From: megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Subject: Re: F22 Air Force purchases.
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 06:49:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.21644.20727@ms.uky.edu> randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:
>john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes:
>The F-14 upgrade has been canceled.  It's expensive, and the resulting
>plane requires two pilots (not one) and more maintanace than the navy
>would like.

There was a a Tomcat variant (Tomcat 21?which had a totally new cockpit and
radar systems. As well as new engines (Upgraded F110's or the Pratt engine from
the -15E (PW220?)) and the energy management system. That version could have
been a single seater. But the maintenence would still be much greater than the
18.

>The F-22 will never be naval-ized.  For one thing, the wings don't
>fold.  You could probably strengthen the landing gear, but this wing
>thing kills it.

Well, the F-86 Sabre was navalized. The Mig-29 and Su-27 have been. It can be
done. Hell, the -18 is a navalized -17! Last I heard Lockheed was looking into
what needed to be done to the 22.

>The F-23 is dead.  Just dead.  The designers chose to put more
>emphesis on stealy and less on aerodynamics than the air force wanted.
>Of course, the air force decided this after the plane was built ...

That was the whole idea. The companies took their best shot and the best plane
won. The 22 and 23 had similar top speeds and basically the same payload and
range. But the 22 was more agile and the 23 went for lower visibility. They are
the two best fighter aircraft in the world, but the 22 is just better than the
23 for what the airforce wanted. Northrup/McDD is looking at the naval 
requirement too. They took a big loss on the 23 and they can't sell it to other
countries either.

>What the navy *WILL* do is the new F-18.  They are calling it a new
>model of the old F-18, bt in fact it is almost a new airplane.  It

These will be the E/F models (1 and 2 seaters respectively)

>will have the same shape, and the same engines, but will be about 20%
>larger, and carry more, and go 50% farther, and such.  It should cost
>almost as much as the F-22, not be stealthy, bet be able to land on

Whoa! It won't cost nearly as much as the 22, rather just a bit more than the
-14 variant would have. But it is less in the long run due to maintenece costs.
It is also slower, shorter ranged, and under-gunned when compared to the 22.
Agility is a sticking point, the 22 is damn agile and has vectoring, while the
18 has the high AOA from the strakes. If the active duty aircraft get the 
paddles the high AOA test aircraft has they will definitely out-manoeuvre the 
22 in a dogfight.

From a family friend who works for Pratt, they are workng on a new engine for
the -18 program, more than just a beefed up 404.

>carriers.  Also, it't won't fly as far.  As for speed, most people
>don't care about top speed in fighters anymore.  In fact, it's been
>declining since the F-15/Mig-25 days.

Ah, but supercruise is a definite advantage. There are many times when you 
need to get to the front NOW! Or for naval aircraft to intercept incoming 
aircraft well away from the carrier, outside of missile launch range. Now,
with the cancellation of the Advanced Air-to-air Missle I feel the 18 is 
totally hopeless in that role compared to the 14&Phoenix package.

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################