Well, a R-27T/TE has no guidance whatsoever if its not locked-on. SK manual says pilot can switch to a specific mode, and fire it blindly, but first he must align his aircraft towards the target (within a specific angle range, and with a specific angle away from sun, I dont remember exact quote). Missile will just fly straight and lock-on to the first target it sees in its search cone.

A LOAL missile like AIM-9X has datalink, it can properly maneuver towards its target, plot an intercept course, change that course if needed, and lock-on the target pilot actually wants.

In a practical example againist a target with reduced IR signature, a R-27T fired blindly may miss an F-22 if he could detect it and simply turn 50 degrees away from the missile and supercruises to the edge of the detection cone of the missile, its seeker may not pick it up. If launching aircraft has the means to track F-22, it can just turn his AIM-9X to proper direction via datalink. Speaking of F-22, such IR reduction is a huge advantage in this scenario compared to an F-15/16, as same maneuver would present their afterburners to R-27T; missile kinematics aside it would have made seekers job way easier.

The 9X block 2 has the datalink, not the block 1. I don’t know whether the block 1 can be launched in LOAL mode without datalink like the ASRAAM.

the faster a/c have better missile range as a result of higher initial speed,
the more agile a/c with better acceleration reduces the effective range of opponents missile.

effectively the better performer can stay outside effective range of the inferior performer,
all the while having firing solution on the inferior performer

Well, of course, but that’s mostly for BVR. The AIM-9X has a range of about 30km, I am talking about a case where it would be launched at like 3-5 km.

And if the thrust is reduced at min, the plane would not suddenly stop, it would continue with its inertia (plus a bit of thrust).

Yes, but it is like all LO technology… an effort to reduce detectability, not to render them utterly undetectable. Certainly IR signature reduction efforts must make a difference given the apparent effort invested in them, but by the time you are talking about the merge you are simply way too close to expect to go undetected.

This combined with the lethality of modern WVR weapons is one reason many believe WVR combat would be very nearly a coin toss between similarly competent pilots.

Depends on the range. Say the plane puts its engine at min like 10-15km before the planes cross each other, he might get 5-10 seconds advantage on the enemy.

I remember I once read an article about the JHMCS integration on the F-15 and it said that if the position of the target is known with the radar, it is displayed on the HMS. So the pilots knows where to look even before he can see the target visually and the missile is already pointing in that direction ( the missile being cued to the helmet ). In that case the pilot could reduce the thrust of his engine to min, and shoot. He would have a few seconds of advance on his opponent.

In a real visual range, at really short range it wouldn’t work probably, but if you know from where the enemy is coming ( for instance with the DAS on the F-35 ), maybe it would work.

Obviously if it is impossible to reduce the thrust to min in flight like Andraxxus explained before, the point is moot.

Well of course lol. They probably also have an effect against missiles seekers.

A merge by defition indicates aircraft are passing very close to each other. Like others stated, even an age old R-60M will have no problems locking on to target.

In any cases, switching entire engine off in anywhere in midflight is very dangerous, let alone CAC. Turbine engines are not piston engines. They take several seconds, (or minutes if two engines are started by a single starter as in F-15) to spool up to its idle rpm. At higher/speed altitudes, there are several reasons engine may not even re-start at all.

Also at higher speeds, FADEC willl not simply allow to reduce engine to less than full military thrust, due to risk of compressor stall. On non-FADEC aircraft, there are specific guidelines on flight manual about how not to use the throttle stick. This holds true for any aircraft I know of.

Technically, switching-off AB and putting some great closure angle may have some uses for evading a IR missile fired LOAL (as in AIM-9X) or blindly (as in R-27TE) at long ranges, so aircraft will silently move away from the search cone of the IR seeker. However this is also problematic, as you need to know the missile fired first. I don’t think a MAWS will detect a R-27TE from 70 km away.

In 99% of the real life circumstance, aircraft is expected either a) to maneuver hard and evade the missile or b) maneuver away and outrun the missile. Both requires pulling high Gs esspecially at airspeeds that correspond to high turn rates. This will deplate the energy of the aircraft very quickly. As only “energy” source of the aircraft is the engine, its logical to leave it in full AB. In some cases, airspeed would be too high, so for turning tight throttle is reduced, but even then, its more logical to pull a high yo-yo if circumstanecs allow it, and conserve as much energy as possible.

You have probably heard about the article that came out a few years ago where an F-22 pilot said that he had to avoid putting the afterburner too fast against an F-16 or he would risk being locked by an AIM-9X. That’s what made me wonder about that. Also this story would suggest that it is possible to get relatively close, even in WVR, and not be detected even with an advanced IIR seeker.

But from what you say reducing the thrust a lot – let alone cut the engine – wouldn’t be feasable, so I guess that settles the issue.