn't be so keen on
getting into a vis fight at war not because of what the flanker/
fulcrum/insert adversary here will do, but my complete inability to
get away from all of the other dudes either smelling blood or looking
at his fireball and chasing me down. Only real Hornet deficiency - too
slow!!! We can talk about the gas issue some other day hahaha!
phase brief yesterday..our

But it sure it fun to knife fight in that phone booth, eh?

R / John

I think coming from F-8's provided you with the kind of instincts in
fighters that makes you think about what the hell we are doing. There has
always been a "Holy Trinity" in fighter planes - "HIGHER" - "FARTHER" -
"FASTER" and if you aren't getting that generation to generation you may
have to ask yourself something.

We have had a tendency over the last two decades to play on the advantage
that our pilots could win in just about anything they flew regardless what
the enemy was flying, and up until the Gulf War that may have been right.
Now we have not one but several families of superior machines showing up at
our door steps carrying equal if not better weapons flown by zipper-heads
that suddenly don't look all that silly. And the once laughed automation
that kept them at least 10 seconds behind the bubble has now grown in
capability to where big fast jets that go high and far carrying lots of long
range missiles with sensors that can sample multiple spectrums and share
data to fill a New Jersey sized hunk of airspace full of missiles all
seeking anything it can track. Kill'em all being the tactic of choice.

The F-18 was chosen for its maintainability and essential reliability in
pumping sorties, in this it dominates the F-8, F-4 and F-14. It has a
vastly improved weapon system that could easily be added to any of the other
fighters. It can not run from anything nor chase anything down, so it will
be placed in small postage stamp locations around the fleet defense
perimeter to zip-zip back and forth trying to protect the ship. The new Nuc
ships are designed to pump sorties so the cycle times would mean they don't
go too far, and the JSF will do less. The Navy is cutting up their F-14's
in storage now just to ensure they never are forced to use them again by
Congress which may be the dumbest and most self-inflicting move ever done in
the history of Naval aviation.

The best performing fighter on the world scene right now may be the Rafale
followed by the Su-33 but soon to be displaced by the MiG-35M .... the
Palace is full of too many dillusionary people who have been in the confines
of that place too long drinking their own juices. We may not be seriously
challenged in the air for a while, but it will be a short while. No body
expected the IED's to totally humiliate the US Army, but it wasn't the
stroke of asymmetric warfare as much as the fact that the enemy simply
watched us and took notes of our habits driving down the same roads all the
time using a schedule published around the hot chow and meeting schedules of
the leaders who never leave their bunkers. They simply came after us where
we demonstrated great vulnerability.

Rememebr the old SA plot curve in the Search - Sample - Sort - Lock/Track -
Shoot - Short Range Ops - disengage - reset
where in the beginning you are kind of stupid, get smarter by the time you
are sorting you have it all together and when you focus on shooting you
narrow your concentration to go blind all around then get into a fight and
if you are winning good if not OOPS, then bugout leaving it all behind. In
the focus into the fight when you dedicate your sensors and mind to the kill
our tactics support each other to compensate fior vulnerabilities, in fact
that has become the western trademark where we can cnvert bad starts into a
success (Israel in the Bekaa) and tuen around the advantage of lesser pilots
to gain kills - because our SA is collectively high and we are optimized for
the fight. So in general where have we been loosing aircraft - the enemy
watches, and just like on the roasd segments in Iraq and Afghanistan we are
hit where our guard is down. In Vietnam we were attacked going out to the
CAP's or refueling or doing something else that got our attention and in a
big way we were run down going home on egress - that is the enemy was not
ready to meet us head on in a two vs two, he was going to shoot us in the
back because we would let him. When we got our **** togther the enemy was
dropped fast, otherwise we enabled him to screw around with us by never
being able to toally unleash hell on them

In short nothing has changed except the dimension of the blind egos inside
the beltway. Now just think what this country bwill have to endure with a
Nimitz or Stennis burning helplessly in the Gulf with the mullah's doing
their rag dance on zipper TV. Then we will get the message - perhaps


..


"John Carrier" wrote in message
. ..
"Speed is life" was drummed into my brain starting with FAM-1 in the F-8.
Particularly vital in an era where any likely adversary would eat you
alive in a slow turning fight. Also useful when it was time to leave the
scene ... max speed to disengage and get to feet wet and safety. We're
not talking big mach numbers at altitude, but big knots(AKA Q) relatively
low ... shrinking missile envelopes and generating separation from the bad
guys.

Had an interesting conversation with a PXO (former Bug driver) who just
finished 4 years at the puzzle palace. He claimed we didn't need speed in
tactical aircraft.

By default we don't have it in USN aircraft. The F-18C/D can't exceed 700
knots on a good day. The E/F is slower. They're impressive at high alpha
(only the F-22 and modded flankers are better), but they're not dragsters
(they're also a bit weak in endurance and range). But no matter.

Alleged reason: It's cheaper to design a missile that'll kill anyone
giving chase than it is to design an airplane that can egress. As the
AIM-9X is developed further, it will be able to engage a bogey at or near
dead six (!?!). Of course, the argument overlooks the fact that we've
been flying F-18's for some 20 years without this capability. In certain
Pacific Rim scenarios, an intrepid aviator in a Mig series aircraft could
give chase and run down the Bug and put one up where the sun don't shine.

Any thoughts? There aren't many potential adversaries that could put up a
significant A/A defense and current tactics are to neutralize them early
(Six day war style, as opposed to Vietnam), but it only takes one late
arrival in the furball to ruin your day. Is the day of the 800+ egress
over?

R / John