Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: wb9omc@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: YF22 vs. YF23 Why?
Keywords: Technology at its best
Message-ID: <1991Apr29.052726.6355@amd.com>
Date: 25 Apr 91 18:23:13 GMT
References: <1991Apr24.054326.18229@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 32
Approved: military@amd.com


From: wb9omc@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)


Al.Conte@EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte) writes:
>As I watched the footage of both planes in flight, and during
>manuevers, I felt very frustrated that one of these pieces of aircraft
>art would loose the contract.  Both of these beauties should gain
>contract status, (IMHO).

Well, as great bits of the fine art of aircraft design I would
agree.  From the viewpoint of practicality, no way.

Look at it this way.  With only one in production, USAF needs
stock only ONE set of spare parts, not TWO.  If you divide the total
procurement in half (or whatever proportion) the flyaway cost for
ALL of them goes up since each is being made in smaller quantity.

All of which means less bang for the buck from our taxpayer
money.

The combination of Lockheed/P&W has worked before with the
A12/J58, the YF12/J58 and the SR71/J58.  Add in General Dynamics
(let us not forget that GD gave us some damn fine airplanes) and
I think you have a pretty good setup.  This is not to say that
Northrup et al hasn't, but keep in mind that Northrup just paid
a record contractor fine.  I suspect that ALSO played a VERY large
part in the decision.  PR-wise, it has been proven to be a lousy idea
to fine a defense contractor and then turn around and reward them
with a multi-billion dollar contract.

Duane