This validates all what I’ve pointed out about the F/A 18. The Mig 29 and SU 30 was designed from the outset to replace outdated Russian fighters and fill in the slots in their Air Force, where necessary. The naval versions were a derivative of these land based designs.
On the other hand, the F/A 18 was exclusively designed from the very beginning in the 1970s to fill in US Navy requirements. The version finally approved went exclusively to the USN. The USAF selected the F15 and F16 designs at the time and the USMC opted for the AV 8B Harrier IIs. In fact, at present the only service in the world to retain and use F/A 18s in large numbers is the US Navy, primarily in the carrier based strike role. This follows on the retirement of the F14 Tomcats it previously employed in the long range interdiction role.
WRONG!! Please do your research Mr I. F/A 18 is also used by the USMC and not only the USN. The version is not exclusive to the USN.
from fas.org
The Marine Corps maintains four air wings -- three active and one reserve. In addition to the single-seat F/A-18 (which is identical to Navy models), the Marine Corps employs the two-seat F/A-18D as a multirole fighter, and also as a reconnaissance, forward air control, and tactical air control system for operations at night and in adverse weather. The AV-8B, while capable of multiple missions, is used primarily in the close air support role.
Composition of Marine Air Wings
FY 1998 - FY 2000
(Fixed-Wing Combat Aircraft -- PMAI and Squadrons)
Aircraft Type Mission ActivePMAI(Sqn) ReservePMAI(Sqn) TotalPMAI(Sqn)
F/A-18 A/C Multirole 96 (8) 48 (4) 144 (12)
F/A-18D Multirole 72 (6) 0 72 (6)
Total 356 (25)
PMAI = primary mission aircraft inventory. Denotes aircraft authorized to combat units for performance of their basic missions; excludes aircraft maintained for other purposes, such as training, testing, attrition replacements, and reconstitution reserves.
And to counter your argument being the Hornet was primarily developed as a carrier based aircraft is also not entirely true.
After the F-15 was developed, the
AIRFORCE (USAF) wanted a lighter aircraft. The Lightweight Fighter (LWF) Program was a U.S. Air Force technology evaluation program initiated in the 1960s by a cabal of officers and defense analysts known as the "fighter mafia". It was spurred by then Maj. John Boyd's Energy-Maneuverability (E-M) theory of maneuverability, which indicated that excessive weight would have severely debilitating consequences on the maneuverability of an aircraft. The new aircraft was to be a light weight fighter with a high thrust-to-weight ratio, a gross weight of less than 20,000 pounds (half that of its counterpart, the F-15 Eagle), and high maneuverability.[1] It resulted in the development of the YF-16 and YF-17. The YF-16 went on to be selected to be the F-16 Fighting Falcon.
In May 1974, the House Armed Services Committee redirected $34 million from the VFAX to a new program, the Navy Air Combat Fighter (NACF),[4] intended to make maximum use of the technology developed for the LWF program. Though the YF-16 won the LWF competition, the Navy was skeptical that an aircraft with one engine and narrow landing gear could be easily or economically adapted to carrier service, and refused to adopt an F-16 derivative. The Navy fought for and won permission to develop an aircraft based on the YF-17.
sources. Main: Wikipedia cross referenced with fas.org data
As you can see above, the Hornet was actually derived from a land based fighter.
As for your strange questions... I really dont wanna waste my time answering irrelevent questions. The fact of the matter is you state that the Hornets was a pig to maintain, it has no useful capability in the force structure of the RMAF. All i have been typing is to counter your points by pointing out the hornets capability and role in the RMAF.
You've not raised any further points. Also, you agreed with me that operating 4 squadrons of one type is far more preferable than 4 of 2 different types. You say that the F/A 18D was purchased in 1997 to fill in a supposed role that the Mig 29 was unable to. I wasn’t discussing the Mig at length nor why the F/A 18Ds and Migs were purchased in the period 1995-1997. I am grateful that you have followed the main issue of the F/A 18E/F and the SU 30 MKM, and taken into account what I wrote in my previous post.
NO! What I stated is,
cost wise it is preferable to operate 1 type of fighter. Not
far more preferable. Many other things also need to be considered in RMAF operations, not just cost. Leave aside the political dimensions that qwerty 223 mentions and look at the supply and maintenance and logistic lines. Having 2 types of aircraft (be it a western or eastern or mix) is logical as not to disrupt your whole operations if one type is grounded for one of many a reasons. logistics, part, maintenance etc etc. You do remember that the Hawks was grounded for a period of time, also the S61 Nuri. Again the english saying comes to mind, do not put all your eggs in one basket.
qwerty223 said:
Mind that there is no true MRCA, and that all the major AF in the world had chosen at least 2 kinds of main asset that had a opposite primary configuration.
Exactly, the Su30 is derived from the su27 which is an air superiority fighter. the shornets was developed from the hornet, which is a strike fighter, which has that strike capability developed with it from the beginning, hence the designation F/A 18. Fighter/Attack. Capability wise, these to aircraft complement each other, bothe are multirole fighters developed from different backgrounds
