Since the retirement of the F-14, the US Navy's sole air superiority aircraft is the F-18 (frightening thought). Analysis by Dr Kopp seems to indicate that if and when Hornets find themselves up against Flankers the advantage lies decidedly with the latter.

Of course, there's more to air combat than the the raw capabilities of the platforms; but in the hands of a well trained pilot with a modern weapons/radar loadout, the more capable aircraft makes for a formidable - perhaps unbeatable- opponent. Just ask the pilots who've flown against the Raptor.

So this begs the question: While the production line is still hot, should LM be tasked with designing & building out a carrier capable F-22? Say, ten per carrier?

And "Dr." Kopp is dead wrong about the Super Bug versus the Flanker.

For what purpose? To counter what threat?

the Phoenix proved to be completely ineffective

With AESA and AIM-120Ds, the Super Bug will eat Flankers for breakfast, lunch and dinner. And, if the USN ever gets the F-35C, the latter will more than suffice to achieve air dominance over any prospective opponent for quite a while yet

Do you even bother to read any of the linked article? Have you read anything on the Flankers, their weapons, radars, anything? Why don't you do a little of that, then come back. We'll talk then.

After nearly 30 years of following the business of aerospace I hardly need some snot-nosed kid to tell me I ought to educate myself on an issue I know backwards and forwards, sonny boy. Regarding the rest of your post, you ask a rhetorical question in order to present your a priori suppositions based on an article written by a third-hand observer of a system to which he does not have classified access. You're barking up the wrong tree here, kiddo.

After nearly 30 years of following the business of aerospace I hardly need some snot-nosed kid to tell me I ought to educate myself on an issue I know backwards and forwards

Dr Kopp— "To put this into context, I am one of the few people in Australia who has performed genuine academic research on network-centric warfare and also the technology from which these networks are built, to the extent that my doctoral thesis was actually on the adaptation of fighter radars for long-range networking. I am probably the best qualified person in Australia to comment on this."

I must say, I do not necessarily see even in the most speculative
parts of my crystal ball.

Do you even bother to read any of the linked article? Have you read anything on the Flankers, their weapons, radars, anything? Why don't you do a little of that, then come back. We'll talk then.

I hardly need some snot-nosed kid to tell me I ought to educate myself on an issue I know backwards and forwards, sonny boy.

Well, after 35 years of actually, you know, being in the aerospace business (including at LockMart and currently working in spacecraft design at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab), I guess it fell to me to tell you.

Maybe you should get a little educated (at least a little, for crying out loud) before spouting off that guys with PhD's and PE licenses who do aerospace and weapons analysis for a living and who've advised major governments (including testifying before Congess, IIRC) don't know what they're talking about. I've spent my whole career working with people like this. They know of what they speak. And generally, they know far more than they publish in open sources like websites.

Now go to your room, young man, and don't come back out until you've improved your attitude. Then, like I said, we'll talk.

With no disrepect intended, this discussion comes up almost 20 years too late.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... t/natf.htm

Note: While, I don't necessarily completely agree with some of the editorial/interpretive-type statements in the above, the basic history is accurate enough.

I agree with Raptor claw. The F-22N proposals had variable sweep wings (ala the F-14 Tomcat or F-111 Aardvark), and needed higher strength landing gear, and reinforced rear structure/bulkhead to withstand carrier takeoff's and landings. There's no telling how over budget such an aircraft would have been.

Have the Navy shot themselves in their own foot by being so obstinate?