Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: jwm@wdl76.wdl.fac.com (Jon W Meyer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: VIFF (was The Snakebite/Pougachev's Cobra)
Message-ID: <1990Oct29.024531.5537@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 29 Oct 90 02:45:31 GMT
References: <1990Oct15.033716.12587@cbnews.att.com> <1990Oct19.033933.16625@cbnews.att.com>, <1990Oct26.015212.24827@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: LORAL Western Development Labs
Lines: 26
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: jwm@wdl76.wdl.fac.com (Jon W Meyer)
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes:



>From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
>>The Harriers spent most of the war picking off relatively defenseless
>bombers, which could >not shoot back effectively;

>Most of the "relatively defenseless bombers" were A-4 Skyhawks, if I'm
>not mistaken.  Kind of negates an A-4 resurgence into the front-line US
>combat role.  It does make the Harrier look good anyway.

>Allan

An aircraft carrying fuel and weapons for an attack against a ground or sea
target is at a disadvantage when faced with aircraft configured for an
air to air role (as the Harriers refered to above were).

This says little if anything about the relative values of the A-4 and Harrier
as strike aircraft.  It just conforms to the idea that laden bombers are
easier targets for interceptors than vice versa.

Jon