Re: [GZG] Question about comment

["Richard Bell" <rlbell.nsuid@xxxxxxxxx>]

The F/A-18 has never flown in hostile skies, so there is no real
record of air-to-air losses.  It has flown over hostile territory, but
that is not the same thing.  What it does point out is that we have
yet to produce a true multi-ability craft, as even an F-15E Strike
Eagle is a very poor dogfighter when loaded for ground attack; even if
it does have a full complement of air-to-air missiles.

A fighter that was heavily armored, with long range, equipped with
heavy anti-ship ordnance and the anti-fighter weapons would be more
expensive than we can readily imagine.  So far, no one has tried to
make such an aircraft.



On 12/10/06, Glenn Wilson <glenn-wilson-1950@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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