Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Advanced Tactical Fighter Message-ID: <1991Apr6.021015.14409@amd.com> Date: 5 Apr 91 18:47:16 GMT References: <1991Apr5.091635.7444@amd.com> Sender: military@amd.com Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 55 Approved: military@amd.com From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: v064lnev@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu >o What exactly is the mission of the ATF? Depends on who you're talking to, but it's basically the F-15 replacement. >o Although both prototype aircraft have the newly developed ability to > super-cruise at about Mach 1.5, it is reported that the top end speed > is only about Mach 2.0. Will this pose a significant disadvantage, > considering that many modern advesary aircraft usually have a top end > speed of about 2.4? Most unlikely. For one thing, most modern adversary aircraft can't reach Mach 2.4 under any circumstances; the modern tendency is to use fixed inlets for simplicity, which limits things to about 2.0. The ones that *can* reach 2.4 can do so only with a long acceleration run in a straight line, a situation that never happens in combat. All the "Mach 2.5" fighters in the Vietnam War put together logged not *one minute* of time above about 2.2, and only a few minutes above 1.8. This is why modern designers tend to ignore extreme supersonic speeds: they are of no military use, at least not when aircraft have great difficulty reaching them and can sustain them only very briefly. >o Supposedly, the aircraft which is chosen to be the new Advanced > Tactical Fighter for the Air Force will also be adapted for use by > the Navy. How successful have such adaptions been in the past with > other aircraft? Not very, to put it mildly. There are significant technical problems and massive political obstacles. >o As both these prototype aircraft are larger than the McDonnell Douglas > F-15, would they be acceptable for carrier use? If so, which existing > aircraft would the ATF replace... Officially, they are acceptable. Privately, the Navy probably has doubts (and would much prefer to build its own anyway). They would presumably be primarily F-14 replacements. >o Have either of the prototype aircraft been designated names yet? No. >o Any opinions or ideas regarding these prototype aircraft? I'd give the winner less than a 50% chance of ever reaching production. They are new and sexy and very expensive at a time when the USAF is under great pressure to make do with what it's got for a while. -- "The stories one hears about putting up | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology SunOS 4.1.1 are all true." -D. Harrison| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry