Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: YF-23 Photographs just released.
Message-ID: <1990Aug15.032156.26159@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 15 Aug 90 03:21:56 GMT
References: <1990Jul25.004451.6348@cbnews.att.com> <1990Jul31.223453.6084@cbnews.att.com>,<1990Aug7.041158.7805@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 21
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
>I have real doubts about the Navy version, given how well the Navy accepted
>the F-4 and F-111 ;-)

The F-4 was a Navy aircraft, so they accepted it just fine. :-)  It was the
USAF that didn't particularly want the F-4.  They couldn't find a good
excuse for rejecting it, though, since it was already in service with known
performance, and met all their requirements.

The naval F-111 was a different story, since it was a paper aircraft when
the Navy was forced to accept it, and the Navy has carrier-compatibility
requirements on which they are the sole experts.  The USAF could not rebut
Navy arguments that carrier compatibility required changes, and the lack
of flying F-111s made it hard to convincingly refute pessimistic estimates
of F-111 performance.

                                         Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                                          henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry