Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: fcrary@typhoon.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: YF22 vs. YF23 Why?
Keywords: Technology at its best
Message-ID: <1991May3.063551.5933@amd.com>
Date: 3 May 91 03:38:36 GMT
References: <1991Apr24.054326.18229@amd.com> <1991Apr29.052647.6205@amd.com> <1991May1.030508.20355@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Lines: 20
Approved: military@amd.com


From: fcrary@typhoon.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary)


emory!motatl!mad@gatech.edu (Mark Davidson) writes:
>I have never understood why the YF-23 wouldn't make a VERY nice attack
>aircraft with a few modifications here or there.  Stealthiness would be

The YF-23 (and the F-22) have internal weapons bays, for reasons of 
stealth. This puts a awkward limit on the amount of munitions one
could carry. The F-117 has the same problem. As a result, it is used
only against a certain class of targets (e.g. well defended but not
too heavily built things like bridges and radar systems.) Without
a large payload (e.g. external ordnance) you can not conduct a wide
spread bombing campaign. The F-117 (why it isn't the A-117 I don't
understand...) fills the role of a stealty, low payload strike
aircraft. What new benifit would a AF-23 provide?

Frank Crary
UC Berkeley