Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Cranked Arrow F-16's, Wild Weasel F-16, F-15E v F-16E.
Message-ID: <1990Jun6.141458.4429@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 6 Jun 90 14:14:58 GMT
References: <15188@cbnews.ATT.COM>,<16212@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Distribution: na
Organization: The U. of MD, CP, CAD lab
Lines: 29
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
In article <16212@cbnews.ATT.COM>, xbarton@sheoak.bcae (Ross Barton.) writes:
>  It was intended from the
>beginning to be a two seat strike aircraft.  This is perhaps why General
>Dynamics produced the F-16F anyway, demonstrating a two seater to appeal
>to the "extra pair of eyes" syndrome that struct the USAF a few years
>ago.
>
>I would also like to say that I think the USAF made a bad choice by
>taking the F-15E over the F-16E.  Sure, its got two guy's in it instead
>of one, so it's more likely to survive in a mud moving environment.  But
>did anyone consider that the A-10 is a single seater?  

Go get last weeks "Aviation Week," please, and read the review on the F-15E.
The avionics on the F-15 are light-years more advanced than the A-10; you
need a dedicated WSO to put the iron on the target given all the options
available with the FLIR and the SAR, especially when the pilot has his
hands full at 600mph in the weeds. The workload is too heavy for one man
to handle.

The A-10 is a slow, "dumb" tough plane which is designed to kill tanks. It
is not designed to go deep in the hinderlands of the enemy and put a string
of 2,000lbs on a heavily defended command post.

The F-15 was designed to have a HUGE radar from the ground up; it has
lots of room in the nose for it. The F-16 doesn't have much room t'all up
front for a big antenna, so I understand.