wrote:

Well, I've asked that question also because of some articles I've found
in "Air Forces Monthly" old (early-to-mid-1990s) issues.

In one of them - a comparison between F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, and Mirage
2000 - it was stated that F/A-18C is the best in the "low and slow"
scenario, these adavantages being dimmed when the speed and altitude
increase. So, essentialy a strike aircraft, with a very good
self-defense capabilities?

In another, an F-14D pilot bragged that in so improved Tomcat he can
successfully fight anything but F/A-18 WITH NO EXTERNAL FUEL TANKS.

Personally, I think that it is difficult to see an F/A-18 with no
external tanks (yeah, dropping them is possible, but would it be good
as an everyday routine?). The underwing pylons must also cause some
extra drag and loss in manoeuvrability (especially in F/A-18E/F), but
dismounting them could reduce the plane's flexibility in rapidly
changing battlefield environment.

Some years back, a friend of mine asked a pilot from either VX-4 or 5
(before they amalgamated as VX-9) which a/c he'd rather have in a phone
booth fight. The pilot said an F-14. My friend thought the pilot had
misunderstood him, so clarified the question. thepilot gave thesame
answer, and explained why. He said that nothing would beat the F-18 if
both a/c were clean wing, but that when you put the normal pylons on both
a/c it was a different matter. Of course, this referred to an early
F-18A/C model with the -400 engines, so the -402s and FCS software
improvements may have altered the odds, but the F-18's wing pylons are very
draggy. ISTR that the Swiss and maybe the Finns were interested in
developing a pure AAM pylon that would be much smaller and less draggy than
the current pylons, but I don't know if that ever went forward.

Guy