No More New Fighter Aircraft Types?

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.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 16:45:16 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

The thing that makes a decison/system/whatver "pork barrel"
is when it's built mainly because the politicians want it to be so
they keep those jobs and get those votes.

All aviation is politics.

Because you say so?

Aviation is too much money to be anything but politics.


If that were the case the military would never issue requirements
(because it wouldn't matter) and there would be no competitions
(because they wouldn't matter).

That would seem to be the nature of Lockheed unflyable entry in the
competition to build a prototype ATF, none of it mattered.


At that point in the competition (two designs chosen of seven paper
designs) unless the USAF did a lot of inhouse simulation/studies/ etc.
about the only thing they have to go on is the data the manufacturers
submit with their proposals. Did the USAF (the people deciding who
would build the prototypes) know the Lockheed entry as presented
wouldn't fly? Who knows? Obviously Lockheed themselves didn't know
it or maybe they thought they could put a lot of spin on their
presentation. Looking at the two proposals they chose (Lockheed and
Northrop) it's obvious that experience in stealth was a very high
priority. Certainly neither company had any recent experience turning
out a lot of high end fighters. With that in mind the two most
logical choices would have been Lockheed and Northrop- exactly who
they chose. An interesting sidenote is that GD was third and they
also have been associated with stealth from way back (the
A-12/Kingfisher competition). Boeing was fourth with damn near no
stealth experience (in the white world anyway) and the historical king
of fighter producers McD was 5th. To go from supplying the USAF with
their premier fighter for the last forty or so years (F-4/F-15) to
placing FIFTH in the competition to build a new fighter suggests that
though the USAF wanted it all, aerodynamic performance took a distant
second place behind stealth. It might even be that the air force
*did* know Lockheed's entry was questionable aerodynamically but
stealth was important enough to accept it.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 16:45:16 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

The thing that makes a decison/system/whatver "pork barrel"
is when it's built mainly because the politicians want it to be
so
they keep those jobs and get those votes.

All aviation is politics.

Because you say so?

Aviation is too much money to be anything but politics.


If that were the case the military would never issue requirements
(because it wouldn't matter) and there would be no competitions
(because they wouldn't matter).

That would seem to be the nature of Lockheed unflyable entry in the
competition to build a prototype ATF, none of it mattered.

At that point in the competition (two designs chosen of seven paper
designs) unless the USAF did a lot of inhouse simulation/studies/ etc.
about the only thing they have to go on is the data the manufacturers
submit with their proposals.

So then, didn't the USAF have similar skills to GD, who are the ones that
clued lockheed?

Did the USAF (the people deciding who
would build the prototypes) know the Lockheed entry as presented
wouldn't fly? Who knows? Obviously Lockheed themselves didn't know
it or maybe they thought they could put a lot of spin on their
presentation.

Perhaps Dr. Peter was correct about how to milk the system.

Looking at the two proposals they chose (Lockheed and
Northrop) it's obvious that experience in stealth was a very high
priority. Certainly neither company had any recent experience turning
out a lot of high end fighters.

Has Lockheed ever built a mass produced fighter before?

With that in mind the two most
logical choices would have been Lockheed and Northrop- exactly who
they chose. An interesting sidenote is that GD was third and they
also have been associated with stealth from way back (the
A-12/Kingfisher competition).

It would seem to me that GD would have been the low risk choice.

Boeing was fourth with damn near no
stealth experience (in the white world anyway) and the historical king
of fighter producers McD was 5th.

McDonnell already had two fighter contracts and GD had one. The only logic
that would apply is one where the Pentagon wanted to create an additional
provider.

To go from supplying the USAF with
their premier fighter for the last forty or so years (F-4/F-15) to
placing FIFTH in the competition to build a new fighter suggests that
though the USAF wanted it all, aerodynamic performance took a distant
second place behind stealth.

Son, let me tell it like it is, when you take it down the road from number
one you get less, not more.

It might even be that the air force
*did* know Lockheed's entry was questionable aerodynamically but
stealth was important enough to accept it.

Politics.

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:18:30 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 16:45:16 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

That would seem to be the nature of Lockheed unflyable entry in the
competition to build a prototype ATF, none of it mattered.


At that point in the competition (two designs chosen of seven paper
designs) unless the USAF did a lot of inhouse simulation/studies/ etc.
about the only thing they have to go on is the data the manufacturers
submit with their proposals.

Excuse me, but this must be some sort of a time warp that I didn't
live through. As I recall the events, at the end of Dem/Val, the two
manufacturers went through FSD and each produced a couple of flying
prototypes. The requirement was that both manufacturers fly with both
engines--P & W and GE. Avionics demo was left up to the bidders, with
Northrop opting to fly a system on board and Lockheed choosing to
breadboard on a proxy. It certainly wasn't a paper fly-off.


Did the USAF (the people deciding who
would build the prototypes) know the Lockheed entry as presented
wouldn't fly? Who knows? Obviously Lockheed themselves didn't know
it or maybe they thought they could put a lot of spin on their
presentation.

Spin on paper? They flew prototypes. Admittedly prototypes aren't
production aircraft, but they are "proof of concept" demonstrators.

Looking at the two proposals they chose (Lockheed and
Northrop) it's obvious that experience in stealth was a very high
priority.

Stealth was a high priority, but Northrop was rolling the B-2 out the
door at Pico Rivera at the time and Lockheed had ended production of
F-117 ten years earlier.


Certainly neither company had any recent experience turning
out a lot of high end fighters.

(That would be discounting several thousand F-5A through F aircraft by
Northrop as well as developing YF-17 and participating in
fuselage/tail section production of the F-18 contract.)

With that in mind the two most
logical choices would have been Lockheed and Northrop- exactly who
they chose. An interesting sidenote is that GD was third and they
also have been associated with stealth from way back (the
A-12/Kingfisher competition). Boeing was fourth with damn near no
stealth experience (in the white world anyway) and the historical king
of fighter producers McD was 5th.

In 1987-88 when I was at Northrop, the two bidders were in
consortia--Northrop was teamed with MacAir while Lockheed was
partnered with Boeing and GD. There certainly wasn't a five contractor
competition in Dem/Val and there wasn't in FSD either. Maybe if we
went back to choosing whether to respond to the ATF RFP....

To go from supplying the USAF with
their premier fighter for the last forty or so years (F-4/F-15) to
placing FIFTH in the competition to build a new fighter suggests that
though the USAF wanted it all, aerodynamic performance took a distant
second place behind stealth. It might even be that the air force
*did* know Lockheed's entry was questionable aerodynamically but
stealth was important enough to accept it.

None of your statement tracks with my experience in the program, but
maybe you had a better seat.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:18:30 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:


Spin on paper? They flew prototypes. Admittedly prototypes aren't
production aircraft, but they are "proof of concept" demonstrators.

The YF-22 was basicly GD's entry in the paper competition.

From there things have pretty much follwed the for profit processes laid out
by Dr. Peter in his book. Lockheed still has time to demonstrate that their
problems are all gone. The "one year" is nearly over.

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:00:05 -0600, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:18:30 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 16:45:16 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

That would seem to be the nature of Lockheed unflyable entry in the
competition to build a prototype ATF, none of it mattered.


At that point in the competition (two designs chosen of seven paper
designs) unless the USAF did a lot of inhouse simulation/studies/ etc.
about the only thing they have to go on is the data the manufacturers
submit with their proposals.

Excuse me, but this must be some sort of a time warp that I didn't
live through.


It's probably that age thing kicking in ;-) We're talking about the
decision process the LED to the building of the YF-22 and YF-23.
There were seven designs submitted from seven different companies.
They ranked:

1. Lockheed
2. Northrop
3. GD
4. Boeing
5. McD
6&7 Grumman and Rockwell (don't know the order)


It was at this point that Lockheed and Northrop were chosen to proceed
to building prototypes. Lockheed teamed with GD and Boeing and at
this point GD said "uh, we got some bad news about your design."

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:05:50 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:18:30 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:


Spin on paper? They flew prototypes. Admittedly prototypes aren't
production aircraft, but they are "proof of concept" demonstrators.

The YF-22 was basicly GD's entry in the paper competition.


It really is interesting to look at the two entries side by side.
Sure GD's was a single tailed delta but the F-22s horizontal stab is
so far back that if you took it off what remained would be a delta.





From there things have pretty much follwed the for profit processes laid out
by Dr. Peter in his book. Lockheed still has time to demonstrate that their
problems are all gone. The "one year" is nearly over.

At that point in the competition (two designs chosen of seven paper
designs) unless the USAF did a lot of inhouse simulation/studies/ etc.
about the only thing they have to go on is the data the manufacturers
submit with their proposals.

So then, didn't the USAF have similar skills to GD, who are the ones that
clued lockheed?


" It might even be that the air force *did* know Lockheed's entry was
questionable aerodynamically but stealth was important enough to
accept it."




Looking at the two proposals they chose (Lockheed and
Northrop) it's obvious that experience in stealth was a very high
priority. Certainly neither company had any recent experience turning
out a lot of high end fighters.

Has Lockheed ever built a mass produced fighter before?

The last was the F-104 and ISTR that most of those were produced
overseas.







With that in mind the two most
logical choices would have been Lockheed and Northrop- exactly who
they chose. An interesting sidenote is that GD was third and they
also have been associated with stealth from way back (the
A-12/Kingfisher competition).

It would seem to me that GD would have been the low risk choice.


On the ATF? Possibly. However typically a single-tailed delta isn't
exactly stellar in air to air after the first turn. Going by the way
they ranked them though it seems like stealth was far and away the
primary consideration.





Boeing was fourth with damn near no
stealth experience (in the white world anyway) and the historical king
of fighter producers McD was 5th.

McDonnell already had two fighter contracts and GD had one. The only logic
that would apply is one where the Pentagon wanted to create an additional
provider.

Grumman would have been the logical choice if that's all they wanted
to do. They already had experience building figthers and were
current. Yeah it had the Tomcat but even back then production was
starting to taper off.





To go from supplying the USAF with
their premier fighter for the last forty or so years (F-4/F-15) to
placing FIFTH in the competition to build a new fighter suggests that
though the USAF wanted it all, aerodynamic performance took a distant
second place behind stealth.

Son, let me tell it like it is, when you take it down the road from number
one you get less, not more.

???? Less *what*? Performance? It was number one on the F-15 and
nobody who's flown the F-22 will give the nod to the F-15 when it
comes to flight performance vs. the F-22. Obviously it could be said
"if they'd made flight performance the #1 priority on the F-22 it
would fly better than it currently does". The thing is, what do you
get these days by making it number one? When it comes to flying what
is more important than stealth that the F-22 can't do?






It might even be that the air force
*did* know Lockheed's entry was questionable aerodynamically but
stealth was important enough to accept it.

Politics.

Joe politician can kick and scream all he wants, it's not going to
magically bestow stealth expertise on a company. Stealth is what got
Lockheed to contract IMO. Bringing GD onboard is what made the
aircraft a fighter. Boeing. . .well they did something.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...


Boeing was fourth with damn near no
stealth experience (in the white world anyway) and the historical king
of fighter producers McD was 5th.

McDonnell already had two fighter contracts and GD had one. The only
logic
that would apply is one where the Pentagon wanted to create an additional
provider.

Grumman would have been the logical choice if that's all they wanted
to do. They already had experience building figthers and were
current. Yeah it had the Tomcat but even back then production was
starting to taper off.

Grumman was already building a fighter.

To go from supplying the USAF with
their premier fighter for the last forty or so years (F-4/F-15) to
placing FIFTH in the competition to build a new fighter suggests that
though the USAF wanted it all, aerodynamic performance took a distant
second place behind stealth.

Son, let me tell it like it is, when you take it down the road from
number
one you get less, not more.

???? Less *what*? Performance? It was number one on the F-15 and
nobody who's flown the F-22 will give the nod to the F-15 when it
comes to flight performance vs. the F-22.

If the avionics stay lit and the tails doesn't delaminate on the F-22.

Obviously it could be said
"if they'd made flight performance the #1 priority on the F-22 it
would fly better than it currently does". The thing is, what do you
get these days by making it number one? When it comes to flying what
is more important than stealth that the F-22 can't do?

What you do to maximize revenue is observe Dr. Peter's processes and let the
Pentagon and any stry dogs that happen by make changes to the airplane.
there are always a few milkmen around an airplane project, but the ATF is
it's own dairy.

It might even be that the air force
*did* know Lockheed's entry was questionable aerodynamically but
stealth was important enough to accept it.

Politics.

Joe politician can kick and scream all he wants, it's not going to
magically bestow stealth expertise on a company. Stealth is what got
Lockheed to contract IMO. Bringing GD onboard is what made the
aircraft a fighter. Boeing. . .well they did something.

Tail boom and wire.

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:46:28 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .


Boeing was fourth with damn near no
stealth experience (in the white world anyway) and the historical king
of fighter producers McD was 5th.

McDonnell already had two fighter contracts and GD had one. The only
logic
that would apply is one where the Pentagon wanted to create an additional
provider.

Grumman would have been the logical choice if that's all they wanted
to do. They already had experience building figthers and were
current. Yeah it had the Tomcat but even back then production was
starting to taper off.

Grumman was already building a fighter.

Yeah but of the three companies producing fighters it was the closest
to finishing up production. Grumman didn't have anything in the
pipeline after the Tomcat and where at this point in the ATF program
NATF was still a consideration Grumman would seem to be a shoe-in if
they were just interested in keeping the manufacturers going. Come to
think of it one of the reasons the F-22 was chosen over the F-23 was
because of the NATF requirement. Lockheed had planned a swing-wing
F-22 for the carrier requirement.





To go from supplying the USAF with
their premier fighter for the last forty or so years (F-4/F-15) to
placing FIFTH in the competition to build a new fighter suggests that
though the USAF wanted it all, aerodynamic performance took a distant
second place behind stealth.

Son, let me tell it like it is, when you take it down the road from
number
one you get less, not more.

???? Less *what*? Performance? It was number one on the F-15 and
nobody who's flown the F-22 will give the nod to the F-15 when it
comes to flight performance vs. the F-22.

If the avionics stay lit and the tails doesn't delaminate on the F-22.

The F-15 also had problems with delamination. Any idea what airframe
number they implimented the fix in on the F-22? Or is it still on the
to-do list?