Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Air to Air F-16 vs. F-18 Message-ID: <1991May20.052329.21908@amd.com> Date: 18 May 91 22:45:01 GMT References: <1991May17.063114.1236@amd.com> <1991May18.051031.11041@amd.com> Sender: military@amd.com Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 19 Approved: military@amd.com From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: >The thing that may seperate them, however, is the fact that the F-16 cannot >fire a Sparrow missile, while the F/A-18 can... Correction: the F-16 can carry and fire Sparrows. It's been done. However, production aircraft are not normally equipped for it. (On my cynical days I think the only reason we don't see plenty of Sparrow-armed F-16s is that the USAF thinks it would undermine AMRAAM and consequently has every reason to keep the idea quiet.) Any aircraft which can carry AMRAAMs ought to be able to carry Sparrow, albeit perhaps in smaller numbers; Sparrow is heavier, but not *that* much heavier, and otherwise the missiles are (by design) mechanically compatible. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry