Airdrop

I read with interest the August 1999 article, "The Ultimate Irony ... Russian Fighters for the USAF/USN?" by Robert Kress and Rear Adm. Paul Gillcrist, USN (Ret.). Though I do not agree with their conclusions, I do respect their freedom to express their opinions-no matter how far removed they might be from my own.

Please permit me, however, to point out a factual mistake in the article. In the photo caption at the top of page 39, the statement is made that each F-22 Raptor will cost "approximately $2 billion." That statement is incorrect.

Current Defense Dept. official cost information indicates the average F-22 unit flyaway cost is $84.7 million (in 1999 dollars) for the Air Force's planned purchase of 339 Raptors.

Robert S. Rearden Jr.

F-22 Vice President and General Manager

Lockheed Martin

Marietta, GA

Mr. Rearden is entirely correct with regards to the F-22 photo caption in our Su-27 article that states a "$2B per copy" cost for the aircraft. We simply don't know where that came from. We apologize for the error.

The text of the article did not address specific F-22 costs other than, as stated, a reference to large acquisition costs discussed in the November, 1998 issue of Aerospace America. That article quoted $190M per copy. Three other Congressional and news sources of recent vintage quote numbers between $183M and $200M.

-Robert W. Kress

Tactically significant aircraft

Rear Adm. Paul Gillcrist is one of my favorite authors, and I greatly enjoyed the article ("Russian Fighters for the USAF/USN?") that he and Robert W. Kress wrote for the latest issue of Flight Journal. Indeed, they make an intriguing suggestion. However, I feel that the authors went way too far when they stated that "Northrop had never built a tactically significant aircraft in its entire 60-year history."

The old Northrop P-61 was no slouch, either as a night fighter or as a tactical bomber (it played a forgotten-but nevertheless, significant-role as a tactical bomber in China toward the end of WW II). The company's F-SE/F series were certainly major players on the Iranian side of the Iran/Iraq war in the '80s. Fifteen years before that, a handful of F-SCs deployed to Vietnam more than held their own over the South and showed up some of their more famous (and more expensive) peers while embarrassing the Air Force brass, who desperately wanted the little planes to fail. In fact, the authors may do well to remember that the Navy's renowned F-18 is largely an evolution of Northrop's F-17-itself the product of a line that began with the T-38, progressed through the various incarnations of the F-5 and ended with the excellent F-20. [email]

Daniel Waltimire

Revloc, PA

By "tactically significant," we meant that the aircraft was procured in great numbers for the USN and/or USAF because of its military value in terms of performance and payload/range capability. The whole article was fighter/bomber-oriented, but pertained specifically to the Su-27.

The remembrance of the Hellcat was behind the authors' thinking. The Grumman F-6F Hellcat was a fighter/bomber. It was much bigger than the Grumman F-4F Wildcat and the Zero; so much so that the first carrier officers to see it thought Bethpage had gone daft. During WW II, 12,275 were built-the peak month being March 1944 with 605 delivered. Approximately 70 percent of the aircraft on the 105 carriers in commission at the end of the War were Hellcats. They had a 19 to 1 exchange ratio and could carry two 500-pound bombs on fighter/bomber runs over japan. That was a significant aircraft.

In reply to the Flight Journal reader's the Northrop P-61 was built as a night fighter, the first specifically designed for that role. Approximately 200 P-6lAs were built in 1944 and 400 P-61Bs in 1945. It was a fine aircraft design, but not decisive in the final days of the War.

Also in reply, the Northrop F-5 apparently did well in limited numbers versus MiG-21s in Vietnam. It was in the same interceptor class and was a hot little airplane. The F-5 was designed primarily as an export fighter. Approximately 3,000 were built, with roughly 1,100 going to the USAF; the rest went to 25 foreign nations.

The airplane that bore the brunt of the fighter/bomber work in Vietnam was the McDonnell F-4 Phantom, probably the most famous tactically significant example. The F-4 was used extensively in Vietnam, but the MiG-21's exchange ratio versus the F-4 began to creep up and worry the USN and USAF. The Ault report resulted from investigation ofF-4 replacement needs. The report was the genesis of both the F-14 and F-15. It called for long-range fighter/bombers. As a final F-4 note, approximately 5,500 were built-USN/USMC, 1,300; USAF, 2,600 and roughly 1,100 foreign.

The writer reminded us that the Navy F-18 is a Northrop product.

The story of the F-18 is an interesting one. A "Lightweight Fighter" competition was held in the early 1970s. Two beautiful little prototypes were built and flown: the General Dynamics YF-16 and the Northrop YF-17. The YF-17 was the loser. The YF-16 was demonstrated at the 1975 Paris Air Show. The F-16 emerged, redesigned, enlarged, re-engined and made into a really serviceable fighter, albeit small compared to the more capable F-15.