Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military From: page@cod.nosc.mil (Ward C. Page) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: YF-22 vs. YF-23, Why? Message-ID: <1991May23.062937.17534@amd.com> Date: 22 May 91 20:13:28 GMT References: <1991May18.050933.10816@amd.com> Sender: military@amd.com Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego Lines: 56 Approved: military@amd.com From: page@cod.nosc.mil (Ward C. Page) anderson@osl475a.erim.org (Rod Anderson) writes: >DRCOA1::LENOCHS" , writes >>airplane deal; F-20 was stillborn; > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Killed in infancy is more like it. At least an equal to the F-16 in >most performance measures (range, maneuverability, speed), it was more The F-20 had the range and the speed approximately equivalent to the F-16 but it couldn't turn with the 16. The roll rate was a little better, I think. The big selling point that Northrop pushed was the time from alert to being on station. This was a good deal faster than the F-16's. I was at GD during this battle and one of the funny things that happened was GD set up a demo that showed that the 16 was quicker to station than the F-20. The limiting factor was getting all the gyros in the 16 warmed up, so they just hooked an APU to the 16 and let it run for a while before making the attempt (and film). >maintainable, had lower life cycle costs, and could fire a radar guided >missile (F-16 can't, at least until AMRAAM comes on line). General The lower life cycle costs were really not true. They were based on the numbers that GE (?) had given them for the engine, which was not in production until near the end of the F-20 development. They were just estimates (anyone know if they proved to be close?) Also, the F-20 required a spares set that was entirely different from the F-15 or the F-16. A spares set for an aircraft costs about the same as one plane. You need a couple of complete spares for a wing of planes. The F-16 and F-15 share the same spares set (with a few differences). This is a consideration when buying an aircraft. >Dynamics (with Air Force support) said they would do whatever was >necessary to keep the F-20 out of production. And they did. Northrop >need about 300 sales to go into production, which meant the Air Guard buy >was the last chance. The F-20 came in at around $13M apiece. What >do you know, GD's bid for F-16 was $12M, and GD was awarded the contract. 9 million. >The previous F-16 buys had been in the low 20's per unit. The A model was 14-16 million and the C-D models were 19-22 million. It's hard to know how much a given airplane costs since so many contractors provide parts (the engine, for example, is not purchased by GD but just installed by GD). It may not have been necessary for GD to have gone to all the trouble. It's real hard to sell an airplane when the test pilots who are showing them off keep flying them into the ground. Ward Page Naval Ocean Systems Center San Diego, CA