Re: [GZG] Question about comment

On 12/11/06, VinsFullThrust@aol.com <VinsFullThrust@aol.com> wrote:

> load of 1600lbs. All this and able to swap from fighter to bomber back
to
> fighter in the same mission. Care to tell me another aircraft capable
of
> this function?

I'm pretty sure you're dead wrong about the performance of the
aircraft you incorrectly identify as an F/A-13.  Mostly because
1600lbs isn't enough to carry ONE bomb of the most commonly used size.

But to address your real point, and it applies to the F-15E as well.

No aircraft can swap from fighter to bomber in the same mission.

A properly designed multi-role aircraft can be a capable attack
aircraft, OR a capable fighter on any given mission with a given
ordnance load.

Part of being a capable fighter involves being maneuverable, to set up
attacks with short range missiles and cannon.  If you are carrying
enough ordnance to be worth a damn for airstikes, you aren't going to
be maneuvable compared to a stripped-down just-the-basics
purpose-built fighter aircraft.

Jettison your bombload so you can dogfight, and you aren't returning
to an attack mission until you go back to the flight line and get new
bombs.

All the OTH stuff with medium-range missiles doesn't require any
particularly special platform, because you're just launching missiles,
and that can be done off the back of a five ton truck with the right
electronics package.  Doesn't count.  Naval vessels can launch the
same missile at the same range with the probability to hit, and that
doesn't make them "fighters".

Objecting to an aircraft because it cannot be all-singing and
all-dancing on the same mission is stupid and shows lack of knowledge
of basic aerodynamics.	Claiming an aircraft can be all-singing and
all-dancing on the same mission is stupid and shows lack of knowledge
of basic aerodynamics.

The reason the F-14 was taken out of service, other than age, was
because the aircraft was basically built around the Phoenix, and the
Phoenix was built for precisely one mission.  That mission was
shooting down the massive waves of cruise missiles that the Red Banner
Northern Fleet's Naval Aviation arm was going to launch at USN
carriers in the Big War That Never Happened.  Considering the fact
that most concievable opponents of the USN have perhaps a dozen aging
Soviet bombers with some creaky second-hand Chinese cruise missiles
wired to them, the threat just doesn't exist anymore.  No more
mission, no more hideously expensive single purpose fighter to fly
that mission.  The most likely cause of USN ship damage in the next 30
years is going to be some jackass with a speedboat full of ordnance
wired up to a deadman's switch.  Allahu Akbar and Kablooey!

And even at that, the USN is desperately searching for some relevance
to modern conflicts, reviving the small boat riverine navy a la the
PBR years and getting all up into the whole "littoral" thang.  They
aren't thinking in terms of titanic sea battles or refighting the
Battle of the Atlantic.  They couldn't get a new expensive fighter
program through Congress, and besides the Army Chief of Staff (who
can't afford to replace blown-up tanks) would physically throttle the
CNO in the middle of a JCS meeting if he suggested trying to get
Congress to give him a trillion dollars to buy a new fighter.

How in Bob's name did this conversation about modern-day USN aircraft
get started on the Full Thrust list?  It shows up as a new
conversation in my mailbox.  Can we go back to star fighters?  That
conversation was boring, but at least it was on-topic.

I need a beer.

John
-- 
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l