Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: YF22 vs. YF23 Why?
Message-ID: <1991May29.011054.6826@amd.com>
Date: 24 May 91 01:55:16 GMT
References: <1991May9.064042.12823@amd.com> <1991May1.030508.20355@amd.com> <1991Apr24.054326.18229@amd.com> <1991Apr29.052647.6205@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: DEC Palo Alto
Lines: 31
Approved: military@amd.com


From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson)


   In an earlier article I responded to our moderators statement that
for ground attack, cheap, A-10 type aircraft are desired.  I quoted 
an analysis by Gen Merrill A. McPeak that appeared in Aviation Week.
McPeak argued for expensive, mutlti-role fighters, saying "the gulf war
has essentially disproven the idea 'that cheaper is better'".

[Carl Rigney]   replied --
> Except didn't the rules of engagement prohibit firing without
> visual contact?  What good all-weather capability then?

   The FLIR sensors on F-15E's ALLOWED visual contact under conditions
that would not have been possible with a cheap, good-weather only
attack aircraft.

> He's talking about attack planes, though.  I don't see many lessons
> learned about air-to-air combat from Desert Storm other than [...]

   Yes, the entire discussion was about attack aircraft. McPeak noted that
there is considerable value in having an attack aircraft that is also
capable of handling fighter threats.  This is part of why he feels that
the "mudfighter" concept has lost credibility.

	[Seems like a strange lesson to learn from DS, in which
	 the threat of enemy fighters degraded quickly.  --CDR]

Steve Philipson
stevenp@decwrl.dec.com