"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:39:17 +0100, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:35:39 -0700, Harry Andreas
wrote:

Could be wrong, but I think his point is that threatening USAF with the
F/A-18 would insult them sufficiently that they would force the
F-22 to conclusion.

What's wrong with the F/A-18?

The context was that the F-22 program was badly flawed and the Tarver
assertion was the the program should be cancelled and the USAF
supplied with F/A-18s.

The F/A-18E works very well.

There is nothing per se wrong with F/A-18, but for USAF, what can the
Bug do that an F-15E, F-15C or F-16C can't do?

The F-15 option no longer exists, but I can see the F-16 getting a bump.

If you accept the first premise regarding Raptors and then make the
gigantic leap that $xx billion will be written off and we should
revert to a 1970s aircraft with avionics and engine upgrades, then you
would have to have an improvement in capability over the existing
inventory to justify switching platforms.

I tend to agree with McCain.

The F/A-18 can't outperform the F-16 or F-15C in the A/A mission and
it can't out-lift/out-deliver the F-15E in A/G, so why would anyone
suggest adding a new system to the inventory?

Weapons integration into the F/A-18E went very well and I doubt anyone
knowledgable would claim the same for the F-22. We are no longer in a world
where the A/G mission belongs to fighters and the A/A mission is BVR.