Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: maarrrk@gauss.ucsb.edu (Mark Erickson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carrier complement
Message-ID: <1991Mar20.032945.217@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 20 Mar 91 03:29:45 GMT
References: <1991Mar18.003254.22730@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara
Lines: 23
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: maarrrk@gauss.ucsb.edu (Mark Erickson)

In article <1991Mar18.003254.22730@cbnews.att.com> R2RS1%AKRONVM@vm1.cc.UAKRON.EDU (Suku) writes:
>
>What factors govern the aircraft mix in a Carrier's complement. If the
>mission of the carrier is area superiority, would'nt a complement of
>multirole aircraft like the F-18 Hornet do for air defence, air superiority
>and attack. Why F-14s, F-18s, A6s, A7s, and so on.

	The F/A-18 is multirole, but it really is a case of 
	"jack of all trades, master of none."

	The F-14 has better radar for air-superiority missions,
	the A-6 has two people and more black boxes for 
	bad weather, etc.

	The Navy is looking at F-14 variants as attack aircraft
	(so said Aviation Week), so maybe we'll see some sort
	of improved commonality....

--maarrrk