Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
Being an engineer myself, its not too hard to understand what he really said.I was just quoting him.There were certainly lapses in presentation from Northrop's side, not just in providing use cases for tactical use, but overall counter-air doctrine.TacAir was used to F-15 like doctrine of slinging missiles at high speed following up with closing in dog fighting. So, in essence, what they 'really wanted', as opposed to what they proposed wasn't communicated properly to the manufacturers in what Abell said, 'Air Force wanted a dogfighter that was stealthy'.Lockheed's proposal did exactly that without purposefully trying to change AF use case domain, while Northrop's proposal would've made the TacAir change its ways in the same way they are doing vis-a-vis going from F-16 to F-35, i.e. less focus on close range manuevering and a fundamental change in BFM envelope.A gem of an interview, anyways.
Being an engineer myself, its not too hard to understand what he really said.
I was just quoting him.
There were certainly lapses in presentation from Northrop's side, not just in providing use cases for tactical use, but overall counter-air doctrine.
TacAir was used to F-15 like doctrine of slinging missiles at high speed following up with closing in dog fighting. So, in essence, what they 'really wanted', as opposed to what they proposed wasn't communicated properly to the manufacturers in what Abell said, 'Air Force wanted a dogfighter that was stealthy'.
Lockheed's proposal did exactly that without purposefully trying to change AF use case domain, while Northrop's proposal would've made the TacAir change its ways in the same way they are doing vis-a-vis going from F-16 to F-35, i.e. less focus on close range manuevering and a fundamental change in BFM envelope.
A gem of an interview, anyways.
