wolit@rabbit.UUCP (Jan Wolitzky) (10/02/84)
The problem with the B-1B isn't the Air Force's specs, it's the plane's mission. There just isn't any way to build a manned penetrating bomber that's survivable and carries a reasonable load, at anything like a reasonable cost (and the current $1 billion per plane isn't reasonable, even though the plane can't perform its mission). Fortunately, there's no need for one, since the current B-52s can carry cruise missiles to within range of their targets without penetrating, and the ALCMs are a lot cheaper and stealthier than any manned bomber is going to be for a LONG time. Not that I think cruise missiles are such a great idea; their small size and interchangeable nuclear/HE warhead makes arms control very difficult (and remember, many of those in the defense establishment who thought that MIRVs were a similarly great idea now regret their deployment for that very reason), but the ALCM-armed B-52 performs essentially the same mission as the B-1B for a lot less money. As for the F-20 being such a great example of what the aerospace industry can do when not hampered by government specs, then how come they haven't sold a single one? Sorry, defense contractors are not like other companies, struggling along despite government interference, they're leeches selling death to the generals, with the taxpayers footing the bill. Northrop can go down the tubes without any sympathy from me. Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ
mat@hou4b.UUCP (10/04/84)
> As for the F-20 being such a great example of what the aerospace > industry can do when not hampered by government specs, then how come > they haven't sold a single one? Sorry, defense contractors are not > like other companies, struggling along despite government > interference, they're leeches selling death to the generals, with the > taxpayers footing the bill. Northrop can go down the tubes without > any sympathy from me. > Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ My understanding was that the F20 was the ``FX'' -- James Earl Jimmy Carter's Fighter, Export. The FX was to be good enough for all our second-rate allies, cheap enough that they would be willing to buy them instead of the latest ``Air Superiority'' F15 or F14 or F18 ... and that it would be completely supported by the US, even to the extent that our Armed Forces would stock spares. This was going to keeps F15s out of the hands of tne next Iran. Our second-rate allies either can't afford ANY of our planes, or else they are pretro-powers that can call the shots and get what they want. Or else they are Isreal and can build Lavi s. No one is buying the F20 (FX) and Northrop has had to sweeten the deal repeatedly. Some of the stuff they have done IS very good ... Less than 80 seconds from startup to airborne, IF you don't move the aircraft (so that the Inertial Nav system doesn't have to be realigned ...). But nobody wants to buy a fighter that was designed to be defeatable by another fighter. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) hou4b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
stevel@haddock.UUCP (10/08/84)
The FX fighter program was suppose to be the ONLY fighter many of our allies could buy. Then along came people demanding and getting exceptions. At this point anybody can buy the F-16A fighter, all you have to do is demand it. The Air Force will not consider looking at the F-20. The office that is suppose to know about it says they don't, even though the person in charge of the office has flown one. See New York Times Magazine for all the details. If anyone wants to know the issue drop me a line, they are all at home and I am at work. The whole situation is very much like the P-51 in WWII. North American built it for the British with an Allison engine. It did okay but was no wonder plane. A couple of people at a British air base in England stuck a Merlin engine inside and presto super plane. When England said they wanted to buy them with the Merlin, with lend lease money, the US said we don't make one like that you can't have it. This was the US army saying NO. The F-20 is dying the same type of death. The Air Force is saying NO.
scw@cepu.UUCP (10/09/84)
But Jan, you forget that the *YOUNGEST* B-52 is now 20+ years old. And,
as I remember (from AW&ST of about 3 years ago), they are now limited to
250kt (peacetime) and 350kt (wartime) *MAX*. What this means is that you
can catch a B-52 with any reasonably high performance Prop fighter!!
--
Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology)
uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcrdcf}!cepu!scw
ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-cs location: N 34 3' 9.1" W 118 27' 4.3"