[GZG] Question about comment

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lMessage: 4 Date:
Thu, 7 Dec 2006 08:29:54 -0800 (PST) From: Charles Lee	Subject: Re:
[GZG] [FT]Multi-abilityfightercostings To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
Message-ID: <532283.1468.qm@web51313.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1	Please look at the cost of the F18
Hornet. It doesn't carry long range AA Missles of the F14 nor the bomb
load of the A6 or even the survivability of the lesser ohf the two. It
can't jam radar without add on bomb pac loads. The pilots don't win the
world contests either as they are expected to do all jobs with a minimal
training and little practice. What they do well is ..... well fly and
die in face of specialized forces.

My reply:

I would like to see some numbers on when the F/A-18 has suffered the
kind of losses suggested here...

The F/A-18 is the last choice of the main line USAF/USN fighters
introduced from the 1907's until today in my mind (F16, F15 and then
(retired) F14 for me if I don't consider the F-22 since it still is 'new
kid on the block' status.)  But this plane seems to do adequately in
real life if not the my personal favorite.  The failure to replace the
A6 with a specialised attack aircraft seems to be driven by economic
reasons (training, spare parts, etc.) pushing doctrine and the F/A-18's
ability to deliver the Air to Sea/Mud payloads gives the USN a chance to
see if their theories actually will work in combat.  Assuming the plane
is not retired before an adequate 'test' occurs...

Gracias,
   
  Glenn Wilson