From:	Justin Kim <jlkim@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: reply to Ben-ha-meen
Date:	Thu, 9 Dec 1993 09:14:56 -0800

Our Fearless leader wrote:
>
>The F-23 was far superior, unfortunately they went with the crash-prone
>F-22 instead.

I thought that the F-22 was supposed to be the more maneuverable
one and the F-23 was supposed to be stealthier. Maybe I've got it
backwards.

>Furthermore, I'm pretty sure the F/A-18 can waste the 15 and 16 in the
>dual-role capacity. The Navy has pretty much scrapped all plans for
>future Tomcats (F-14) because the Hornets perform just as well, serve a
>dual role, only need one pilot, and are MUCH cheaper.

The Hornets also have a much shorter range than the F-14s. A
friend of mine used to fly for the USN and said that the general opinion of
the Hornet was that, yes, it could fly a dual role but couldn't do either
as well as an a/c dedicated to either the air defense or ground attack
role.

A bunch of the Navy's F-14s are being modified so they can drop
iron bombs and it was scheduled (don't know if this has been changed or
not) to be tested with the HARM anti-radiation missile. I also seem to
recall reading that the "Bombcat" will be given a limited precision guided
munitions capability, but don't know for sure.

This is getting a bit off subject. Hop over to
rec.aviation.military if you're interested in fighter a/c. The <insert a/c
here> v.s. <insert a/c here> debate rolls around there every now and then.

My office stopped getting Aviation Week a couple of months ago, so
my information is a bit out of date. As always, corrections are welcome.

Justin

--------
Justin Kim jlkim@******.com Justin_Kim@****.saic.com
"The perimeter sensors are picking up subspace oscillations. What the hell does
that mean?" -Major Kira Nerys, DS9 UCSD '93 Vassar College '91
My opinions only