Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: wb9omc@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: YF-22 vs. YF-23, Why?
Message-ID: <1991May23.062921.17471@amd.com>
Date: 20 May 91 22:17:01 GMT
References: <1991May18.050933.10816@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 82
Approved: military@amd.com


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


anderson@osl475a.erim.org (Rod Anderson) writes:
>concerning the F-22 vs. F23 affair:
>B-2 is a fiasco).  
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Certainly, the cost is a major concern, but what do you expect when the
>total buy is reduced so much.  Actually marginal costs are quite
>reasonable.  From what I heard (AWST mainly) the flight tests have been
>going quite well.  Two birds are now flying, and preliminary RCS tests
>well completed satisfactorily according to open sources.  If you have
>additional information on substandard B-2 performance, perhaps you
>would share it with the net.

	I would like to see this as well - if any bomber program is truly
a "fiasco", it has to be the B1.  Seems to spend as much time officially
grounded as it does flying.  Certain elements may say as much about it
as they like, but the fact that the B1's appear to have not appeared
in the gulf *at all*, I think, IMHO, says plenty.  By using the B52 instead
of the B1, I think we are being told which is the more capable aircraft -
and not on the drawing board, but in reality.

	IMHO, as much good at the B1 is doing us, we might as well have
kept the previous North American bomber, the B70.  At least then we'd have
had something impressive.....  only 1/2 :-)

>>Lockheed, on the other hand, has proven it's capability of giving the 
>>AF what it wants:  F-104, U-2, SR-71, F-117A.  In the last three cases, 
>>Lockheed not only delivered the aircraft on time, they kept quiet about 
>>it for significantly long periods of time, and at a business 
>>disadvantage.  

	And it would appear not only on time, but often under or AT
budget.  In fact, Kelly Johnson *returned* something like $2 million
on the U2.....

>Mostly good aircraft (but you may want to talk to anyone who's flown 
>a F-104 -- it tended to be a handful sometimes with its inertia coupling
>and control stick limiters, as many now-deceased Luftwaffe pilots found 

	I think you'd find that once the Luftwaffe pilots got appropriate
training, the accident rate dropped phenomenally.  You just can't throw
green pilots into jets without appropriate training; the same thing 
would probably happen if we took Cessna 172 jockies and threw them into
F16's....

>But what about Lockheed's most recent venture, the P-7?  The 
>company DEFAULTED on this contract! Seems to me a pretty good
>indicator that the firm has major internal problems. I've heard

	Who doesn't?  I'd bet you could look at nearly every major
contractor and find they'd blown it on at least *one* project.

>No reports I've seen indicate significant differences in overall
>performance.  I think the Air Force was trying to ensure getting
>the aircraft into production by pleasing a certain influentional
>senator, as previously noted. Also, Northop's non-union status
>probably didn't help it politically (even the engineers are
>unionized at Lockheed!  :).

	This is probably about as close to the truth as you'd probably
like to get, if my guess is correct.  One might take note that there
is some evidence that the XB49, the first big jet flying wing, was
literally sabotaged because some people in the defense establishment
wanted the Convair B36 to be produced, and NOT the Northrop B49.  Sabotaged
not only in the hardware, but with behind the scenes politicking
as well.

	While the B36 wasn't the worst plane in the world, quite a
few authors claim that the B49 would have been a better plane from
several viewpoints, not the least of which were handling characteristics,
and the fact that the B36, by nature of it's propeller design, was not
very expandable in terms of future development.  It has also been said
that the stealth characteristics of the Flying Wing were recognized
at the time although not considered to be of paramount importance.

	Had the selection been different, it would be intersting to
speculate on what the USAF would have looked like today....

Duane