R2RS1%AKRONVM@vm1.cc.UAKRON.EDU (Suku) (03/18/91)
From: Suku <R2RS1%AKRONVM@vm1.cc.UAKRON.EDU> What factors govern the aircraft mix in a Carrier's complement. If the mission of the carrier is area superiority, would'nt a complement of multirole aircraft like the F-18 Hornet do for air defence, air superiority and attack. Why F-14s, F-18s, A6s, A7s, and so on. If the 70 or so --combat aircraft-- on a Nimitz class carrier (excluding recon, AEW, elec warfare, anti-sub, and elint types) were all the same type of aircraft would'nt the air ops commander have the flexibility to commit any number of aircraft on any type of mission - air defence or strike ? Also I guess it would reduce headaches of parts inventories and ground staff trained to service different types of aircraft. Could anybody throw any light on this ? R SUKUMAR.....................(R2RS1@VM1.CC.UAKRON.EDU) THE UNIVERSITY OF AKRON DEPT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING AKRON OH 44325 (216)434-6335 - (R) (216)972-6002 - (O) <--------------------------------------------------->
tkogoma%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk) (03/19/91)
From: tkogoma%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk) Well, trying to get an F/A-18 to perform the same role as either an F-14 or A-6 would be a problem. Because these aircraft are "specialists", they can do their jobs *very* well. The Hornet can't cut it in all-wether, day/night strike missions. Furthermore, It can't use Phoenixes. Are there any CVs out there still using A-7s? I thought that thye were replaced in favor of the F/A-18...
maarrrk@gauss.ucsb.edu (Mark Erickson) (03/20/91)
From: maarrrk@gauss.ucsb.edu (Mark Erickson) In article <1991Mar18.003254.22730@cbnews.att.com> R2RS1%AKRONVM@vm1.cc.UAKRON.EDU (Suku) writes: > >What factors govern the aircraft mix in a Carrier's complement. If the >mission of the carrier is area superiority, would'nt a complement of >multirole aircraft like the F-18 Hornet do for air defence, air superiority >and attack. Why F-14s, F-18s, A6s, A7s, and so on. The F/A-18 is multirole, but it really is a case of "jack of all trades, master of none." The F-14 has better radar for air-superiority missions, the A-6 has two people and more black boxes for bad weather, etc. The Navy is looking at F-14 variants as attack aircraft (so said Aviation Week), so maybe we'll see some sort of improved commonality.... --maarrrk
tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) (03/21/91)
From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) In article <1991Mar19.044523.8945@cbnews.att.com> tkogoma%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk) writes: > Are there any CVs out there still using A-7s? I thought that they > were replaced in favor of the F/A-18... It is true that the A-7 in the Navy is being replaced by the F/A-18, but that replacement process is not complete. As of two months ago, the JFK still flew the A-7. Just after the air war started, you could see A-7s launching from the JFK's catapults on CNN. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (03/23/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Suku <R2RS1%AKRONVM@vm1.cc.UAKRON.EDU> >... would'nt a complement of >multirole aircraft like the F-18 Hornet do for air defence, air superiority >and attack. Why F-14s, F-18s, A6s, A7s, and so on. If the 70 or so >--combat aircraft-- on a Nimitz class carrier (excluding recon, AEW, >elec warfare, anti-sub, and elint types) were all the same type of >aircraft would'nt the air ops commander have the flexibility to commit >any number of aircraft on any type of mission - air defence or strike ? The trouble is that multipurpose aircraft usually don't do any specific job nearly as well as specialists do. The F-18 is a reasonably good air-superiority fighter, but it is distinctly inferior to the F-14 as an air-defence interceptor due to a smaller load of less-capable missiles, and it is grossly inferior to the A-6 or A-7 as a subsonic bomber due to the compromises needed to make it a good supersonic fighter. The USN has a long history of insisting on different aircraft for the fighter and bomber roles, and has benefitted a lot from this. -- "[Some people] positively *wish* to | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology believe ill of the modern world."-R.Peto| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (03/25/91)
From: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au
In <1991Mar23.061744.5212@amd.com> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
:The F-18 is [...]
:grossly inferior to the A-6 or A-7 as a subsonic bomber due to
^^^
Are you sure about this, I am sure I read somewhere that the F-18 has
a bigger payload then the A-7 ?
[Definitive answers only, please; preferably with a reference. --CDR]
--
Anthony Lee (Michaelangelo teenage mutant ninja turtle) (Time Lord Doctor)
email: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au TEL:+(61)-7-365-2697 (w)
SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia