boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au (06/05/90)
From: boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au >From: nelson_p@apollo.com > Also, what is the relative importance of the plane and its > weapon systems?... > I've been re-reading sections of `On Yankee Station', written by carrier based naval aviators who served in VietNam. The message is clear and intuitively correct. * A good driver in a clunker is far better than a kid in a hot rod. * AAM systems should be simple, reliable, cheap and tough. If they're not cheap you can't afford to fire them and won't have many around to fire. They have to be tough because it's no good to having weapons failure due to inevitable handling misuse and the rigours of aviation (particularly on carriers). * The aircraft also must be cheap, reliable and tough. If you can't afford to lose it, then there's no point building it. You must be prepared to lose aircraft in training as well as combat. The aircraft you lose have to be replaceable, so the cost must be affordable. * Pilot training must incorporate the true reality of air combat, (even to the point of losing aircraft) otherwise the training is of no value. You need schools like TopGun. Boyd Roberts boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au ``When the going gets wierd, the weird turn pro...''