It is generally accepted that a fully implemented six degree-of-freedom (6DOF) airframe representation is desirable for manned flight simulation testing. It is important to note, however, that in evaluating the combat effectiveness of an integrated weapon system, the aircraft dynamics are not the sole contributor to the success or failure of the design. In other words, a superbly handling aircraft with a poor fire control system or substandard air-to-air weaponry could be at a disadvantage versus a poor handling aircraft with superior avionics and weapons. Significant cost savings could be realized by using a simpler model to represent the aircraft dynamics, if such simplification is merited. The National Air and Space Intelligence Center and the Air Force Research Laboratory conducted a joint test to determine the impact of aircraft modeling technique on combat effectiveness in beyond-visual-range (BVR) scenarios. Three types of aircraft models were used: a full non-linear 6DOF representation; a 6DOF ‘equivalent system’ model (6DOF ES); and a 5DOF ‘equivalent system’ model (5DOF ES). The aircraft simulations were identically equipped with offensive avionics and active radar missile models. The aircraft were then employed in a manned, BVR engagement test, varying the type of aircraft model used and the range at which missile shots were taken. There was no discernable dependency of BVR engagement outcome upon the fidelity of the aircraft model used in the simulation. Although dependencies upon pilot proficiency, cockpit hardware, and combatant energy were determined, the actual fidelity of the aircraft model was not a significant factor. A surprising result was a significant dependency on outthe-window visuals upon combat effectiveness. While this was expected for within-visual-range combat, an impact on BVR combat was unexpected. BACKGROUND The instinctive reaction to a modeling task is frequently to use the highest fidelity model available. The National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NAIC) has had many instances where a client has requested a six degree-of-freedom (6DOF) aircraft flight dynamics model for an application that does not immediately appear to have a requirement for high fidelity airframe modeling. Intuitively, aircraft dynamic response would not seem to be a major factor in certain air combat tasks. Consider the problem of BVR air combat. Typical weapon employment ranges are on the order of ten to thirty miles, depending on the kinematic capability of the missile. A notional engagement timeline is presented in Figure 1. Figure 1: Notional BVR Engagement Timeline Figure 1 shows when in that timeline the aircraft is actively being maneuvered. The total time that the aircraft changes its pitch and bank angles during the engagement is only a few seconds. When the aircraft is not changing attitude, a simple three degree-of-freedom model is sufficient to describe the vehicle motion. If a * Member, AIAA AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit 11-14 August 2003, Austin, Texas AIAA 2003-5689 This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. requirement for an aircraft six degree-of-freedom model were levied for this application, a great deal of effort and expense would thus be expended on a very small, potentially inconsequential segment of the engagement. Developing high-fidelity aircraft handling qualities models can incur considerable expense. For an analytic level 5DOF aircraft model, the cost is negligible – limited to the pay of the analyst. For a 6DOF model valid through the trimmed flight envelope, developed through a combination of analysis and small-scale wind tunnel testing, cost is typically on the order of $350,000 per model. For a post-stall capable model, with a aerodynamic database developed for the entire possible range of motion, with dynamic derivatives determined through free-flight of a large scale model, cost is measured in millions of dollars. It is thus pragmatic to develop the aircraft model only to the level of detail that is required for a particular simulation application. Based on the above cost figures, this could potentially save hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in development costs for each model. However, NAIC had no empirical data upon which to base recommendations to clients requesting aircraft flight dynamics models. This paper presents the results of a study designed to provide the data upon which future modeling fidelity decisions can be based. It is important to note that this paper does not address issues regarding the accuracy of methods used to develop different fidelities of models, but rather the impact of the model representation itself.