"Tom Cooper" wrote in message ...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...
"Tom Cooper" wrote in message
...
Kevin, you're asking valid questions, no doubt.

snip

The threat is also the Moskits are already in service with the
Chinese
Navy.

The Chinese Navy is not, as yet, a major threat to USN operations.

Of course it is not.

And on 10 September 2001 there was also no threat from idiots hijacking
airliners and crashing them into the WTC and Pentagon...

You need to think a bit about the difference between "major threat"
and "no threat".


(and this despite the fact that already in 1992 the Philippino police
arrested a Pakistani terrorist cell in Manila, which was planning to do that
with 12 aircraft in Hong Kong and the USA....)

Uhmmm...the point to this being what?


Especially the situation with China is such that a confrontation around
Taiwan is highly likely (as seen already several times), and far less
predictable than in the case of the "I Cold War" (against the USSR).

I would change "highly likely" to "possible". Combat over Taiwan means
that all of the capital the PRC has put forth to gain WTO memebership,
improved trade relations with western nations, etc., would have been
wasted for little gain. How predictable did you find the Berlin
blockade? Hungary? Berlin II (61-62)? Czechoslovakia in 68? Cuba in
62? Not to mention the myriad of air incidents, including KAL 007 and
a host of US ferret aircraft?

Not only that in most of the cases you're talking about (and especially in
the case of the Cuban missile crisis) the USA were taken completely by
surprise, but you now also want to explain that the "modern" threats are
more predictable than the Soviet ones?

You said the Chinese were somehow more unpredictable than the Soviets.
The examples above don't seem to support that thesis. Take it one step
further-- Stalin's endorsement of the DPRK's strike south in 1950 was
rather unpredictable, while the PRC's later entry into the war really
wasn't (that Dougie was still caught with his pants down despite
repeated Chinese warnings is another issue). I don't necessarilly
agree with your thesis in this regard.


Kevin, seriously, on which planet do you live?

The one that you apparently ignore historical fact on, in support of
ill-conceived thesis like the one posed above.


Besides, the main threat from the Chinese are not dozens of bombers, but
hundreds of multi-role fighters, each of which is far more flexible and
superior to the F/A-18s in anything but avionics.

They have *hundreds* that are unquestionably superior to the Hornet?
Come on now--they have their Su-27's,

You're simply underinformed, and that's all. By 2006, the PLAAF and the
PLANAF will have around 400 Su-27/J-11s, Su-30MKKs and similar planes -
supported by A-50s - in service. Go and check the orders they issued in the
last six years to Russia, and the numbers they're receiving each year.

LOL! A-50's? How much of a threat are those
candidates-for-museum-membership? And I already acknowledged thay have
Su's--I just don't see them as the superplane/boogieman that you do.


How would you tackle that threat? With a single carrier stationed in Japan,
carrying 48 Hornets, and a wing of 18 F-15Cs based on Okinawa? Oh, man, what
a bloody good exchange rate to start with...

I guess you must have missed out on the fact that the USN tends to
send more than one CVN into an area when the threat increases? That we
don't do so routinely in the South China Sea would seem to indicate
that the PRC is not the immediate tremendous threat that you want to
portray it as being.


which are maybe equivalent to a
Hornet, minus the pilot quality and support issues (both big issues in
themselves); they can't even depend upon the ability of defeating
decisively the ROCAF, with their F-16's and Mirage 2000's, in the air,

The ROCAF is already losing the "shadow boxing" that is going on in the air
over the Straits since years: just last year the SU-30s have forced several
of their F-16s to pull out of the area where the Chinese operated.

Big difference between that "shadow boxing" and being assured of
dominance in a combat scenario.


much less the added strength of the USN (not to mention the inevitable
SLCM, ALCM, and B-2 strikes they would be absorbing as body blows).

Oh, this is really developing into a "very serious" one, especially if we're
so far to discuss the "mine is bigger than yours" issue.

Getting desperate, huh? You opened the door to this supposedly
tremendous PLAN/PLAAF threat to the CVN's that allegedly surpasses
that faced vis a vis the Soviets at the height of the Cold War. But I
guess it suits your purposes to then dissect the threat and have it
exist in a vacuum when the ability of US forces to counteract your
posited moves is mentioned?

It could also be
said that you're ignorant of the Chinese threats against such places like
Los Angeles;

ROFLOL! Yeah, their D-5's are a major current threat; our reataliatory
capability dwarfs their ability to strike continental US (heck, throw
Hawaii into the mix as well) targets by a factor of probably somewhere
around four or five thousand-to-one. You scoff at the very idea that
faced with any real PRC hostilities directed at a CVN the US would be
willing to respond with conventional strikes at the PLAAF/PLAN COG's,
but you find their paltry strategic nuclear force a realistic and
tremendous threat to *LA*? Do you see any lack of logic in that?

their capability to blast Taiwan with over 1.000 IRBMs and
attack any USN CVBG that comes their ways with "hordes" of Su-27-likes etc.,
etc., etc.

And with the advent of Aegis, the need for that ever-expanding CAP has
been reduced a bit.

The experiences with Aegis from 1988 (the IranAir incident),

Hey, did that Aibus get through?

No: the Aegis prevented it from dropping 300+ people on the deck of the USS
Vincennes...

Nice sidestep. The point being that your drawing this into the
discussion was pointless.


and again the
recent experiences with the PAC-3 show that this is not the case.

PAC-3 is not a naval missile, for one thing.

So what? Is it equipped with a system that makes it capable of VID over
BVR-ranges? Is it making its users better able to safely identify distant
targets than any (manned) interceptor can do?

But your F-14 with Phoenix supposedly *is* capable of making a VID of
an aircraft some 100+ miles away?


Second, the report on
PAC-3 has yet to be released from DoD (reportedly will occur soon).

Oh, that's really a "big problem": the PAC-3 crews in question were already
freed of any blame - just like the crew of the USS Vincennes - so the DoD
can now release as many reports as it likes.

Ahh...I begin to see where you are coming from with your "I am smarter
than the entire USN combined" schtick.


I get the idea that you are focusing on the fratricide issue as the sole
factor applied to determining the effectiveness of the SAM
systems--but that is only a part of the equation. You think your
F-14's tossing Phoenix missiles about over 100 nm away are not going
to be subject to the same kind of frat incidents?

No. But, at least the F-14 has had the TCS, which was enabling it to VID
bogeys from serious distances. This is something no SAM can do - and
especially no SAM-site or an AAW-warship.

BZZZ! Sorry, that does not compute. You are arguing that we are making
a serious mistake in giving up the extended BVR range capability of
the F-14/AIM-54 combination, and then you segue into this
fratricide-at-long-range rant, but the faxct is that your pet pair are
just as susceptable as any SAM to that same problem. If you are going
to argue that VID is required, then you have to give up on the "AIM-54
is vital" argument.


How many Iranian
aircraft were frat casualties during the PGW?

They've shot down five of their own F-14s with MIM-23s (plus at least half a
dozen of other fighters), just for example. The IRIAF F-14s haven't shot
down even a single Iranian fighter, regardless the distances and complex
tactical situations in several cases.

So they say, right?


You can't
go out with the Aegis cruiser and hope to shot down the potential
attackers,
but instead blast either several own fighters returning to the carrier,
or a
few airliners.

A bit oversimplified, IMO. The Aegis provides but one layer of the
full defense system.

It is undeniably another layer of the full system. But, as the word "full"
describes it, it is a part of the system, and a part/layer that comes
between the interceptors and the carrier - not in front of the interceptors,
which you seem to consider it capable of doing.

I hate to tell you this, but it is *capable* of doing that; a single
misidentification of an Iranian Airbus does not serve to indict the
Aegis system or its capabilities.


The identification systems are obviously not sophisticated
enough, and the USN - especially not in its "new", "litoral"
environment -
also obviously can't hope to have a situation where the Aegis can have a
free field of fire.

But hey, those same systems are apparently quite capable of handling
waaay beyond VR IFF in the case of Phoenix?! Do you not see the
disconnect in your reasoning between the two here?

Such things like TCS are. Don't you notice that you permanently forget at
least one factor that makes the difference?

If you are referring to blade counts, I believe the ability of the
Aegis to do this has been in evidence (and is likely better now than
it was back in the 80's). Now, again, how is your Tomcat going to
positively VID these targets to allow your AIM-54 engagement at over
100 naut miles?


Consequently, there is still a need for a proper EID/VID
of the potential target - a task the ships can't do properly in every
possible situation from ranges longer than 20 (or even less) nautical
miles.
I hope you will not tell me in turn that anybody is going to risk $1
billion
warships by moving them down the threat axis in order to try anything
similar - especially because it is pretty obvious that the "new"
interceptor
on the carrier's deck can't accomplish the taks in a manner safe for it
and
its crew?

Wow, those EID systems on your Tomcats must rival Hubble if they are
picking up and ID'ing targets in the far reaches of the AIM-54
envelope.

Well, at least I don't know about a single case (out of several dozens)
where the enemy-IFF-interrogator of an F-14 failed to properly identify the
target. The fact is that this happened in 100% of the cases where the Aegis
was used in "combat".

But hey, your celebrated Aegis-downing-Airbus was found after-the-fact
to have been more a case of operator(s) mishandling of IFF more than
it was the system's fault; but your F-14/Phoenix pairing is incapable
of similar error, huh?


What airborne threat out there do you see that the
F/A-18 with AIM-120, supported by AWACS and the normal aerial
refueling packages, and backstopped by Aegis-equipped CG's and DDG's,
can't handle?

Threats of Su-30s armed with R-77s, Yakhonts and other advanced weapons
that
are about to enter service within the next few years, supported recce
satellites and AEW aircraft based on Israeli/US technology.

The numbers of which in *any* nation's hands at present dont equal the
threat that the USN faced in the North Atlantic in 1980-85.

You again missed the point: the modern threats are such that one needs no
dozens or hundreds in order to saturate: today it can become too dangerous
for any USN CVBG to let the opponent fire even a single thing of Yakhont's
caliber...

You seem to miss the point--the newer threat is within the envelope
and capabilites of the F/A-18/AIM-120 and does not require the F-14's
ability to handle killing a saturation effort. Put another way, how
does the F-14/AIM-54 combo, operating within your must-have-VID
framework, offer anything substantive that the newer system does not?

Keep in mind:

"The AIM-120C-7 (P3I Phase 3), development of which has begun in 1998,
will incorporate improved ECCM with jamming detection, an upgraded
seeker, and longer range. The latter feature was specifically
requested by the U.S. Navy to get a (somewhat) suitable replacement
for the AIM-54 Phoenix very-long range missile..."

www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html

It appears the Navy has already instigated the improvements to AIM-120
it felt necessary to handle any capabilities "lost" with the
retirement of the F-14/AIM-54 combo.


The USN is just about to introduce the 7th Generation of Aegis into
service:
you don't believe they are doing this for nothing?

Likewise for the same reason that AIM-54 is likely to go the way of
the dodo, technological progress and a changing threat environment.

No dispute. But, this doesn't mean that a much more powerful replacement is
needed - but nowhere in sight.

If the USN really felt this way, they'd either be extending
F-14/AIM-54 service and capabilities, or seeking a like replacement
system. That they are doing neither indicates that your assessment is
off-base.

Even the UK seems to agree that the need for a super-range AAM is
negligable:

"A BAE Systems paper from 1996 - reflecting the UK thinking that led
to the adoption of the BAE Systems Meteor AAM for the Typhoon - points
out that a target beyond 40km range "can feel free to maneuver without
fear of engagement". This is echoed by Robert Shaw, former US Navy
fighter pilot and author of Fighter Combat Tactics. "There is
virtually no missile that you can't outmaneuver at maximum range.""

www.janes.com/aerospace/military/ news/idr/idr010529_1_n.shtml



Back in the days when you were looking at a realistic possibility of a
saturation attack, that would be correct; but those days are now in
the past, thank goodness.

Yes they are. Instead, in the following years a completely new
generation of
anti-shipping weapons will enter service, which will not need to
saturate
the defences. The possibility of attacks with single weapons that can
penetrate the layered defences of USN carriers due to their sheer flying
performances will considerably increase.

And your Phoenix/F-14 combination, with its admittedly
less-than-spectacular low altitude performance, is fgonna change this
equation you posit exactly *how*?

In my last post I have explained to you that in COMBAT - repeat: combat, not
in testing - the AIM-54 proved capable of tackling low-level targets.

Any evidence beyond the rants of the Iranians to back that?

The
AIM-120 was fired in combat, and also in the SD-mode, but never against a
target operating at levels bellow 100m. Perhaps some AMRAAMs were test-fired
against such targets like cruise-missiles: this is very likely. But then,
the test-performance of the AIM-54 against such targets is superior to that
of the AIM-120 any way, already on the basis of the range.

I wonder how high those Blackhawks were when they got tagged? Not to
mention the fact that AMRAAM has already been adapted to operate in
the low-altitude regime as a ground based system as well as its more
common AAM guise.

"AMRAAM is a follow-on to the AIM-7 Sparrow missile series. The
missile is faster, smaller and lighter, and has improved capabilities
against low-altitude targets...More than 200 of the test missiles were
launched during flight tests at Eglin AFB, Fla.; White Sands Missile
Range, N.M.; and Point Mugu, Calif."

usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ affacts/blaim-120amraam.htm

As to its test history (not to mention its proven combat record):

"Additional AMRAAM operational capabilities include quick flyout,
greater immunity against countermeasures and better lo-level attack
capability. The low-smoke, high-impulse rocket motor reduces the
chances of an enemy sighting either the launch or the oncoming missile
and taking evasive action. AMRAAM capabilities, which have been
demonstrated in over 1,200 flight test and combat launches, include
look-down/shoot-down, multiple launches against multiple targets,
resistance to complex ECM, intercepts of high-flying, low-flying, and
maneuvering targets, and intercepts at very short range in dogfight
situations."

http://www.raytheon.com/products/amraam/

How capable is your AIM-54 against the latest "complex" ECM? And do
you *really* think it is going to be as lethal as AMRAAM against low
altitude targets in a look-down-shoot-down scenario?



As next, given the lack of speed and endurance, there is also the
lack
of
range: the AIM-120 can't - and will for the next ten years or so
also
not be
able to - intercept enemy at such ranges like the AIM-54 can.

It doesn't have to. And neither can the AIM-54 reliably operate at the
lower altitudes that the AIM-120 has proven to be quite capable of
handling.

In combat, the AIM-120 was never used at low levels, so I must wonder a
little bit what makes you so sure about it being able to handle
low-flying
threats?

Repeated test shots, including snap down shots at targets operating
IIRC quite a bit lower than Phoenix ever was designed to handle.

How about details? How many, when and where?

No details seem to be available on the net, but you can look at the
Raytheon site given above for a general rundown. Do you *really*
believe the USMC, the Norwegians, etc., would have selected it for
their ground based defense against low-altitude air breathing threats
if it was *incapable* of operating in that regime? And again, do you
*really* believe that the much older Phoenix, designed for its long
range anti-ASM launcher role, s *more* capable in the
look-down/shoot-down role than the AIM-120 is?


On the contrary, the AIM-54A (and a "downgraded" version of it) proved
capable of tackling multiple low-level threats in combat, and was also
successful in combat against low-flying cruise missiles. Certainly,
these
were of the same generation like the AIM-54, nothing of the "new breed"
that
is about to enter the service, but the point remains that without a
proper
replacement for the AIM-54 the USN will stand there with its hands
shortened
by two thirds, to say at least...

Gee, it is amazing that the USN can be so stupid, huh? Or is it a case
of their having a more realistic view of both the threat environment
and the shortcomings of their older systems?

Well, not really stupid: just catching-as-catch can - after all the failures
and massive mistakes with the A-12, ATF etc., etc., etc. they had to get
something new on their decks, or face the situation in which the A-6s and
F-14s would start falling apart within few years.

I don't know if you read any of the USN reports and hearings to the Congress
in the last few years: they do not say any more that the F/A-18s are
"better" than the F-14. They say that the F-14 is running out of life (which
is meanwhile undeniable) and the USN simply needs new airframes. So, it's
not any more to "get the best of the best" but to "get at least something".

You seem to believe that the USN leadership, en mass, is very callous
in regards to protecting our forces from the prevalent threats of the
day--I don't share that view.


The result of
this is that the slower, and shorter-ranged F/A-18s, armed only with
AIM-120s, are in a danger of literaly being overrun by faster,
longer-ranged, and fighters - such like Su-30s - that carry weapons
with
a
similar (or potentially better) range to that of the AIM-120.

Those Su-30's, if they are toting external weapons viable against a
CVN, are not going to be able to seriously outpace the F/A-18's; not
to mention the fact that they will usually find the Hornets *between*
them and their target, not in a tail chase scenario.

There are multiple factors in this game: as first, the Su-30 is much
faster
and has a better acceleration than any Hornet.

Not with big honking ASM's onboard it does not.

Sigh, I'd like to see acceleration rates for a SH loaded with three bags and
four AIM-120s alone.... Do you really believe it's superior to the Su-30 and
likes?

It doesn't HAVE to be. It is darned sure capable of operating in the
regime where most enagements occur, and when employed in the defensive
BVR role while protecting its home CVN, it is going to be the other
guy who has to have the extra energy to avoid those incoming
AIM-120's--and when hauling a bunch of its own fuel and big ASM's I am
doubting that the Su-27/30 is going to be your vaunted "superplane"
that you seem to think it is.


As second, it is far more
maneuvreable, and has proven this too.

If it can outmaneuver an AIM-120, not to mention the more likely two
AIM-120's, coming in at it from BVR, then it is one heck of an
airplane--but it really can't do that, now can it?

The Serbian MiG-29s proved several times they can outmaneuver AIM-120s in
1999 (they outmaneuvered at least three of them). Of course, a fighter
forced to outmaneuver missiles is of not much use. But, if you can get them
busy with one of yours, you still can bring the whole pack around.... Some
call this: "hold him by the nose and punch him in the tights". You might get
surprised that the "others" (than the US Americans) could come to the idea
to use this "tactics".

Where are these massive losses that US air crews must be sustaining
against these superwarriors? Let's see, how many Yugo air-to-air kills
against US aircraft? Zero. How many Yugo aircraft fell to AIM-120?
More than three IIRC?


As third, it is to carry the weapons
that can overfly the F/A-18/AIM-120 combination.

What weapons are going to be launched that operate outside the AIM-120
altitiude envelope? And isn't that possibility one reason why a
layered defense, including Aegis with Standards, is present today?

How about trying to get yourself informed about the Yakhont's attack
trajectories?

Hi-lo is given as 14K meters max cruise altitude.

web.nps.navy.mil/.../Destroyer-Sovremenny-Russia/SS-N-22%20Missile/
SS-N-22%20Sunburn%20(3M-80%20Zubr).doc

Ceiling for the AIM-120 is given in one source as 20K meters. And you
think it is incapable of intercepting the SS-N-26? My, you must have a
very dim view of AMRAAM; first you doubt its low altitude ability, now
you question its ceiling?

http://usfighter.tripod.com/weapons.htm


As fourth, the low speed
and endurance of the F/A-18 do not ensure at all that they will always
find
themselves "between" the carrier and the Su-30s - especially not in
time.

You are aware that those Su's are not going to be "supercruising" in
towards the target from any great range? Do you really think they are
going to be operating above the typical transonic regime that has
typified the vast majority of air-to-air combat, and will continue to
do so for the next few years at least?

I'm meanwhile only sure that you're not completely up-to-date to this topic.
Which is the only recent war in which BVR-air-to-air combats were fought on
a large scale (and in which BOTH sides were firing BVRAAMs)? What were the
usual speeds of the involved aircraft in average BVR-battles in that war?

Answer the question--do you see the Su-30, loaded with ASM's, as being
a supercruiser, or not?


It might surprise you, Kevin, but the times of subsonic dogfighting at
medium and low levels are past, and people like you should slowly start to
realize this fact. This comes from the sole fact that already approaching an
enemy capable of BVR-shots at high speeds is rapidly decreasing his
engagement envelope...

Answer the question--is your vaunted Su-30 loaded with SS-N-26's a
supercruiser, or not?


Care to guess what that
supersonic flight does to the range capability of your posited
Su-armada (and the question of whether they can even get to those
speeds while toting ASM's is another issue)?

To make one thing clear: I'm not some "Flankeristi", believing the plane can
"do it all, anytime, anywhere". You miss, however, the fact that the
Su-27-family is simply superior to any Hornet in its raw flying
performances. Or worst: you do not miss it: you simply ignore and deny it,
according to the principle: if you say they are not capable of doing it,
they will not be capable of doing it.

Answer the question--do you believe the Su's are capable of this
vaunted overmatch in speed while toting along a few ASM's and fuel
tanks, or not?


This might sound illogical only if you think that the battles of this
kind
are fought in only two dimensions, not in all four. Being on station
100,
200, or even 300km out from the carrier down the threat axis does not
ensure
that the F/A-18 will be in proper place and the needed time. Quite on
the
contrary: the far superior endurance of the Su-30, just for example,
maxes
it flexible enough to maneuver around the threat axis - along which the
F/A-18s can be expected - and goes for the kill "from the other side"
(i.e.
several of them go along completely different routes around or away from
the
threat axis, where the F/A-18 are most likely to expect). In turn,
having
only Hornets at hand narrows down the capability of the CVBG CO to
maneuver
them, and also declines his flexibility massively.

An amazing aircraft if you think it can operate on external lines (so
to speak) at tremendous speed, with a substantial external warload,
and the required fuel to enable it to accomplish all of this external
maneuvering. Frankly, I seriously doubt that it has those
capabilities.

The only problem here is that you chose to ignore what is obviouis. Compare
the published performances to get the proper picture.

I have, and failed to find anything that indicates that under those
conditions it is an overmatch (just as I found your Yakhont does not
operate outside the max envelope of the AIM-120). Sure, a reltively
clean Su, with decent refueling support (something the PRC is lacking
in at present), would be a nast handful for a Super Hornet
(discounting those pesky issues of pilot quality, support structure
(i.e., AWACS, refueling, etc.)--but such an Su is little threat to a
CVN. Load it up, and it is going to be slogging along at less than
M1.0, and a bit more sluggish than it is clean.


Can you - instead of being sarcastic - disprove what I said on the basis of
available data for F/A-18s and Su-30s?

You really miss the point. You continue to fall back to this
mano-a-mano F-18 versus Su-30, when the issue is more accurately,
"Aggressing Su-30's loaded with fuel bags and ASM's versus defending
F/A-18E/F's with fuel bags and AIM-120's, backed by AEGIS armed
CG/DDG's".


The USN apparently does not agree with your assessment. The F-18 is
not quite as slow as you seem to think,

Is it faster than such planes like Su-27/30, Rafale, EF-2000, F-22, just for
example? Has it a better range, higher top speed, longer-ranged weapons?

It operates quite nicely in the same combat speed regime as the Su's
in terms of BVR engagement, which is what is going to be required if
it is defending against this serious threat to its home CVN you posit.


they do have aerial tanking capability to support the CAP

Yes, they do. In fact, they not only have such capability, but also need it
badly: just take a look what was the main task of the few F/A-18Fs of the
VFA-41 that arrived in the Gulf in time to "participate" in the war against
Iraq, earlier this year...

Yep, and you seem to forget that they were supporting long range
strike missions, not the local CAP. Big difference, huh? Not to
mention that the USAF, and even more so the RAF, have proven quite
capable of handling support for USN aerial refueling requirements.


, and the AIM-120 has proven so far to be
a rather lethal missile to aircraft ranging from the old Mig-21 to the
Mig-29.

Err, sorry: how many MiG-21s were shot down by AMRAAMs?

Mea culpa; it appears that all of the victories to date have neen
against the more advanced Mig-29 (and one Mig-25). How many Mig-29's
has the AIM-54 claimed?


And the AIM-54 has proven to be what (and take some of those
Iranian claims with buckets of salt)?

The AIM-54 has proven to have a 20% higher pk in combat against contemporary
threats than the AIM-120.

Anything to back that up? There have been a fair number of AIM-120
victories, beginning during Southern Watch, extending through Allied
Force...and the only mention of the AIM-54 is from Iranian sources? So
where does your data come from?

You can take these "Iranian claims" with
containers of salt if you don't like them. Just take care to drink enough
water.

That's the USN's problem, not even the one of the AIM-54 or the F-14:
due to
its own ignorance and arrogance, they attempted to engage an opponent
with
weapons that were known to this opponent first-hand. The Iraqis have
suffered immensely from the AIM-54 through the 1980s, consequently they
studied it very intensively, and already by 1988 - when they finally
managed
to shot down two IRIAF F-14As - they have also shown that they started
learned how to fly around the engagement envelope of the AIM-54 in order
to
bring the Tomcats inside the envelope of their weapons.

But those Su-30's can't manage that? Sounds like you are positing now
a case that *any* CAP, be it F-14 or F-18 based, is doomed to failure.

You simply chose to ignore the facts: what is your argument here, actually?
That the F/A-18 is "superior" in speed, range and capabilities to all the
possible threats, and there is no problem with the lack of range of the
aircraft or that of the range and kynethic capabilities of the AIM-120, nor
with the fact that the USN's CAPs can't operate agains threats from ranges
away from carrier as safe as before?

No, my argument is that (a) the threat that we face today is smaller
in scope than it was in the early 80's, and (b) that the F/A-18E/F,
apired with AIM-120, is capable of performing the CAP role for the
CVN's. Very simple really.


Do you want a serious discussion here or are we now about to start with
personal attacks, flamewars and other nonsence?

How does, "But those Su-30's can't manage that? Sounds like you are
positing now a case that *any* CAP, be it F-14 or F-18 based, is
doomed to failure" equate to a flame war? You posit that the Iraqis
were able to develop tactics that negated the AIM-54, yet you also
argue that the F-14 with AIM-54 is required to handle more advanced
Su-30 threats? Appears to be a disconnect in your argument to me.


Do you seriously believe and expect that nobody will ever be able to
learn
to do the same against an aircraft with low top speed and shorter
endurance - like F/A-18 - and the main weapon of a much shorter range
than
the AIM-54 - namely the AIM-120? And this to remain so "forever"?

What am I thinking? Of course you are right, the USN is dumb, and the
Su is the greatest airplane ever built, capable of things that would
make the F/A-22 green with envy... All sarcasm aside, I fail to see
where the AIM-54 equipped F-14 is essential to USN CV defensive
efforts forever.

Surely, when one refuses to think soberly then it makes no sense to talk
with the person.

Thanks for demonstrating an argument only a lawyer could respect--the
fact is that you can't demonstrate that the scope, in terms of sheer
size, of the threat faced today matches, much less surpasses, that
which was faced in the guise of the Soviet threat at the height of the
Cold War, nor have you shown where the F-18 is incapable of defending
the CVN against a real (as opposed to your imaginary Super Flankers
with their amazing high energy abilities exhibited while toting those
all of that fuel and Super Yakhonts that somehow operate above the
ceiling of the AIM-120) present day, or immediate future, threat.

Brooks


Thanks for losing my time: no interest.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585