Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Carrier complement Message-ID: <1991Mar23.061744.5212@amd.com> Date: 23 Mar 91 06:17:44 GMT References: <1991Mar18.003254.22730@cbnews.att.com> Sender: cdr@amd.com (Carl Rigney) Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 23 Approved: military@amd.com From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Suku >... 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. If the 70 or so >--combat aircraft-- on a Nimitz class carrier (excluding recon, AEW, >elec warfare, anti-sub, and elint types) were all the same type of >aircraft would'nt the air ops commander have the flexibility to commit >any number of aircraft on any type of mission - air defence or strike ? The trouble is that multipurpose aircraft usually don't do any specific job nearly as well as specialists do. The F-18 is a reasonably good air-superiority fighter, but it is distinctly inferior to the F-14 as an air-defence interceptor due to a smaller load of less-capable missiles, and it is grossly inferior to the A-6 or A-7 as a subsonic bomber due to the compromises needed to make it a good supersonic fighter. The USN has a long history of insisting on different aircraft for the fighter and bomber roles, and has benefitted a lot from this. -- "[Some people] positively *wish* to | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology believe ill of the modern world."-R.Peto| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry