Forum: F-22A Raptor

Umm, last I remember, the YF-23 was always the favorite because it looked so cool.

It had something to do with a guy by the name of Sam Nunn. Northrop also demonstrated a "true" deomonstator AC in that LM demonstrated a damned near production ready design. Missile load in the -23 demonstrator also wasn't the same as the LM YF-22..... There *may* have been weight penalities to the 23 to load her out with 8 interal AAMs. Actually, btw, I never liked the look of either YF prototype......

Politics. Since the 60's or so they dont choose the best out of 2 but the best PRESENTED out of two.

Not saying that the YF-23 is better then the F-22 though.

Umm, last I remember, the YF-23 was always the favorite because it looked so cool.

It had something to do with a guy by the name of Sam Nunn. Northrop also demonstrated a "true" deomonstator AC in that LM demonstrated a damned near production ready design. Missile load in the -23 demonstrator also wasn't the same as the LM YF-22..... There *may* have been weight penalities to the 23 to load her out with 8 interal AAMs.

Actually, btw, I never liked the look of either YF prototype......

Also there was the fact that Northrop had been awarded the B-2 contract, and the Pentagon didn't want 1 defense contractor supplying all of the AF's conbat aircraft..... Which we now indeed have with the 22 and the 35.

That's undoubtedly the general case, although hypothetically, I suppose that if one of the two had utterly failed to even come close to meeting requirements, then the more feasible design would have been chosen by default...then again, maybe I'm just being hopelessly naïve.



I think that the USAF brass would have chosen the F-22 anyway, not necessarily because it was "better" but because I think they liked it more, perhaps because it's closer to what they collectively felt a fighter ought to be. This is pure speculation, of course.



That has to be one of the main reasons, but I wonder if people would have liked the production F-23 quite as much. Does anyone here have a drawing or conceptual painting of the proposed F-23 (not the YF-23) that they could scan in and share with the rest of us? I've looked around the Internet, and can't seem to find anything.



It seemed that while Northrop had much faith in the soundness of their design concept (which actually is rather clever and innovative), they didn't have quite the same focus on operational issues that Lockheed did. This is just an impression I've always had, which might in fact have been reflected in their proposals in the form of their plans for developing their designs into true fighters. Although it took longer for Lockheed to design the F-22 and build the YF-22, you're right, the YF-22 practically already was a fighter that the USAF could easily envision taking into battle (at least as an airframe), while the F-23 would have needed numerous and substantial changes from the design iteration that was frozen for the YF-23. Political issues aside, a major criterion of any program of this magnitude is risk management, and the ATF program was one of the riskiest in history as it was.

The F-23's weapon bay issues are the best known ones and the solutions definitely would have resulted in weight penalties, but there must have been questions about its maneuverability (which Lockheed, for their part, answered in spades with the YF-22), and even things like the size of its nose cone (with regard to antenna aperture). I've even heard from somewhere (take that for what it's worth ) that the F-23's intakes and ducts needed to be modified quite a bit. I'm not sure why, but I do know that from some near-frontal angles, it is possible to directly view the YF-23's engines through the intakes, which would seem to be very bad for stealth. The following is nothing more than speculation, but perhaps the designers were unsure of whether they could demonstrate supercruise with fully stealthy inlet ducts. And obviously, changing them on the F-23 would have entailed additional risk.



Not that looks matter, but I can see why people like the YF-23 so much, especially from the side, where it looks quite sleek, although it does look rather ungainly to me from many angles--it's not a beautiful airplane, in my opinion. The YF-22 was quite hideous, no question, however the F-22 actually looks very nice in an interesting way--kind of like a mix between a bird and a flying saucer.



As for this predicament, sorry X-32 fans, but I blame Boeing for having created that abomination. Like I said earlier, looks don't matter, but in this case...MY EYES! OH, MY EYES! THERE IS NO GOD!

I know that there are supported of the F-35 here in droves.... But in all honesty that aircraft does not posses the leap in capability over the F-16 that the F-22 has over the F-16. I know, I know, the fancy electronics on board.... But just in terms of performance in the aerial department.... She's not going to be *that* fast and turning wise, she's only supposed to match the F-16 rather than be better. If a guy like myself and fellow like minded people can envision a better beast for the JSF (scientific and engineering type people we are.... keeping cost limitations in mind), then why did we get a less capable aircraft than we should have gotten?

Note that the grading factors (but not the details like the grading scale) are provided to each potential bidder. Does anyone thing that the USAF would declare in that document that Lockheed gets extra points because Northrop Grumman is building the B-2? And if they did, you think that NG would spend millions on a proposal knowing they didn’t have a chance? Trust me, can’t happen…doesn’t happen. Having succeeded on a previous contract (cost, schedule, performance) certainly raises one’s past performance rating, but it still must fall within parameters seen by a zillion people and is subject to release to the contractor.

OH STOP!

This thread comes around every once in a while. Let me state for the record that none of the speculation above is true.

DOD had ZERO say in the selection; neither did Sam Nunn or any other member of congress. The USAF released the RFP (Request for Proposal) and they and only they selected the winner based on predetermined criteria. Let me state that again with emphasis...PREDETERMINED CRITERIA.

Let me explain how a contract award works (works the same for all DOD agencies but I will refer to the USAF to avoid confusion in my description). Now, the process and the names have changed over time, but this is the way the F-22 went so I will use those terms.

First, the USAF using command (in this case TAC) generated a Mission Need Statement (MNS). A MNS describes in general a critical capability that is lacking. In this case, a better air superiority fighter (details of course of such a document are classified). Once approved, TAC then executes an Analysis of Alternatives. An AOA looks at all the possible solutions (AWACS?) including non-material (different tactics) and recommends the best solution. In this case, it was a new fighter. This then leads to a TAC-prepared Operational Requirements Document (ORD), that describes in detail what the system must be capable of doing. Nowadays the ORD or MNS (I forget which) goes to the Joint Requirements Council chaired by the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Not sure what happened back then, because the JRC was created by the Goldwater-Nichols Act in 1986, well after the F-22 program was started. However, the requirement was validated and the USAF requested funds via the budget.

Once money was allocated, a System Program Office (SPO) within AF Systems Command (eventually becoming Materiel Command) was established to execute the acquisition. Over the years multiple studies and significant R&D was performed to learn the “state of the possible”. Those contracts were spread out over multiple contractors to ensure independent results as well as look at many ideas, many of which did not pan out.

Eventually, the USAF and TAC decided what they wanted and what they could afford (of course the latter changed over time after the USSR collapsed and Congress changed their mind). When that happens, a solicitation package is prepared. That includes multiple parts. First, a set of technical requirements. Often ignored by many on this board, those requirements include more than sheer performance (speed, stealth, etc…). Cost is obviously a factor, as well as manufacturing capability, schedule, maintainability, technical orders, etc…

Next, a set of weighted criteria is prepared to show how these factors are prioritized (stealth more important than XXX, maintainability more important than tech orders, whatever). It is important that these criteria (known as “Section L, Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors”) are reviewed in excruciating detail before being finalized AND are provided to the contractors as part of the RFP. Again for emphasis, every contractor knows exactly what is required (minimums) and what are most and least important in the minds of the USAF so they can decided on where to exceed the requirements and where it would appear to have no benefit to the award committee.

Finally, the SPO prepares “Section M - Evaluation Factors For Award”. This is where the speculation is focused, even if you didn’t know it. This document, which is NOT released to the contractors, describes the precise grading criteria that will be applied to decide the winner. This document, like the rest, is scrutinized at very high levels and must be documented, signed, approved, and frozen BEFORE the RFP is released. However, in the event of a protest by a losing bidder, that information can be released. Government references are requested of each bidder…those references are then contacted to gather past performance data. It is weighted with everything else, but not at the expense of everything else.

Once the proposals are received, the reviewing by the Source Selection Evaluation Committee (SSEC) is strictly controlled. Once the results are gathered, the SSEC makes a recommendation to the Source Selection Authority (SSA), the guy who makes the final decision. If he goes against the recommendation of the SSEC, he must provide compelling rational. That memo may also be released to the protesting bidder if requested and the adjudicating agency (GAO, not exactly the military’s best friend) determines it’s relevant.

Note that the grading factors (but not the details like the grading scale) are provided to each potential bidder. Does anyone thing that the USAF would declare in that document that Lockheed gets extra points because Northrop Grumman is building the B-2? And if they did, you think that NG would spend millions on a proposal knowing they didn’t have a chance? Trust me, can’t happen…doesn’t happen. Having succeeded on a previous contract (cost, schedule, performance) certainly raises one’s past performance rating, but it still must fall within parameters seen by a zillion people and is subject to release to the contractor.

Next topic. The “flyoff”. Contrary to popular belief, it wasn’t a flyoff between companies…it was a demonstration of risk areas as selected by each of the two bidders. For example, one contractor fired a missile and the other didn’t. Why? Because their concept was riskier than their competitors and the “Dem-Val” gave them the opportunity to prove it would work.

Last topic. Performance. There has been a lot of speculation on this board about the relative performance of both aircraft. The prevailing opinion is that the YF-23 was faster and stealthier but the YF-22 was more maneuverable. First off, not a single person saying this really knows, because if you did you would know better than to discuss it. Otherwise it is pure speculation with no basis in fact. Folks like to say that if an airplane looks good, then it is good, and for aerodynamics that is pretty much true. Add computers to the mix and it gets fuzzy. As for signature, quite frankly visual appearance has virtually ZERO correlation to RCS. Look at the F-117. Looks like crap but has a low RCS. B-2 looks nothing like it, yet is also stealthy. Note I did not say more or less…I don’t look good in stripes

Let me add that cost and performance must be balanced. Let us say that the prevailing opinion is true and that the proposed F-23 was faster and stealthier than the proposed F-22. But if the -23 capabilities well exceeded the requirement but added a whole lotta $$ to the price tag, while the -22 barely met (key is “met”) the criteria at a much lower price, then most Section M’s would require the lower cost version regardless of how good the other may be. I will admit that some RFPs put a premium on exceeding certain requirements (RCS for example) and will allow the government to spend that money to get the almighty RCS level. Doesn’t happen often and IT MUST BE CLEARLY DESCRIBED what the criteria are and how they are to be applied.

OK, time to get off my soapbox…