[NoClones]

the f/a-18 was the loser in a light-fighter competition back in the 70's wasn't it?

that is a p-ss-poor replacement for the f-14 & a-6!

[A.A. Cunningham]

the f/a-18 was the loser in a light-fighter competition back in the 70's wasn't it?

Nope. That was Northrops' YF-17 Cobra.

[Tallguy]

the f/a-18 was the loser in a light-fighter competition back in the 70's wasn't it?

The Northrop YF-17 Shrike, forerunner of the Navy/Marine F/A-18 Hornet, didn't really lose the 'flyoff' against the General Dynamics F-16. The flight charactaristics were very close. The competition was a 'push'. The F-16 was 'chosen' because the F-16 used an engine (the GE F-100) that was common with the F-15 Eagle which was already in production. The USAF wasn't ready to add another engine to the supply chain. Logistical concerns tipped the scale in favor of the F-16 Falcon.

Besides, this was the LWF (Lightweight Fighter) project. Single-engine makes a bit more sense from a readiness standpoint. 'Course the Navy takes the view that 2 engines increase survivability.

[Sting 11]

Yeah, an early version of it lost the Light Weight Fighter competition in the Air Force to the F-16 (It was known as the YF-17 at that time). It was modernized and modified for Navy use as the F/A-18 (the Navy liked the beefier structure and two engines compared to the F-16).

The F/A-18 does it's job well as a light fighter/attack plane, and replaced the F-4 in the Navy and Marine Corps as such. But its was never, ever intended to replace the F-14 in the fleet defense role...it is out of it's league in that role!