On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:46:46 -0600, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:14:03 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

The best explanation I've heard is that the USAF chose the F-22
because it was the more manueverable of the two (no idea how they
decided that since Northrop apparently never flew their's to the edge)
and that they had more faith that Lockheed could deliver what they
promised albeit in PC jargon. If that were the case why have them
build prototypes at all? They could have saved everybody a lot of
time and money and just looked the proposals over and picked the one
they wanted to give the contract to. For all I know it could have
been something as simple as "whoa, that F-23 looks a little too
radical for us. Let's stick with a tried and proven configuration"
but they could hardly say *that*.

The maneuverability aspect is probably quite valid. The -23 was
definitely slanted toward more stealth with F-15 equivalent agility.
The -22 seemed to recognize that the airplane wouldn't live in the
F-117 hidden world and therefore would be agile first and stealthy
second--the 2-D thrust vectoring for example.

I remember at the time reading quotes from Paul Metz during the flyoff
of the YF-23 easily out turning chase F-15s and F-16s and them having
to use afterburners to stay with it. I don't doubt the F-22 is more
manueverable but at least from what I remember reading it would seem
the -23 was maybe better than the -15 and -16.