From: noyes@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (tom noyes 283-4177)
Subject: Re: Advanced Technology Fighter?
Organization: nasa-jsc
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:21:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.120104.16634@pbs.org>, pstinson@pbs.org writes:
|> How far can we afford to push aeronautical technology today?
|> Do we really need programs like the F-22 to go into the development stage?
|> This advanced technology fighter was designed to counter the threat from the
|> successors to the MiG-29 of the Soviet Air Force.
|> 
|> There is no longer a SOVIET Air Force and it is not likely the RUSSIAN Air
|> Force will be going beyond the MiG-29 any time soon.
|> 
|> Why actually build the F-22 at close to $100 million per plane?
|> Just build some new F-14's or F-16's of F-15's as needed to replace aging
|> airframes.  No need to send a new design into production at this point.
|> Who is going to come up with an aircraft to challenge these current air
|> superiority fighters any way? 

Well in theory I suppose you are right. But with one major exception. R&D
and design keep engineers current and in practice for major fighter aircraft
development. But what keeps the machinists, metalurgists, advanced composite
manufacturers, avionics manufactures, radar manufacturers .... in business
and ready to build equipment. It is not sufficient to stop at the R&D phase, 
because their are numerous other skills and manufacturing capabilities that 
would be lost if a low level of procurement is not maintained. We as
a country might be able to continue to design world class fighters if we
stopped at the R&D phase, but we wouldn't be able to build them. There
is no training that can take the place of actual product manufacturing, 
of such a complex system. An advanced fighter aircraft is the second most
complex piece of equipment to build, next to a nuclear submarine.
|> 
|> The R&D program we really need is the X-30.
|> the ATF has no direct application to civilian aircraft.  There certainly is no
|> market for a stealth airliner! Air traffic controllers wouldn't go for this.

That is exactly why we need the military to continue to procure stealth 
technology, it is valuable to the military, but has no commercial application
(seawolf attack sub also comes to mind). 

|> 
|> The X-30 could lead to a civilian transatmospheric aerospaceliner which is a
|> step beyond the hypersonic transport sometimes discussed.  TAV's would actually
|> go into orbit and coast until reentry, perhaps making onlu a suborbital flight. 
|> From Washington we would not fly to Tokyo via Seattle, but head east across the
|> Atlantic into orbit and then have retro fire over Russia.
|> 
|> A squadron of military TAV's could cover the whole world from a base in Kansas.  
|> No need for forward deployment!

Dificult proposition to support! Do you propose using nuclear weapons to
solve small scale global conflicts? The current NASP design does not provide
the payload required for large conventional weapons. Let alone the
fact the the propulsion system would definately get in the way of
egressing ordanence. Were should we put the radar?  I could go on
but I think that I have made my point, Aircraft are designed for
a mission. The NASP is not suitable for a bomber, not a fighter, it
is a transport. We need forward deployment of men to protect our
airfields, and fighter aircraft. Where do you propose that the 
TAV land? In a forward battle area? In addition a "TAV" (if there ever is such a 
thing) would not be very maneuverable in dog fighting, not to mention
the extemely volatile nature of its current propellant - slush hydrogen.
I think that you should do a lot more research on your ideas before
you post another article to this news group.
|> 
|> The so-called ATF is a dead end that will soon be rendered obsolete by advances  
|> made possible from the X-30 research program.  Now is not the time to go into
|> production on planes like the F-22.  Our current fighter designs will serve us
|> well enough for the next decade or two.

Yeah? well tell that to the USAF pilots that will be encountering advanced
planes from other countries. The maintanence of US Air Superiority revovles
around having a generation of technology lead over the other guy. We 
have already commited to the development of the ATF as witnessed by the
planned reduction of tactical fighter wings from 25 to 15.

Also tell it to the generation of 'hands on' people that build our planes.
How will we transfer the skills and techniques needed to build fighters, 
not design them, but build them? 
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics