Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military From: anderson@osl475a.erim.org (Rod Anderson) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: YF-22 vs. YF-23, Why? Message-ID: <1991May18.050933.10816@amd.com> Date: 17 May 91 22:49:15 GMT Sender: military@amd.com Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Lines: 90 Approved: military@amd.com From: anderson@osl475a.erim.org (Rod Anderson) DRCOA1::LENOCHS" , writes concerning the F-22 vs. F23 affair: >In Volume 7 : Issue 14, Steve Bellovin sez: >>Call it meta-logistics: Lockheed got the contract because >>Northrop already has a big contract, for the B-2. > >Well, folks, I beg to differ. In the world of military contracts, AF [17 lines deleted] >The judgement against Northrop would (IMHO) have played a >major role in selection. Also, Northrop has no recent experience in >successfully building a military aircraft (F-5 was their last good >airplane deal; F-20 was stillborn; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Killed in infancy is more like it. At least an equal to the F-16 in most performance measures (range, maneuverability, speed), it was more maintainable, had lower life cycle costs, and could fire a radar guided missile (F-16 can't, at least until AMRAAM comes on line). General Dynamics (with Air Force support) said they would do whatever was necessary to keep the F-20 out of production. And they did. Northrop need about 300 sales to go into production, which meant the Air Guard buy was the last chance. The F-20 came in at around $13M apiece. What do you know, GD's bid for F-16 was $12M, and GD was awarded the contract. The previous F-16 buys had been in the low 20's per unit. (Note: Figures are from memory.) B-2 is a fiasco). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Certainly, the cost is a major concern, but what do you expect when the total buy is reduced so much. Actually marginal costs are quite reasonable. From what I heard (AWST mainly) the flight tests have been going quite well. Two birds are now flying, and preliminary RCS tests well completed satisfactorily according to open sources. If you have additional information on substandard B-2 performance, perhaps you would share it with the net. Also, what about the F-18, a Northrop design? >Lockheed, on the other hand, has proven it's capability of giving the >AF what it wants: F-104, U-2, SR-71, F-117A. In the last three cases, >Lockheed not only delivered the aircraft on time, they kept quiet about >it for significantly long periods of time, and at a business >disadvantage. Mostly good aircraft (but you may want to talk to anyone who's flown a F-104 -- it tended to be a handful sometimes with its inertia coupling and control stick limiters, as many now-deceased Luftwaffe pilots found out). Also these aircraft were built at the Skunk works, without the normal government supervision. Certainly a competitive advantage. But what about Lockheed's most recent venture, the P-7? The company DEFAULTED on this contract! Seems to me a pretty good indicator that the firm has major internal problems. I've heard that the commonality with the P-3 was grossly overestimated. In terms of recent performance, of the 5 airframers who bid the ATF, only Northrop and Boeing have NOT defaulted on a major contract in the last year. (GD/MacAir defaulted on the A-12). >(When the ATF was still on paper, Lockheed complained >that they could not realistically compete with Northrop for the >contract because they could not talk about their most recent success >story - F117A - while Northrop was plastering the walls with B-2 >photos. AF agreed and the news from Tonopah started.) Don't think so; the people who needed access to the F-117 probably got it. >So, the awarding the ATF contract to Lockheed makes much more sense >than to Northrop from a variety of viewpoints. > [ Yes, I'll certainly believe this reasoning. --CDR] >Loyd M. Enochs - Dynamics Research Corp > No reports I've seen indicate significant differences in overall performance. I think the Air Force was trying to ensure getting the aircraft into production by pleasing a certain influentional senator, as previously noted. Also, Northop's non-union status probably didn't help it politically (even the engineers are unionized at Lockheed! :). Rod Anderson |Environmental Research Institute of Michigan Email: anderson@osl475a.erim.org | Voice/voicemail: 313-994-1200 x2725 | Fax: 313-994-0944/3890