Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military From: scott@xcf.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Can the backseater in f-18's bring it home? Message-ID: <1991Apr19.071118.14477@amd.com> Date: 18 Apr 91 20:59:07 GMT References: <1991Apr18.032319.21395@amd.com> Sender: military@amd.com Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility Lines: 28 Approved: military@amd.com From: scott@xcf.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) > From: "Hanhwe N. Kim" > And generalizing from there, why are 2-seaters considered more > survivable? > get f-18's and got f-16's instead. In the previous debates, it was > argued that pilots liked the f-18 better because of its higher > survivability due to its being a 2-seater. I know that aircraft with a weapons officer tends to do better in combat because (as you meantioned), the work load gets divided. Also, the extra pair of eyes helps tremendously in spotting potential threats. The positive impact of the backseater has been demonstrated in mock dogfights. The weapons officer can keep an eye out for threatening aircraft while the pilot concentrates on lining up his target. I wasn't aware that South Korea was interested in purchasing F-18B's. Another reason these might be considered more survivable is the fact that they have two engines. If one gets damaged, the plane can often make it home on the other. -- Scott Silvey scott@xcf.berkeley.edu Flames to /dev/null