_______________________________________________
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,
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@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
F14 for
> me if I don't consider the F-22 since it still is 'new kid on the
> I would like to see some numbers on when the F/A-18 has suffered the
Right now, the F18 is multipurpose, cheap, and the reason that we can get away
with it is because there does not exist a single Air Force or Navy anywhere in
the world that plays anywhere in the same league. The only other nations with
any sort of actual blue water navy are on our
side. Even the Russians only have a brown water navy - and that brown
color comes from the rust on the hulls. When everyone else has bows and
arrows, a Thompson submachine gun makes you a champion!
It also performs well within it's designed parameters. No airplane can be king
at all altitudes, missions, and speeds.
Logic means nothing to military planners. Money and glitz mean everything! For
example, the Air Force has always utterly hated the
A-10. Pilots love it. The Army adores it. The brass hates it beause
it's cheap, slow, and is designed just to support the army and it's mission.
It's not an airplane killer! Who cares that it's tougher than
tough and can hang around longer than an obnoxious mother-in-law, and
kill anything that moves absolutely positively DEAD. It can - and has -
carried more than one pilot home on a single wing. IT AIN'T FAST and it
ISN'T GLAMOUROUS. The Air Force brass has tried to kill this plane more
times than Charlie has tried to get in a can of tuna. It will be
replaced by the F-16, that can be shot down with a BB, that needs speed,
that can't hang around, and can't fly that low or slow. The Army of
course will get slagged by "longs" or "shorts", but hey - who cares -
it's just the army.
What makes the Navy effective with anything you give it is that the pilots are
trained better. You can give a superior pilot a SPAD 13 and he will find a way
to win with it. Won't be easy, or as often, but he will find a way.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated 12/10/2006 3:15:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> glenn-wilson-1950@sbcglobal.net writes:
Message: 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...
Um, I am not sure where this info comes from. But the F/A-13 Hornet is
the top line aircraft prefered by Navy and Marine pilots in the US and its
allies. There is a reason it was choosen as the aircraft for the famed Blue
Angels and it aint because it lacks power, lacks manueverablity... In combat
it reaches speeds in access of 1100mph and carried a max oridnance 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?
> 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
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.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAh, memories. Back
in my old Dawn of Aces days, my preferred ride was the SPAD VII. It climbed a
little better than the 13 and was a little easier to fly; the tradeoff was
giving up one gun.
Success is all in which "game" the pilot chooses to play. Sticking to Mike's
Great War example, trying to turn and burn with a Sopwith Camel or a Fokker
Dr.I in a SPAD (don't ask, in DoA one can fight whomever one likes) is an
early ticket to a smoking hole in the ground. But entice some hotshot in a
Camel to try to match climb rates after one has boomed & zoomed through the
furball, and then watch him stall and spin when one reverses into him after he
has foolishly frittered away all his energy...good times, good times.
And now that I've thoroughly hijacked the thread...I'll bring it halfway back.
Fly your ship within its envelope in such a way that the other guy has to fly
outside his. For warships as opposed to fighters, a similar principle applies:
Try to arrange matters so that you are within your immune zone and the enemy
is not within his.
Easier said than done, I grant you, but that's why one gets paid the
big bucks. :-)
Merry Christmas and best regards,
In desert storm, one of the first aircraft lost was a
F/A 18 on a strike mission. The navy admits the A6E
would be better at strike and F14 would guard them in better fasion. Sad they
were not availible in good
numbers due to need for multi-duty aircraft.
> --- Richard Bell <rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com> wrote:
> The F/A-18 has never flown in hostile skies, so
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> [quoted text omitted]