Reply to thread

Message

I did specify “against even moderate threats”. A lot of stuff will be more acceptable or even attractive if you only plan to fight opponents who won’t have a remotely credible ability to even try to shoot you down (or are only interested in fighting at the very start of the 90’s).

The early retirement of the A-6E fleet with the “Bombcat” and the original Hornet (plus ship launched Tomahawks) taking on its role also suggest that the US Navy took a dim view of survivability of the A-6 at that time. As did the actual cancellation of A-6F when that was undertaken.

In a world of increasingly sophisticated threats (Su-27/ MIG-29 generation of fighters with look-down radars, more advanced SAMs etc.) a warmed up A-6 wasn’t ever going to hack it medium to long term.

And the actual longer term replacements (Super Hornets and F-35Cs) were and are much more survivable and capable due to fundamentally much more advanced airframes and systems.

I’m a fan of the A-6 but much of your reasoning appears to be absolute nostalgic nonsense.

<blockquote data-quote="kaiserd" data-source="post: 539317" data-attributes="member: 10308">I did specify “against even moderate threats”. A lot of stuff will be more acceptable or even attractive if you only plan to fight opponents who won’t have a remotely credible ability to even try to shoot you down (or are only interested in fighting at the very start of the 90’s).The early retirement of the A-6E fleet with the “Bombcat” and the original Hornet (plus ship launched Tomahawks) taking on its role also suggest that the US Navy took a dim view of survivability of the A-6 at that time. As did the actual cancellation of A-6F when that was undertaken.In a world of increasingly sophisticated threats (Su-27/ MIG-29 generation of fighters with look-down radars, more advanced SAMs etc.) a warmed up A-6 wasn’t ever going to hack it medium to long term.And the actual longer term replacements (Super Hornets and F-35Cs) were and are much more survivable and capable due to fundamentally much more advanced airframes and systems.I’m a fan of the A-6 but much of your reasoning appears to be absolute nostalgic nonsense.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kaiserd, post: 539317, member: 10308"] I did specify “against even moderate threats”. A lot of stuff will be more acceptable or even attractive if you only plan to fight opponents who won’t have a remotely credible ability to even try to shoot you down (or are only interested in fighting at the very start of the 90’s). The early retirement of the A-6E fleet with the “Bombcat” and the original Hornet (plus ship launched Tomahawks) taking on its role also suggest that the US Navy took a dim view of survivability of the A-6 at that time. As did the actual cancellation of A-6F when that was undertaken. In a world of increasingly sophisticated threats (Su-27/ MIG-29 generation of fighters with look-down radars, more advanced SAMs etc.) a warmed up A-6 wasn’t ever going to hack it medium to long term. And the actual longer term replacements (Super Hornets and F-35Cs) were and are much more survivable and capable due to fundamentally much more advanced airframes and systems. I’m a fan of the A-6 but much of your reasoning appears to be absolute nostalgic nonsense. [/QUOTE]

Verification