Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!mips!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: scott@xcf.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: PS-890 radar
Message-ID: <1991Apr22.072326.26252@amd.com>
Date: 19 Apr 91 10:38:49 GMT
References: <1991Apr11.033318.3949@amd.com> <1991Apr17.055507.13632@amd.com> <1991Apr19.070829.13824@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility
Lines: 53
Approved: military@amd.com


From: scott@xcf.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey)


henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) replies to someone who said:
>>>In the U.S. configurations these missions
>>>have different aircraft types typically assigned...
>> Increasingly less so, with the F-18 being touted as the answer to 
>> everything.  The days of specialist aircraft are rapidly drawing to a
>> close in both the USAF and the USN.  (Not everyone thinks this is a good
>> idea, mind you.)

That's the way it's _supposed_ to be, but it's not true in reality.  Most
people have conceeded that the F-18 merely fulfills the light attack 
bomber (A-7) role because of it's tepid performance.

Although the Hornet is much more capable as a fighter than the A-7, it's not
as capable as the Tomcat for long-range intercept.  And though the F-18
has much more sophisticated ground attack capability than the A-7, in 
general, it's not as good as the A-6 (short range, small payload, one
crewman).  Carrier groups of the future, with their attack bombers replaced
by F-18's, won't be nearly as effective as they are now!

The Navy realizes this and is scrambling to do something to replace it's 
venerable Intruders with something worthy of the honor (the Advanced
Intruder A-6F program was cancelled because of the A-12).  

One idea is the "stretch" Hornet, but from what John Lehman (former Secretary
of Navy) says, this has a dubious chance of making it.  He thinks the Navy
is going to "reconstitute" the Avenger program, calling it the "A-X".  They
will apply modern technologies which were too late for the current A-12
design.  This new Avenger would hopefully have a much better chance of 
fulfilling it's original performance requirements (long range, fast, and
stealthy with a large payload).

Another idea is the strike version of the F-14D Super Tomcat.  I don't know
how this idea is appealing to the Navy.  I suppose the ATF program will
have a significant impact on Grumman's chances here.

I was really disappointed when I heard the A-6F was cancelled.  It's amazing
the Navy would get distracted on so many other peripheral issues when the
very focus of the carrier battle group is it's attack bombers!  How could
they get themselves caught with 30 year old airplanes and no currently 
active program to back them up or replace them?

	[I think attack bombers are just an excuse to have aircraft
	 carriers, and don't really interest the Navy as much as the sexy
	 carrier defense fighters.  A carrier task force is a multi-billion
	 dollar way of getting the 34 or so bombers near a target. --CDR]

-- 
Scott Silvey
scott@xcf.berkeley.edu