Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military From: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Air to Air F-16 vs. F-18 Message-ID: <1991May23.063237.18160@amd.com> Date: 22 May 91 03:11:18 GMT References: >1991May17.063114.1236@amd.com< <1991May18.051031.11041@amd.com> <1991May20.052329.21908@amd.com> <1991May21.024219.13155@amd.com> Sender: military@amd.com Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA Lines: 45 Approved: military@amd.com From: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) >This brings to mind a minor (near) historical event. Iran & Iraq both >had F-14's, Not true. Iraq does not, and did not, have F-14's in its inventory. Some 80 F-14's were sold to Iran in the 1970's, but somewhat fewer of these remain operational. >...They both also had Anti-Ship missles from various sources. >I clearly recall expert after expert swearing up and down that the F-14 >COULD NOT be used to (attempt) deliver these weapons against either the >U.S. Fleet or friendly tankers in the Gulf. The basis of this was that >the U.S. Navy hasn't done it, there isn't a 'module' in production that >plugs in that does it, and a complete module (read that as >semi-idiot-proof black box that starts up the missle and fires it) is >quite complicated, and would cost the U.S. millions to develop. To >further this, they claimed that these governments were stupid in buying >weapons because they couldn't be used from any fighter size aircraft >that they had (meaning old{er} jet migs or piston fired craft). We are not talking about some adapter that allows a different weapon intended for a similar purpose (such as air-to-air) to be utilized, but a modification that permits utilization of a weapon by a platform that was not designed to carry out that mission (air-to-ground). The AWG-9 fire control system was not designed to provide targeting data to an anti-ship missile. To place an anti-ship missile on an Iranian F-14, and to effectively employ it, would require a new fire control system, not just a 'module'. The F1 Mirage, which Iraq does (did?) have, does have an anti-ship capability. >A little later the 'real' truth did finally get published, that they >DID have a delivery system for EVERYONE of these classes. What our >safety margins were was the low 'skill' level of the pilots, the >failures of the 'manual' launch system, and the high effeciency of our >air crews, ageis cruisers, and radar operations. If you are talking about physically firing an anti-ship missile without targeting data and target lock (shooting blind), I imagine it could be done, but I don't view that as a delivery system. -- Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645 Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil