On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 17:40:37 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .

Conversely, Northrop was partnered with MacAir who had a good
management record and production reputation for F-4, F-15 and F-18.
Lockheed was linked with Boeing and GD.

Northrop's B-2 managment had shot themselves in the foot comming back from
lunch drunk. That caused a bias against Northrop's managment by the
government.

There was also a critical issue with the pilots liking the displays, as Lt
Col Couch had rejected the B-2's display system on first flight. The pilots
liked the YF-22 displays best.

Additionally, the YF-23 program resisted the DARPA subsidy for using Ada in
critical systems, while Lockheed pledged compliance. Lockmart had also been
more co-operative in delivering a prototype of what the contract asked for,
while Northrop tried to deliver what the government wanted now.

So, in the three politically sensitive issues for the selection, the YF-22
held the best hand.


ISTR Northrop being in the doghouse at the time for cost overruns on
TSAAM and McDonnell for it's part in the A-12. I don't think that
helped the YF-23's case. Also Lockeed did an extensive redesign
between selection and prototype flight whereas Northrop didn't take
advantage of the opportunity. Northop's didn't have the finale engine
nacelles (they were bigger than they would have been in the production
model because they didn't change them when the thrust reverser
requirement was dropped) and it didn't have the final missile bays.
IIRC the forward fuselage would have been slightly stretched to fit a
second bay for the Sidewinders in front of the main bay. Also with
Northrop not demonstrating high AOA flight as Lockheed did it probably
didn't help them. I sometimes wonder if Northrop was a little
overconfident. Lockeed really pushed it when it came to the flyoff as
they did later on the X-35. Northrop didn't seem to feel the need.