- Joined
- 18 March 2008
- Messages
- 3,529
- Reaction score
- 882
Colonial-Marine said:Are you referring to how only the winner of the ATF could be chosen, or the "need" for major modifications to the F-23 design?
I’m referring to the NATF program and how it was constructed by the US Government long before there was a design downselect. In particular the 1986 agreement by SECAF and SECNAV for reciprocal consideration of the ATF and ATA for corresponding roles in the other services. With a lot of nudging from the holders of the purse strings at Congress.
Colonial-Marine said:Well from what little is known it seems the Northrop's NATF design was significantly different from the F-23, are you such extensive changes weren't necessary?
NATF was not just a carrier capable ATF. The Navy requirement had increase loiter range, sensor range and weaponry. In the bare essence of making the YF-22 or YF-23 carrier capable the YF-23 is just as if not more suited. I was trying to illuminate the illogic of the assumption that the ATF aircraft configurations weighted the ATF downselect towards the YF-22 because of NATF. Of course what Northrop may or may not have offered as their NATF solution might have had something to do with it.
Colonial-Marine said:If the Russians were able to get something the size of the Flanker to operate off their Admiral Kuznetsov carrier, I have little doubt the F-23 could have been adapted to become the NATF.
The Russians can operate a FLANKER from a carrier? That’s news to me... Besides the US Navy does not need to take the experiences of the Russian dabbling in the carrier arts to know how to operate big aircraft from a carrier. Tomcat, Vigilante, Skywarrior, Savage, etc is a real knowledge base in this kind of thing.
As I said before the NATF was a lot more than just modifying the ATF to land on and takeoff from a carrier. The US Navy only expected the avionics and engines to be common between the two.