orpheus@reed.UUCP (P. Hawthorne) (02/07/91)
From: orpheus@reed.UUCP (P. Hawthorne)
. wwy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
. There are rough, proposed plans for a Tomcat 2, but the DOD is currently
. more interested in the development of the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF).
. Prototypes are currently being tested. Top Secret [Eyes Only] Project.
With four contractors on two sides of a development campaign and the
other major military contractors taking sides and providing assistance to
one side, this project has an enormous profile for the media.
Decent photographs of the prototypes are widely available. Certain
sections do seem to be missing from the overall pictures, but this is
probably an oversight by the photographers.
The most glaring lack of information available to the media has been
the capacity of the weapon bays, but that can be guessed.
I suspect that the reason the YF-22 and YF-23 are so much more public
than the F-19 or the F-117 is because the Soviets clearly do not have
the resources to duplicate these advancements from what is relatively
sketchy information. Materials and componants are well classified.
Now that the Navy is not going to get the A-12, I wonder if either of the
contractors is working on a variant for carrier duty.
Estimated radar cross sections for both protoypes are significantly
higher than on the F-117. Is there something on the prototypes that the
estimates are not taking into account, like the electronics suite?
I read that Lockheed experimented with transmitting background clutter from
below the aircraft upwards for the benefit of orbiting radar planes.
It sounded promising.
orpheus@reedgordon@meaddata.com (Gordon Edwards) (02/08/91)
From: gordon@meaddata.com (Gordon Edwards) In article <1991Feb7.021044.4709@cbnews.att.com>, orpheus@reed.UUCP (P. Hawthorne) writes: |> Now that the Navy is not going to get the A-12, I wonder if either of the |> contractors is working on a variant for carrier duty. |> [refering to the YF-22/YF-23. -gordon] Yes, the Navy is interested in a Naval variant of the ATF. This is odd since historically Air Force developments do not lend themselves to carrier operations. The F-14 was developed after the Navy rejected a plan to modify the F-111 for carrier duty. The main problem is that carrier operations are much more demanding on the aircraft than land operations. Any modified ATF would be considerably heavier (possibly double). My guess is that Grumman anticipates these problems, and is therefore offering the Tomcat-21 proposal. It is interesting to note that the F-4 was a Navy development that proved quite popular with the Air Force. -- Gordon (gordon@meaddata.com)
berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Deer, Dogs, and Runners: What are the favorite foods of Mountain Lions? 07-Feb-1991 1017) (02/08/91)
From: "Deer, Dogs, and Runners: What are the favorite foods of Mountain Lions? 07-Feb-1991 1017" <berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com> The YF-22 and YF-23 are both intended as air-superiority fighters, not attack craft. They are not appropriate as an A-12 replacement. There is a NATF program to adopt the selected fighter for Navy use as a replacement for the F-14. Grumman has proposed the SuperTomcat as an alternative, claiming near ATF capability at far less cost, in a proven carrier-capable aircraft. I can never remember which is which, but recent reports have the Lockheed teams aircraft within the weight guidelines for adaptation to carrier use, while the Northrup aircraft is too heavy. If the Air Force goes with Northrup, then the SuperTomcat proposal probably will proceed. Grumman has been working on an A-6G as an interim to the A-12. It was cancelled a couple of years ago as the A-12 was going along so well. Now that we've discovered the A-12 progress was a hoax, and have cancelled that, perhaps the Navy will look at the A-6G (or some other advanced A-6 variant) again. Another alternative would be an upgraded F/A-18 that could take on the long range, night/all-weather, attach mission. ............................................................................. Hal Berenson berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com -- Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's! --
jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) (02/09/91)
From: jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) >There is a NATF program to adopt the selected fighter for Navy use as a >replacement for the F-14. Grumman has proposed the SuperTomcat as an >alternative, claiming near ATF capability at far less cost, in a proven >carrier-capable aircraft... >Lockheed teams {ATF is} within the weight guidelines for adaptation to >carrier use, while the Northrup aircraft is too heavy. If the Air Force >goes with Northrup, then the SuperTomcat proposal probably will proceed. One may suspect, with pragmatism but not necessarily cynicism, that non- technical factors may be highly significant. They include the balance of pork on Capitol Hill and the desirability of sending a lifeboat to a valuable defense contractor that finds itself in shoal waters. Perhaps someone with some inside knowledge of procurement would care to comment. --Joe "Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (02/09/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: gordon@meaddata.com (Gordon Edwards) >It is interesting to note that the F-4 was a Navy development that proved >quite popular with the Air Force. Only after they were pretty much ordered at gunpoint to buy F-4s instead of F-105s. DoD under the dreaded MacNamara felt that the F-4 was much more useful in a non-nuclear war, and insisted that the USAF buy it. Why this worked while the Navy F-111 didn't is an interesting subject; three very important considerations were (a) the USAF has no special mission constraints analogous to carrier compatibility for the USN (which make dandy excuses for rejecting an aircraft that the service doesn't want); (b) the general characteristics of the F-4 were compatible with the USAF's concept of its primary missions (where a heavy, sluggish, missile- laden F-111 interceptor was very different from previous Navy fighters, which had always been part dogfighter); and (c) the F-4 was already operational, so its performance was established fact that was difficult to argue with. The difference was fairly striking: the first USAF F-4s had a bare handful of modifications from the Navy ones -- wider tires for softer airfields, bulged landing-gear doors to match, and USAF radios and oxygen systems were about it -- while the Navy F-111 ended up having only a family resemblance to the USAF one. (Just to be impartial :-), it didn't always work that smoothly. The USAF adapted the A-3 Skywarrior as the B-66, for various special missions like electronic warfare, but modified it so much that it probably didn't save them anything over designing a whole new aircraft.) -- "Maybe we should tell the truth?" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Surely we aren't that desperate yet." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu (Bergman Charles CDT) (02/11/91)
From: x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu (Bergman Charles CDT)
In reply to P. Hawthorne's message:
You stated, "With four contractors on two sides of a development
campaign..."
This is simply incorrect!
The YF-22 has THREE contractors: Lockheed, Boeing, and General Dynamics.
The YF-23 has TWO contractors: Northrop and McDonnell Douglas.
There are five BIG contractors in on the ATF. The Air Force is scheduled
to decide in April which plane will be the Air Force's Advanced Tactical
Fighter. Northrop is the principal contractor on the YF-23 Black Widow II and
Lockheed is the principal contractor on the YF-22 Lighting II. There are many
other subcontractors involved in this project including Pratt&Whitney and
General Electric who are in seperate competition for the engine contract.
BIG BUCKS, we'll see!
Charles K. Bergman
CDT USMA '93
x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu ***************************************
* There is no substitute for victory! *
P.O. Box 54 ***************************************
U.S. Corps of Cadets
West Point, NY 10997