From: noyes@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (tom noyes 283-4177)
Subject: F-23 Dead?
Organization: McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:43:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.21644.20727@ms.uky.edu>
|> 
|> 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 ...
|> 
LESS ON AERODYNAMICS?? The smooth fluid lines of the F-23 enabled it
to achieve a supercruise speed of Mach 1.18, while the F-22 could only
achieve supercruise of 1.05-1.10 with the same engines. The smooth
lines of the F-23 were directly linked to Northrops B-2 bomber experience.
The F-22's box like lines are linked to Lockheeds F-117 experience.
Any Aerodynamicist or stealth expert will tell you that the F-23
design is a generation more advanced then the F-22. The reason that
the F-22 was chosen over the F-23, in my opinion, was that the USAF
let pilots have too much input into which plane they wanted. Pilots
by nature are concerned about ariel combat, the F-22 is better suited
for this purpose, with its thrust vectoring nozzels contributing the
principal advantage over the F-23. The F-23 better meets the USAF's RFP
with the strategy of stealth, range, and supercruise over maneuverability 
(if you can't see me, you can't shoot me).`
 
|> 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
|> 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,

COST AS MUCH? Give the Navy a little credit OK! The F/A-18 E/F will use
an F404 derivitive which will cost far less than the F119-PW-100 that
was developed for the F-22. The F-22 will cost between $60-$100 per plane
depending upon number of planes built and whether you include maintanence spares
and amortorized development costs. The F/A-18 E/F will cost between $40-$60
depending upon the same factors. The reason the cost is lower is because the
infrastructure and supplier base is already established, in addition to
the derivitive nature of the product, the reduced training required during
manufacture and the greater number of F/A-18 E/Fs that will be built.
Navy will buy 200-400, Congress wants the AF to buy 100-200, and foriegn military
sales of 100-200.

|> not be stealthy, bet be able to land on
|> 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.
|> 
|> 
FACT? Don't care about speed? The F-22 and F-23 will be able to go faster
than the F-15! With full fuel and ordanance! The advantage the ATF candidates
have is internal weapons storage. Todays fighters have greater Thust to weight
ratios than the their predecessors, due to both advanced composites/alloys and
more efficient engines. Now the F-22 is not exactly in the MIG-25 or SR-71
class because speed generates heat .... and AAMs love heat. But I assure you
that todays pilots do care about speed ... some more than others.



-- 
=======================================================================
Thomas C. Noyes                            noyes@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov
McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Co.

              " these opinions are my own, not my employer's "

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics