[GZG] Question about comment

[Glenn Wilson <glenn-wilson-1950@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Message: 4 Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 08:29:54 -0800 (PST) From: Charles Lee Subject: Re: [GZG] [FT]Multi-abilityfightercostings To: gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Message-ID: <532283.1468.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l