Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!pacbell.com!pacbell!att!cbnews!military
From: terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: McDonnell-Douglas/Northrop F/A-18
Message-ID: <1990Aug9.020243.9334@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 9 Aug 90 02:02:43 GMT
References: <1990Aug5.042424.28125@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR
Lines: 41
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker)
In article <1990Aug5.042424.28125@cbnews.att.com> raymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET (Raymond Man) writes:
>
>
>From: raymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET (Raymond Man)
>
>In <1990Jul30.015802.8659@cbnews.att.com> Terry Rooker talked about
>the Navy's choice of F/A-18 because F/A-18 was both a fighter and an
>attack plane.
>
>Well, the choice was YF-16 vs YF-17 and they were so similar in performance
>that the only major difference is number of engines. The Navy actually
>bought a new plane becasue, while the aerodynamics are almost the same,
>by virtual of being 10% larger makes F/A-18 so much different as a system.
>Many things do not simply scale.


My point was a response to someone who said that the choice was made
only because the YF-17 had two engines, and implying that the choice
was made because the navy did not want to get into a dual procurement
mode with the Air Force.  That is probably true, and I imagine the Air
Force doesn't want it either.  The YF-17 had several advantages for
scaling up.  The AF lightweight fighter would not meet the Navy
requirements, so whichever was chosen would have to be enlarged to
meet the Naval requirements.  The YF-17 simply had more potential, and
not just because it had two engines, although two engines provides a
greater opportunity to increase the payload.  The basic airframe had
greater potential to enlarge without major modifications.  It was
larger and hence could carry more ordanance and fuel.  I agree that
the Hornet is not the same plane as the Cobra.  Considering the
extremes that the AF has gone through to add an air-to-ground
capability to the F-15 and F-16, the Navy approach with the F-18 seems
to be vindicated.  Ironic, considering that when it was first procured
the extra cost of the dual mode aircraft was one of the biggest
criticisms directed at the program.

-- 
Terry Rooker
terryr@cse.ogi.edu