Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

But, but...Boeing supports evolutionary concepts over revolutionary!

In all seriousness we know almost as a fact that the F-32 would have faced more problems in development and might have been cancelled already considering the issues Boeing had getting the thing to take off vertically despite stripping and modding the inlet and the like.

First, unlike most other situations, USAF never said it would select on performance, cost, risk, etc. In fact, it never actually said what it would select on except that it would be at the discretion of the Secretary of the Air Force.

OK, I need to see documentation for this claim. Having been acquisition trained and having sat on or assisted multiple source selection boards, this assertion smacks of pure fantasy. No source selection in modern times has ever been at "discretion of the Secretary of the Air Force" or any similar position. All Requests for Proposals (RFP) go out with clear grading and selection criteria (except the original tanker RFP which didn't anticipate some of the offerings that would be presented and the Source selection team screwed up by giving extra credit to EADS/NG for items that they separately told Boeing that had no interest in).

The problem is that this competition had classified requirements and therefore the data was not releasable. Leads to a lot of speculation (to include most of the "leaks" that folks point back to) but no one here talking knows and no one here that knows is talking because they can't.

Very interesting forum this one, guys. One thought that comes up could the F23 be "resurrected" in some form as a competitor by some interested company. I doubt very much since the apparent lack of potential buyers since quite a few seem wedded to the F35. But in the international market if it can be seen as superior to legacy planes could it be possible?

Could the F23 be marketed as a "simple plane" with VLO, simple avionics etc with POTENTIAL for growth? So get the true low cost up front but then buyers have the option to upgrade as they want over time?

Just a way out there thought.

aaam, Understand what you say and agree. So it sounds like essentially competition in the fighter market is now becoming non-existent. So the force of capitalism (competition) which the western world used to drive improvements in standards of living is no longer applicable! That is an interesting thought and potentially troubling.

I can see some logic in that having one source of defense technology so it it some what controlled. Yet however as the latest speculation about the Chinese hacking of the F35 shows in this age it may be unavoidable that this technology gets out. Having competitors such as a resurrected F23 or such like could reinvigorate the industry.

It will never get to the point where one plane suits all, there will always be several designs out there so why not do something that promotes proposals with out losing too much of the simplified supply chain targeted by Defense. (if at all possible)

Okay sure 20 years has passed for the F23, so not the F23 but something else? Have the F136 in another airframe? And it does not have to be Super VLO just something to put LM in a different frame of mind. Again I know it will not happen. But gut feel, says it is wrong the way things are now. Anyway enough on this . Thanks aaam for your thoughts..

The YF-22-YF-23 competition remains controversial today, and will probably go on forever. Part of the reason I think it remains so is because it was unique in the history of aircraft selections, so much remains unknown and what little has leaked out seems puzzling.

First, unlike most other situations, USAF never said it would select on performance, cost, risk, etc. In fact, it never actually said what it would select on except that it would be at the discretion of the Secretary of the Air Force. What little bit that came out before the air demonstrations was somewhat confusing, given the outcome. Maneuverability had to be as good as the F-16’s best, and both aircraft exceeded the requirement, but thanks to its thrust vectoring, the YF-22 was better at the left edge of the envelope. It would said that extra credit would not be given for exceeding the requirement, but some eyebrows were raised when maneuverability was one of the few things mentioned later in the limited info given out, and that’s part of the basis for the questions over the years. USAF had said that its main concerns were stealth, speed and range/payload and in those areas it was said that the performance of the Northrop/MDD plane was better. Some have said that except for maneuverability in the areas where thrust vectoring was relevant, the YF-23 was better in almost everything else. Sometimes much better, sometimes only somewhat better. It was generally acknowledged that it was definitely stealthier, especially in IR. It was definitely faster. In fact, to this day, the supercruise speed of the YF-23 with YF120 engines remains classified.

As an aside, thrust vectoring does not make you turn tighter, it lets you point the nose independently of the direction of flight better. This is particualry useful on the F-22 as it seems it’ll be another five years before it can use AIM-9X in full High Off Boresight Mode.

The way the competition was run, was that there were a number of requirements. The purpose of the flights was to demonstrate how well the teams could validate their predictions and meet the requirements. A “stoplight” was assigned to each criterion: Red for couldn’t meet. Yellow for met, but with concerns. Green for fully met with no concerns and supposedly for some criteria there was a Blue stoplight for significantly exceeds or special merit in that particular category. The “lights” were not cumulative, and no points were assigned. The aircraft were not to be compared with each other and the evaluation teams were not to compare notes. No one was to fly both aircraft to compare handling. In fact, the only person to ever fly both was Paul Metz (after the ATF competition he left Northrop and went to work for Lockheed) and he has never compared the two. The teams were to make no recommendations to the Secretary, simply report. This meant he was free to use whatever criteria he wanted to make the decision, and the decision has never been fully explained. There was some unofficial talk about “producability”, with some concern regarding Northrop being able to produce certain large scale single piece assemblies. The fact that they had two aircraft sitting there that had done it, plus that they were doing the same for the B-2 was not considered sufficient. Documentation for the YF-23 to F-23 transition program was poorer, MDD afterwards admitted it and we all know that to the gov’t paper is everything. In addition, it was mentioned that the AF was concerned about the Northrop management plan. There will be a slight pause here for the chuckles to die down regarding the irony of the Government passing judgment on anyone else’s management plan.

Regarding the weapons bay layout, we can’t really say which layout was “better”. Northrop didn’t put a launcher in its prototypes. USAF did express some concern regarding the fact that Northrop’s launcher design reportedly used a single arm mechanism, which could end up restricting its ability to launch should it fail or be damaged, and Northrop planned to change it on the production model. On the other hand, the YF-23’s weapons bay was quite large, sometimes described as being like that of a B-25. Also, it could carry two AIM-9s on the main weapons bay doors. One thing Northrop did say was that their design was not a trapeze.

We do know a bit regarding changes for the proposed EMD and production versions. There would be less modification needed than for the YF—F-22. The housings for the thrust reversers would naturally be removed. The intakes were to be revised, incorporating a half conical centerbody. The IR absorbing tiles at the exhaust always had been scheduled to be replaced with different material, but Northrop wasn’t going to spend the money for that development unless they got the contract, so the tiles were an expedient for the YFs. The aircraft was also going to have some frames added, possibly for more fuel, but primarily to allow all the length needed to mount the full forward weapons bay for two AIM-9s. I do not know if the launch rails provision on the main weapons bay doors would be retained, I suspect yes. As fortuitous fallout, the increased fineness ratio and cleanup might have made the production version even faster.

Anyway, the decision remains a topic for friendly arguments today. The fact that it wasn’t the usual competition on performance and/or cost keeps the pot simmering, and the lack of much detail on just how the YF-22 was selected adds to that. And, the fact that Northrop was ready to go months before Lockheed was but was told by USAF not to fly, even using their own money until Lockheed was ready didn’t help (Northrop got paid to keep the planes ready and to keep their team together, BTW).

Personally, I think the YF-23 was the better performing design and had the most potential, but what do I know? In any case, with two such excellent designs to work with, USAF couldn’t lose.