Here's what I found:CammNut said:This might amuse. It is a scan from a product card I picked up at this week's Navy League show in DC. The name on the card is Lockheed Martin, but the design is clearly influenced by the YF-23.
The Low Cost Aerial Target was actually designed by a small California company called AeroMech, which was recently acquired by another company called xcelaero. It is a target drone - catapult-launched, jet-propelled and parachute-recovered. Not dimensions are given, but the photos show it is small enough to be carried by two people.
The LCAT is in use as a low radar-signature target. The idea of the design is to minimise the drone's natural radar cross-section as much as possible so that the radar signature can then be augmented artificially to mimic that of any target aircraft. The product card shows it being used as a target for an F-22-launched AMRAAM.
Clearly someone felt the YF-23's configuration was indeed the stealthiest solution...
flateric said:Triton, third of these are reposts of photos first time posted here at SPF and stolen by '2495' of MilitaryPhotos without mentioning source.
YF-22 flying alongside YF-23 over California during the Advanced Tactical Fighter competition in 1990.
Triton said:Does anyone know what the projected (expected) unit cost would have been for the Northrop/McDonnell Douglas F-23 if the aircraft had been chosen? I have just heard vague claims that the F-23 would be more expensive than the F-22.
Triton said:Was the decision also influenced by the US Air Force's promise, at the time, to purchase the McDonnell Douglas/General Dynamics A-12 Avenger II? Or did the A-12 Avenger II have no influence on their decision between the YF-22 and the YF-23 or the decision was prior to the Air Force/Navy agreement?
Triton said:Was the decision also influenced by the US Air Force's promise, at the time, to purchase the McDonnell Douglas/General Dynamics A-12 Avenger II? Or did the A-12 Avenger II have no influence on their decision between the YF-22 and the YF-23 or the decision was prior to the Air Force/Navy agreement?
Stargazer2006 said:Is this type of "arrangement" still in order, anyway? There used to be a time when the armed forces made sure that each of the major contractors got a bone to chew, but is this still any of their business? Lots of companies disappeared, were taken over or shifted their activity to subcontracting over the past 20 years because major contracts promised by the military were canceled unexpectedly...
Triton said:Thanks for your insight F-14D.
We have had a great debate in this. However, one thing I never asked, and if I may now, is that where did you get the information that if both aircraft met all requirements, the USAF Sec could choose whichever one that he liked without any reason for justification?F-14D said:IMHO, this decision was indeed a part of Industrial Policy. DoD/USAF could see the writing on the wall that that there would no longer be enough work to support as many aircraft companies as were in business, even without unexpected cancellations. It must be remembered how the selection for the ATF would be accomplished. If only one of the bidders met all the critical requirements/evaluation points, that company would win. If they both did, their performance and costs relative to each other were not decisive. The Secretary of the Air Force could pick whichever aircraft he wanted for whatever reason he wanted and in fact was not even required to explain why.
donnage99 said:We have had a great debate in this. However, one thing I never asked, and if I may now, is that where did you get the information that if both aircraft met all requirements, the USAF Sec could choose whichever one that he liked without any reason for justification?F-14D said:IMHO, this decision was indeed a part of Industrial Policy. DoD/USAF could see the writing on the wall that that there would no longer be enough work to support as many aircraft companies as were in business, even without unexpected cancellations. It must be remembered how the selection for the ATF would be accomplished. If only one of the bidders met all the critical requirements/evaluation points, that company would win. If they both did, their performance and costs relative to each other were not decisive. The Secretary of the Air Force could pick whichever aircraft he wanted for whatever reason he wanted and in fact was not even required to explain why.
F-14D said:I believe only the Northrop chief test pilot, Paul Metz, has ever flown both (he later went to work for Lockheed on the F-22 program ) and he's never compared the two.
Sundog said:F-14D said:I believe only the Northrop chief test pilot, Paul Metz, has ever flown both (he later went to work for Lockheed on the F-22 program ) and he's never compared the two.
We'll have to wait for the auto-biography after he retires to find out what he thinks in that regard. I'll definitely be looking forward to reading that account.
Abraham Gubler said:Bear in mind that the competition wasn't between Northrop and Lockheed (no Grummans or Martins in their names at this time) but between Team F-23 and Team F-22. I don't want to go into specifics because it’s not my place to do so in relation to information passed on in confidence. But Team F-23 comprised Northrop and McDonnell Douglas which were at that time responsible for the F-5, F-15 and F/A-18 fighter projects. Team F-22 was Lockheed, Boeing and GDFW of which only the minor partner had an ongoing fighter project: the F-16. The Team F-22 project also included moving production of the F-22 from Palmdale to Marietta where Lockheed were building C-130s… While no one can call Lockheed’s Skunk Works an inferior design team their production plan was full of holes but loads more political capital.
AeroFranz said:a little OT, but I can't help but feel sad that with the closing of the C-17 plant, there will be no major military or civilin aircraft production left to speak of in California...
F-14D said:AeroFranz said:a little OT, but I can't help but feel sad that with the closing of the C-17 plant, there will be no major military or civilin aircraft production left to speak of in California...
On the other hand, Sacramento (California's capital) still has lots of politicians producing plenty of hot air in case someone wants to open a balloon factory.
dAeroFranz said:a little OT, but I can't help but feel sad that with the closing of the C-17 plant, there will be no major military or civilin aircraft production left to speak of in California...
AeroFranz said:a little OT, but I can't help but feel sad that with the closing of the C-17 plant, there will be no major military or civilin aircraft production left to speak of in California...
Abraham Gubler said:Not to mention that much of Northrop, Boeing and Lockheed’s design work is done in greater LA. The production lines may be in the South for lower labour costs but the engineers work in southern California. It is more than likely that any ICAS or NGB aircraft will be mass produced in California.