And when an opponent develops similar missiles, how do you ensure survivability of your platforms? With modern LO aircraft equipped with a wide range of sensors, or with a turboprop trainer?
If you can guarantee your planes are flying low enough to avoid radar (something I highly doubt), how would you cue missile launches against distant targets? Sensor systems based completely in the missile won't do it - how will you know when to launch your missiles when your plane has no idea where the target is? If you're flying that low your radar horizon is going to leave a lot to be desired, so how are you going to cue launches from hundreds of kilometers away? And how can you guarantee your opponent will not be able to shoot your planes down if they deploy similar missile technology to what you describe?
Of course, you might think sheer numbers will win you the battle - but how will it win you the war? You have to maintain a sustainable sortie rate, not just send in thousands of planes and let hundreds be shot down per sortie in the pursuit of air superiority. That's economically and politically risky. So when you say "sheer numbers would matter most" then yes, you ARE talking about attritional warfare.
And for that matter, how is an AT-6 or similar going to carry an appreciable payload of these new missiles? With the sort of sensor systems and fuel you'll need for a precision, long range air-to-air missile, you realise you'll end up with something quite large? Perhaps a little too much for an AT-6 to carry. Certainly the range of your platforms will suffer according to the weight and drag of the payload.
So before you tell me I'm "not thinking outside the box" maybe you should acknowledge that there's shortcomings of your theory... of course, maybe I'm wrong, in which case perhaps you could explain to me why no air force on earth has come to the same conclusion as you?
