Al.Conte@EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte) (04/23/91)
From: Al.Conte@EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte) Last night, I happended to be watching the McNeil Lehier News hour. They had a piece on the current ATF programs status. They said that the decision as to which aircraft would be purchased would be made today, 4:00 est. As I watched the footage of both planes in flight, and during manuevers, I felt very frustrated that one of these pieces of aircraft art would loose the contract. Both of these beauties should gain contract status, (IMHO). I could clearly see the bloodlines of the F177 in the Lockeed YF22. The Northrop/ McDonald Douglass YF23, to me, had traces of F-15 vintage in its design. Both the YF22, and YF23 seemed to have taken different routes in using stealth technology application with these birds. Not being an aircraft designer, I cannot state with ultimate confidence but, I would bet on the YF23 being slightly more stealthy and aerodynamic than the YF22. Still, both planes are a tribute to American technology, (they better be at 51 million a copy). I just wish we could have them both. Hey, maybe the Navy would be interested in the other. Al Conte [One report said the cost of the winner, the YF22, was now $108m apiece, another said it could be as high as $135m, for a $95,000m total cost for 650 aircraft. --CDR]
john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) (04/25/91)
From: john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) From: Al.Conte@EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte) > [ deleted intro to footage of YF-22/YF-23 ] > Both of these beauties should gain contract status, (IMHO). I preferred the YF-23, but nobody asked. You cannot have both planes as front line fighters at the current projected budget level. Think about the problems of having to supply spare parts for two different planes to first line air units. And then worry about two sets of teething problems. > I could clearly see the bloodlines of the F117 in the Lockeed YF22. The YF-22 is supposedly the less stealthy of the two planes, and supposedly the hotter plane. It also is supposed to manuver faster. > The Northrop/ McDonald Douglass YF23, to me, had traces of F-15 vintage > in its design. The YF-23 was optimized for stealth, and reflects Northrups involvement with the B-2 program. Compare a front-on view of each plane. The 23 has a much smaller "face print". Also look at the intakes and exhaust ports on the 23--very much like the B-2. Finally, look at a side view photo of each plane. The 23 looks a lot thinner (top to bottom). Like the F-117, both the YF-22 and YF-23 look different at every viewing angle-- I could not get an accurate feel for what either plane looked like until I looked at a number of photos. > I just wish we could have them both. Hey, maybe the Navy would be > interested in the other. Actually, I think (and the Pentagon seemed to confirm) that the YF-22 would make the better Navy plane. The big unknown here is if either plane could be Navalized without a total redesign. I personally think that the YF-23 is too good of a plane to put on the shelf, although I also said this about the F-20 Tigershark. Perhaps look for the F-23 as a fast stealty Air Force recon plane--the RF-23. Any comments? -- John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john
wb9omc@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) (04/26/91)
From: wb9omc@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) Al.Conte@EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte) writes: >As I watched the footage of both planes in flight, and during >manuevers, I felt very frustrated that one of these pieces of aircraft >art would loose the contract. Both of these beauties should gain >contract status, (IMHO). Well, as great bits of the fine art of aircraft design I would agree. From the viewpoint of practicality, no way. Look at it this way. With only one in production, USAF needs stock only ONE set of spare parts, not TWO. If you divide the total procurement in half (or whatever proportion) the flyaway cost for ALL of them goes up since each is being made in smaller quantity. All of which means less bang for the buck from our taxpayer money. The combination of Lockheed/P&W has worked before with the A12/J58, the YF12/J58 and the SR71/J58. Add in General Dynamics (let us not forget that GD gave us some damn fine airplanes) and I think you have a pretty good setup. This is not to say that Northrup et al hasn't, but keep in mind that Northrup just paid a record contractor fine. I suspect that ALSO played a VERY large part in the decision. PR-wise, it has been proven to be a lousy idea to fine a defense contractor and then turn around and reward them with a multi-billion dollar contract. Duane
jokim@jarthur.Claremont.edu (John H. Kim) (04/26/91)
From: "John H. Kim" <jokim@jarthur.Claremont.edu> Al.Conte@EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte) writes: >Both the YF22, and YF23 seemed to have taken different routes in using >stealth technology application with these birds. Not being an aircraft >designer, I cannot state with ultimate confidence but, I would bet on >the YF23 being slightly more stealthy and aerodynamic than the YF22. [Don't start paragraphs with From, please! --CDR] [F]rom what I've read (lots of YF-22 updates from Lockheed, whom I worked on a clinic team for this year) the YF-23 was indeed more stealthy than the YF-22 but both planes met the Air Force's specs for stealthiness. The YF-22 has vectored thrust which probably accounted for the superior performance mentioned in the announcement. And the price tag was lower. >Still, both planes are a tribute to American technology, (they better >be at 51 million a copy). I just wish we could have them both. Hey, >maybe the Navy would be interested in the other. I think the reason for picking one over the other is to cut down on the training, maintenance, and spare parts problems you'd have by operating two different planes to fill one role. -- John H. Kim jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu uunet!jarthur!jokim
bp14+@andrew.cmu.edu (Benjamin L. Peal) (04/29/91)
From: "Benjamin L. Peal" <bp14+@andrew.cmu.edu> I believe that fuel efficiency was another factor in requirements and comparison. Does anyone which of the designs had better fuel efficiency and the relative fuel efficiency of these planes compared to the planes currently in service? -- B.L.E.P. bp14+@andrew.cmu.edu
fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) (04/30/91)
From: fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes: >Actually, I think (and the Pentagon seemed to confirm) that the YF-22 >would make the better Navy plane. The big unknown here is if either >plane could be Navalized without a total redesign. I personally think >that the YF-23 is too good of a plane to put on the shelf, although >I also said this about the F-20 Tigershark. Perhaps look for the F-23 >as a fast stealty Air Force recon plane--the RF-23. Any comments? Navalizing the YF-22 (or YF-23) may be very difficult. I recall an article in AvWeek about the Radar Absorbing Materials on these aircraft. The article said that the RAM was very prone to rapid salt water corrosion. As for a RF-23, what could such a craft do that can not be done by the purely-stealty F-117? Speed and anti-air capability are all I can think of, neither of which is too important for recon. Frank Crary UC Berkeley
smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) (04/30/91)
From: smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) There were undoubtedly a lot of reasons for deciding between the YF22 and the YF23. Some were probably political, and hence not within the scope of this newsgroup. (For example, I believe that Lockheed would be doing a lot of work in Georgia. Check on the committee assignments -- and the seniority -- of Georgia's Senators.) Another reason is more germane, and is often overlooked in this newsgroup. Call it metalogistics: Lockheed got the contract because Northrop already has a big contract, for the B-2. It's very much in the military's interest to sustain several major aircraft manufacturers, both to provide competition in the future and to retain the base of engineers, experience, and equipment. This latter is quite critical -- today's planes are far too sophisticated to be built quickly by a startup. In the event of another long, non-nuclear war, it won't be possible to increase the manufacturing base rapidly enough to do any good. So, just as smart commanders preposition supplies, the Pentagon hierarchy ``prepositions'' aircraft builders. [Not an argument I'd buy - considering it takes 10-20 years from initial desire to buy to deployment, we'll fight the next war with pretty much what we have at the time it starts. --CDR] Incidentally, the same thought process was a major contributing factor to the early U.S. space program. It was necessary to keep the aerospace industry healthy, but high levels of military spending were seen as unlikely, given the political climate of the time. (Source: ``The Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of the Space Program.) --Steve Bellovin
mad@gatech.edu (Mark Davidson) (04/30/91)
From: emory!motatl!mad@gatech.edu (Mark Davidson) john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes: >Perhaps look for the F-23 >as a fast stealty Air Force recon plane--the RF-23. Any comments? I have never understood why the YF-23 wouldn't make a VERY nice attack aircraft with a few modifications here or there. Stealthiness would be MUCH more important to a ground-pounding craft than it would an air-superiority aircraft. It IS a decent performing aircraft already. It just seems to me that the airforce just does not understand the concept of ground-attack craft. Too many fighter jocks, I guess. [I don't think a $100 million ground-attack fighter is what you want at all. You want something cheap and heavily armored so you can have a lot of them. Like, say, an A10. :-) --CDR] -- Mark Davidson - INET: mad@atl.mcd.mot.com UUCP: {emory,gatech}!motatl!mad
fcrary@typhoon.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) (05/03/91)
From: fcrary@typhoon.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) emory!motatl!mad@gatech.edu (Mark Davidson) writes: >I have never understood why the YF-23 wouldn't make a VERY nice attack >aircraft with a few modifications here or there. Stealthiness would be The YF-23 (and the F-22) have internal weapons bays, for reasons of stealth. This puts a awkward limit on the amount of munitions one could carry. The F-117 has the same problem. As a result, it is used only against a certain class of targets (e.g. well defended but not too heavily built things like bridges and radar systems.) Without a large payload (e.g. external ordnance) you can not conduct a wide spread bombing campaign. The F-117 (why it isn't the A-117 I don't understand...) fills the role of a stealty, low payload strike aircraft. What new benifit would a AF-23 provide? Frank Crary UC Berkeley
madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz) (05/03/91)
From: madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz)
fcrary@typhoon.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) asks:
>What new benifit would a AF-23 provide?
I think that the short answer is that the AF-23 is designed to serve
as an air superiority fighter, while the F-117 is designed to function
as a small tactical attack plane.
As to the question of why the F-117 is not the A-117, I might add why
is the F-117 and not the F-6. By (previous) convention American
aircraft were numbered from 1 to 111. Why the military label planes
in the manner in which they do is anybody's guess. Perhaps it was for
security reasons, perhaps some air force general wanted to teach his
grandchild to count higher than one hundred and eleven ;-).
One thing that I have learned reading this newsgroup is that the
military operates on their own system of logic.
Ours is not to question why, our is just to talk about it.
max abramowitz
madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu
Opinions, what opinions?fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) (05/04/91)
From: fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) In article <1991May4.020956.20288@amd.com> madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz) writes: >I think that the short answer is that the AF-23 is designed to serve >as an air superiority fighter, while the F-117 is designed to function >as a small tactical attack plane. My question about a "AF-23" was in reply to a sugestion that the YF-23 be modified for a attack role. Since it IS an air superiority fighter with a limited payload, I do not see the point. When I used the name "AF-23" I followed the USAF convention, that is: AF-23 A -- Modified into a type "A" e.g. attack aircraft F -- Was origionally a type "F" e.g. fighter aircraft - 23 - Series number >As to the question of why the F-117 is not the A-117, I might add why >is the F-117 and not the F-6. My problem was with the "F" in F-117, not the number. The number is, no doubt as you suggest for security reasons. However the "F" in front SHOULD mean a fighter. As far as I know, the F-117 has no anti-air capability. It is used as a light bomber or attack aircraft. As such, it should be a "A", e.g. A-117. By the way, does anyone out there have a list of all the letters and their meanings? I know the army (for helocopters), air force and navy use diferent systems, and there are some unusual letters out there (ex. LC-130, a artic, ski-equiped C-130). [Would everyone who kept the list the last time it was posted mail a copy to Mr. Crary, and he can forward a summary to the list for posting the next time someone asks. Any brave reader care to volunteer to compile a Frequently Asked Questions posting? --CDR ] -- Frank Crary UC Berkeley
stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) (05/09/91)
From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) > [I don't think a $100 million ground-attack fighter is what you > want at all. You want something cheap and heavily armored so > you can have a lot of them. Like, say, an A10. :-) --CDR] The April 22 issue of Aviation Week reported on analysis by Gen. Merrill A, McPeak, U.S. Air Force chief of staff. The following is a quote of a single paragraph of this article (page 46). The need for such sophisticated day and night aerial activities appears to support the Air Force case that it needs multirole aircraft such as the F-16 and F-15E that can strike ground targets from any altitude, employ both smart and conventional weapons accurately and still serve as air-to-air fighters [McPeak] said. The reliance on sophisticated, expensive equipment to accomplish these tasks during the gulf war has essentially disproven the idea "that cheaper is better", he said. Advocates of fielding masses of simple aircraft such as the "mudfighter" lost credibility as a result of this conflict. Steve stevenp@decwrl.dec.com [ Except didn't the rules of engagement prohibit firing without visual contact? What good all-weather capability then? I suppose its useful to have the ability in case you really need it. He's talking about attack planes, though. I don't see many lessons learned about air-to-air combat from Desert Storm other than that the Soviet model of strong ground-control doesn't do well in a radar-hostile environment. Airtime for pilot training is crucial; if you can only afford a handful of planes and keeping them in the air is incredibly expensive how can airtime (and therefore pilot proficiency) not suffer? But of course, I could be wrong. :-) --CDR ]
stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) (05/24/91)
From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) In an earlier article I responded to our moderators statement that for ground attack, cheap, A-10 type aircraft are desired. I quoted an analysis by Gen Merrill A. McPeak that appeared in Aviation Week. McPeak argued for expensive, mutlti-role fighters, saying "the gulf war has essentially disproven the idea 'that cheaper is better'". [Carl Rigney] replied -- > Except didn't the rules of engagement prohibit firing without > visual contact? What good all-weather capability then? The FLIR sensors on F-15E's ALLOWED visual contact under conditions that would not have been possible with a cheap, good-weather only attack aircraft. > He's talking about attack planes, though. I don't see many lessons > learned about air-to-air combat from Desert Storm other than [...] Yes, the entire discussion was about attack aircraft. McPeak noted that there is considerable value in having an attack aircraft that is also capable of handling fighter threats. This is part of why he feels that the "mudfighter" concept has lost credibility. [Seems like a strange lesson to learn from DS, in which the threat of enemy fighters degraded quickly. --CDR] Steve Philipson stevenp@decwrl.dec.com