Subject:  C.6.  Why was the YF-22 chosen over the YF-23?

When the Lockheed YF-22 and Northrop YF-23 were unveiled in 1990, it was
generally believed that the two companies had made different trade-offs among
the various design requirements.  The YF-23 appeared to be optimised for
stealth, with its trapezoidal wings, butterfly tail, and generally futuristic
appearance (the distinct resemblance to the fictional "Firefox" attracted a
lot of comments).  The YF-22, on the other hand, had a more conventional
appearance; although it was obviously designed with stealth in mind, there was
a definite resemblance to the F-15 it was intended to replace, and the
impression was of an aircraft designed for manoeuvrability first and stealth
second.  The YF-22 had thrust-vectoring jet nozzles, while those of the YF-23
were designed to hide the engines' infrared signature from below.

In April 1991, the YF-22 was selected for production.  According to the USAF,
neither aircraft showed any clear advantage in either manoeuvrability or
stealth. The reasons given for the choice were that the Lockheed aircraft was
better designed for maintainability, had more potential for future
development, and was slightly cheaper.

An unconfirmed report has it that one factor was the fact that the YF-23 had
its internal AAMs "stacked" in its bays, while the YF-22's missiles each had a
bay to themselves; this meant that, on the YF-23, a malfunction in one
launcher might prevent the launch of another missile in the same bay.

There remains a popular opinion that the reasons given were bogus, and that a
preference for manoeuvrability over stealth was the real reason for the
choice. However, there is no obvious reason why the USAF should want to lie
about its reasons, and it seems likely that the external appearance of the two
aircraft wasn't as good a guide to their capabilities as many people thought.

[From Mike Spick & Barry Wheeler, _Modern American Fighters and Attack
Aircraft_, and magazine reports]


Anything that is not as it should be? Anything that is incorrect? Other things that could make these pages better?

Please E-Mail me at johansson@ctrl-c.liu.se