Iltica wrote:One would think acquiring and firing first should be desirable at any range, from BVR missile distances all the way down to gun fighting. Ideally, it would probably be best to stay further away, but being able to take off, locate the target, get into a favorable position (above them I guess), and fire more quickly than the enemy is probably going to win out most of the time over just focusing on maneuverability.
It's always desirable. The problem is, so are a bunch of other design features. And unfortunately, budgets are never unlimited.
If look first/shoot first were the ultimate and overriding design criteria, then this would be the ultimate fighter. And despite the increasingly widespread proliferation of AEW&C aircraft, fighters have shown no signs of heading for the door.
There are a lot of reasons why putting a giant radar on a fighter is not useful or advisable. Cost is one, but another is weapon range. You could double or triple or quadruple the radar range of existing American fighters and it would not help them launch any sooner unless you magically figured out how to double AIM-120's range. An extremely large radar is also very expensive, for obvious reasons (it will require more T/R modules) and negatively affects the fighter's handling. It may also very easily lead to information overload since a powerful radar covering a large area will undoubtedly pick up vast numbers of potential targets (assuming a high-intensity conflict), far more than a fighter pilot can be expected to manage. This is why AEW&C planes have crews of a dozen or more operators. And lastly, turning on a tremendously powerful radar paints a "shoot me" sight on the fighter, at much greater range than the fighter itself will be able to detect targets.
Handling is important for fighters because dealing with missiles is also a matter of energy, just like dueling with another fighter. This is especially true at long ranges where missiles usually have very little energy left and a fighter may be able to escape by simply using its greater energy to outlast the missile.
No one here is advocating that fighters "just" focus on maneuverability.
I think the ideal missile fighter (or interceptor at least), is a radar/IIR/etc laden, fast-climbing plane that can take off on short notice. Prolonged maneuvering dogfights would be avoided if possible in favor of 'hit & run' attacks that give little time for retaliation.
Being able to take off on short notice is a rather meaningless design metric. Because how ready a given aircraft is for sortie depends more on whether it has been properly prepared by ground crews than on any particular design feature. Sorry, Gripen.
