Were X-35 vs X-32 JSF and YF-23 vs YF-22 battles fair?

[Bucic]

I've just read about the shady history of Bradley IFV and I was wondering whether similar shady practices surfaced regarding the two A/C development programs. Any articles on that? If you express your personal opinion it would be great if it has at least remote basis in reality, e.g. per a specific press article etc.

 

I didn't start the topic to get a YES/NO answer, nor to accept "facts only". If there were some shady practices they weren't documenting it obviously. I'm interested in facts that say something could have been not fair.

 

The very reason I'm asking is because coincidentally both A/C's that lost were unconventional designs. And I like outside-the-box thinking in engineering; that's why I'm so interested in the X-32 and YF-23.

 

PS. Yes, I did watch the NOVA | Battle of the X-Planes | PBS documentary.

[Oesau]

Since i haven't read about the Bradley I can't really comment on what happened and how that related to the other fighter comps, but as a starter have a watch of these documentaries:

 

Have a look at this doco http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGco66RoJtc

 

and for the JSF http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbPx6rQO3qg

[NoJoe]

I would venture that the fact the unconventional designs lost out isn't necessarily shady. Part of what these competitions look for is "how confident are we that this company can actually produce this aircraft?". Having a well-established and conventional design removes at least some of the unknowns. "Will it fly? Probably; it shares a common planform with other planes that fly quite well." :)

 

That said, I agree with you that out-of-the-box designs are cool, and I think aircraft need more of them! :)

 

(also sorry, I have no references or links).

 

--NoJoe

[Bushmanni]

Well there's a tendency to not make honest and fair comparison of aircrafts (or anything else military related) in (US) documentaries. Mostly that bias is due to getting a better story by pitching the idea that goverment is being corrupt and wasting taxpayers money. They always make a fuss about the good qualities of the aircraft that lost the competition but never bother to tell or even speculate why it lost anyway but make it appear there's been a mistake while not actually saying so.

[dumgrunt]

It's not just a matter of which aircraft has better performance, it's also based on technical risk.

 

If you want a conspiracy theory, there was talk that the f-22 was selected because Northrop already had the b-2 contract. If that's true it's as much a strategic decision as it is a political one.

 

If you read between the lines, most of the USAF hierarchy at the time of the ATF would have seen combat in Vietnam and in hind sight would have placed great value in better ability in air combat manouvering.

 

JSF was no where near as close, the x-35 was clearly more technically mature. One airframe that could undergo supersonic and vertical flight without taking stuff off the airframe. Got it's air to air refueling cert, the boeing airframe in the x-32 wasn't even the final proposal.

 

More interesting about the JSF, that has been discussed of late is that in an order of about 3000 airframes what ever with numerous international stake holders, the whole design has been compromised with the marine corps capability for VSTOL (which now it looks like the RN will adopt too). I think there is a lot of credit to that, since the b varient caused many many delays and weight problems, and in the interest of a "common airframe" these modifications carried over to the other varients.

[docfu]

I really don't have much technical information to add, but a comment I remember from a test pilot who was involved said (and I'm slightly misquoting) "the Lockheed plane just looks like the next generation fighter..."

 

I honestly think that even if the Boeing design was more capable than Lockheed's, Lockheed would have won anyway simply because delta wing aircraft just don't look like what a "modern" air force should. That's a highly opinionated statement but appearances definitely do matter.

 

Even though the Thunderbolt was more capable than it's counterpart during testing, I can't really imagine a world where the other plane would have become the main choice for CAS missions....

 

For me, it's really amazing how even when you get past all of the technical specifications of an aircraft, there is still that overall feel/look to it that seems to carry just as much importance as everything else inside.

[Faith]

If you want a conspiracy theory, there was talk that the f-22 was selected because Northrop already had the b-2 contract. If that's true it's as much a strategic decision as it is a political one.

 

I doubt that is a "conspiracy theory" so much as fact as the Air Force chose the B-2 because Lockheed already had the F-117 contract even though the Skunk Works were the ones that originally proposed a long range stealth bomber which the Air Force then turned into a competition. So do not judge them too harshly, if anything criticize Northrop for their incompetence and failing at the development of an airplane that was deficient compared to the Lockheed entry and was originally proposed to cost $150 million or so. Honestly Northrop should never be allowed to develop another military aircraft again as the B-2 along with all of its problems and cost overruns only has a mission readiness rate of 47% or so compared to the average of 70+% of the entire fleet.

 

I would suggest you read the book "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich and Leo Janos if you are interested in the politics of military acquisitions and development cycles of the time. The book discusses the many inefficiencies and inflated egos that go along with procurement programs and the trend for higher ranks to want aircraft or ships that make them look better and advance their career. Also a well known aircraft design book by Daniel Raymer explicitly states that when designing an aircraft you need to keep in mind that given fairly equal performance a customer will always choose the more visually pleasing aircraft (see the A-10C and the "Warthog" nickname along with the military attempting to cancel the program for 20? years or so now). A few examples of this are the Lockheed stealth ship program and stealth aircraft carrier/sub designs. Ben Rich states that none of the admirals would approve the program because they didn't want the secrecy behind only commanding a fleet of stealth ships they can never show off to the world and do not advance their career... The stealth ships were built to defend the CAG's from aircraft due to DoD analysis of a full scale war with Russia predicting most of the naval ships and carriers being destroyed within 2 weeks or so I believe. Keep in mind this was in the 80's so I don't know if they have filled that defensive gap since then.

 

In the book Ben Rich admits the military would deliberately spread out military contracts to keep as many companies in business as possible instead of say, Lockheed monopolizing the fighter/stealth market and pushing others out.

 

Further reading would be "Kelly Johnson: More Than My Share of it All" by Kelly Johnson and (ghost writer). It does not have nearly as much detailed information on aircraft and development programs but he does discuss the aircraft industry almost from its beginning to late 80's and the shift of military commanders from high integrity to only wanting to advance their careers and push paper.

 

Most of this information is from the Skunk Works book and some other reading so I would highly suggest reading them yourself. It is a very insightful book. The Mach 3 autonomous reconnaissance drone launched from the SR-71's in the early 70's and overflying China is very interesting among other things.

 

P.S. My first post on the ED forums! Have to say I love the franchise and thought this thread would be a good place to start.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Faith

[dumgrunt]

errr i was being facetious.

 

Anyway sounds like an interesting book, about egos and career advancement coming first, certainly sounds familiar to me. It seems the higher you go up the hierarchy the rarer integrity becomes as a commodity. The military in general has become way too politicised.

 

One of the public examples that we had, when we upgraded our leopard 1s to the Abrams, we were offered as a part of the purchase a couple o regiments worth of Bradley's at well below their normal value, instead the department spent about 3 times the money on upgrading our m113 fleet to this bullshit pipe dream standard. They are now all moth balled because the protection and armament is completely deficient.

 

But hey, they kept the unions happy by doing it at home.

Edited January 19, 2014 by dumgrunt
.

[Pop Alexandra]

I'd say so, though it's difficult to find reliable numbers. It also depends on how we define the word "fair".

It shouldn't be an issue of equivalence but of significant differences.

_____________________________

Alexandra

http://aerocomfittings.com/

[Rick50]

 

A few comments without getting too  deep:

National arms purchases often are  not about which product is best or suited to the nation's specific needs. Often it's more about this country's leaders wanting  to have ties and make friends with the other countries' leaders. A nations' leaders might find old suppliers not being too grateful,  or problematic for unrelated  reasons, and might want to find new trading partners and "friends". They might want a ton of foreign investment, banking resources, so they abandon the "old jet supplier"  and buy a new jet from a  new "friend", for the benefits. Maybe it's about securing military support and cooperation, inviting a new military base for the other nation's military, to help bolster defences.

Other times it's about trading deals: I buy your jets, you buy millions of tons of wood  lumber and vodka. Or maybe I buy your tanks and you  provide cocaine and lots of  prostitutes, a yacht, or a private jet. Maybe a vintage Ferrari or extremely desired real estate property that's impossible to acquire even with unlimited money.

Still other times it's about how many jobs will come about for this politician in his home province/state, compared to the other product's  employment. The Bone had more than 1200 different suppliers spread across the nation... many suspect this was not a coincidence, but a deliberate move to  help ensure the program wouldn't get cancelled because most of the  politicians would  stand to  lose if they voted the Bone down.

Sometimes, the top brass are not as honest as they should be, and choose the product based more on future job opportunities for themselves or their close family, at a company such as this.  

There are rarely times where an intelligence agency decides  it  wants this product to get the contract over a different product, and they put pressure to influence the final  decision.

Then there is the concern of long-term support/supply...  if the buyer isn't so sure that a future political  difference would remain steadfast, after facing significant public protest  over an unpopular conflict, maybe getting tank engines  from a particular nation might be thrown into question.  Maybe they get passed over.  Similarly,  one country will sell arms to many countries,  but not nations that are actively at war... so the deal goes through, then war  breaks out,  and now getting supplies/spares is thrown into question.

Not helping the matter is that sometimes the critics of a  particular system are not always totally honest, or their sources. For instance, the Bradley IFV story, and the movie it spawned "The Pentagon Wars", seem to hold both many true items and observations, yet also seemed to contain many falsehoods and untrue assumptions. So while the Bradley was a bit of a mess in  development, the fact that it became one of  the stars of Operation Desert Storm, shows that not all the criticisms within were really all valid. To put it another way, opinions are not rare, everyone's got one!  It's important to try to inject context as  much as  possible.

All the above are from real situations that I  have heard of, specific cases.

 

Also, it's probable that in almost all cases, there are multiple reasons, not just my  own, but ALL those already mentioned in this thread, in combination.

 

 

[Pilotasso]

lobies and backstage political drama was the criteria for selection of the aircraft:

 

[Dragon1-1]

On 3/2/2025 at 6:13 AM, Rick50 said:

So while the Bradley was a bit of a mess in  development, the fact that it became one of  the stars of Operation Desert Storm, shows that not all the criticisms within were really all valid.

If you hear what the crews and the infantry thought of their IFVs, it was pretty clear not all the criticisms were addressed, either. Also, it helped that the worst flaws were discovered and somewhat patched over before they were deployed in ODS. The M2A2 version was quite significantly uparmored compared to the original.

And yeah, military procurement is often more politics than capability, with occasional strategy. There are many examples of the latter, for instance the Blackhawk was chosen over a Huey variant as the Army's main helo because Bell was making Cobras and they were worried they'd decrease their output. At other times, it's just a company playing dirty, like with F-16 and F-20. 

In the end, the problem is that everyone is playing dirty at this point. Both the military itself and the MIC have become too politicized, and they seem to rely on vast reserves of money to maintain effectiveness... and they can't even explain where half of this money actually goes. Adversaries like Russia and China have to do more with less, so they're forced to innovate, though Russia has enough other problems that it ended up with several otherwise good designs that it can't actually afford to produce. China can produce theirs, though, and they seem to keep a tight lid on the politics.