TANKER CONTROVERSY: QUESTIONS THE AIR FORCE MUST ANSWER

(Eugene Griessel) wrote in news:483e3b4a.1046705
@news.uunet.co.za:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

[snip]

Maybe the essential element to take note of is that the flying boom
for the Northrop/EADS tanker is made in the USA. Also the engines. Oh,
and the avionics. And lots of other little pieces/parts.

That's standard for most large military projects - bits and pieces
come from everywhere.

Precisely. System Integration is the name of the game these days
and one of the pieces could very well be an airframe. You don't
need to be an airframer ( a la Bo(e)ing ) to put together the
required system.

IBM

"Raymond O'Hara" wrote in
:

[snip]

its called "institutional memory"

Well, on that score, NG remembers how they got burned on the
the F-20 Tigershark ( by the AF ) and vowed never to let that
happen again.

IBM

J.McEachen wrote:

This reminds me of USAF in the early 1960's when someone realized
that a hook mounted on their tactical a/c with inexpensive 'arresting
gear' at the ends of their runways (USN often used old anchor chain
down both sides of the runway with a cable rigged across so as you
pulled out the anchor chain, you'd be pulling more and more of it)
would stop wayward a/c from drifting off the end of the runway. USN
offered their specifications and designs but USAF decided they could
do better. Hooks were fitted on some a/c by 1963, of a new and
improved USAF design. I trust by the time USAF acquired the F4H/F-4
Phantom II it was fitted with their exclusive hook design which
obviously was better than USN's. Are they still different?


They never were different.



Does USAF use hooks anymore?

Yes.

Ian B MacLure wrote:

"Raymond O'Hara" wrote in
:

[snip]

its called "institutional memory"

Well, on that score, NG remembers how they got burned on the
the F-20 Tigershark ( by the AF ) and vowed never to let that
happen again.

So how, exactly did they (Northrop) get burned?
The F-5G/F-20 was an interesting little airplane, but it fell
far short of being anything that the USAF was going to find useful.
Due to the performance loss that is inevitable when you hang a big
like a Sparrow on such a small airframe, and the lack of space for
stuff like the IFF interrogators that were a necessary part of the
systems, there was no way that it could compete with the F-16A ADF
as an interceptor. (Especially when the F-16As had already been bought
and paid for.)
As a fighter-bomber, it made an F-16 look like a champion weightlifter.
(Wall to wall Mk 82, all the way to the end of the runway.)
As an Air Superiority fighter, it wasn't going to be competitive without
a new, much bigger wing.

There was no way that, even if they wanted another fighter type,
the USAF was going to open new logistical lines, support schools,
and all the other jazz for an airplane that was going to be second-best
in any role that it was going to be used.


--
Pete Stickney
Any plan where you lose you hat is a bad plan