To all: There are several books, videos, and other resources available for personal research. Thus, you can draw your own educated conclusions about why one jet took the contract and the other did not.
To summarize my own findings, the YF-22 was faster(initial top speed testing), more manueverable (in part due to its use of thrust vectoring and smaller size), and was cheaper by approximately $800,000 per copy. It was considered to use more reliable and conventional technologies. YF-23 was considered more "cutting edge" in terms of design and construction technologies, but the Air Force considered these technologies "riskier" and less proven. YF-23 posted substantially better RCS (stealth) numbers, had greater range (due to internal wing volume area) and a lower drag coefficient, even though it is a larger aircraft. Both Lockheed and Northrop engineers agree that (had further testing been approved)the YF-23 is the inherently faster design. And while the YF-22 canopy was one single piece with no framing obstructions, the YF-23 pilot sits much higher on the plane and has absolutely unparalleled visibility around his aircraft. Northrop chose to use a weapons bay mock-up demonstrator, whereas Lockheed actually built a working weapons bay into their prototypes.
Yes, the YF-23 unveiled and flew more than a month before the YF-22. Yes, the YF-23 is a much more sinuous and better looking design. Overall I believe the YF-23 is dollar for dollar a superior and more capable aircraft.
I believe Lockheed was more politically savvy and greased more palms with the Air Force, who took the cheaper and less radical design choice due to old school stick-in-the-mud conventionalist status quo mindset thinking.
Short version: I gotta agree with Dennis Husted. Your tax dollars at work.

I remember working on the airplane during the f-22 and f-23 competition. The F-23 was superior in many instances, and the prototype was finished several months ahead of the f-22. The competition was held-up waiting for lockheed to finish the f-22. Quite frankly, the F-23 lost due to Northrop's poor relationship with the Government.

Oh know I left of an ly while typing .... I must go kill myself now for my bad typing

To the people that are worried about spelling issues. Have you ever considered that they were typing issues. Get a life.
But then again it is always a good way to divert from actual discussing an issue.

i think that northrop grumann will turn around and sell it to the airforces that buy frm EADS (now that would be funny to see the best jet fighter in the world owned buy a country other than the U.S.).

Does the yf-23 still fly for testing purposes or does it have to be scrapped?
It would be nice to see it at an airshow but i doubt the government will let that happen.

As the one guilty of the "aircrafts" incident, I find it interesting that over a year later there are still posts to this blog mentioning the error, and seemingly becoming more and more hostile. Please forgive my ignorance, and my horrific error. I had no idea that such a mistake would cause such an incredible reaction. On the other hand, I won't mention the fact that your post also included spelling errors, because my mistake is due to my being an imbecile, whereas yours is simply a mistake, I'm sure.

Also, don't lump me in with those who feel as though the 23 should have won because it was a better looking aircraft. It should have won because it was a better fighter in most every way, and matched up better to the requirements set forth by the airforce. Of course, I am somewhat prejudiced since my father was the chief engineer on the ATF 23 for McDonnell Douglas. However, I think the majority of independent military strategists would agree that the 23 was the more capable vehicle.

Thanks again for your continued interest and commentary on my spelling error.

Gareth, I share your concern about the poor spelling exhibited here. In addition, although you failed to mention it, I am certain you share my aversion to poor grammar. Therefore you will also understand that I must correct the following (corrections are capitalized): "but not as surprised as I am by uttely appalling spelling and grammer of almost everybody here.", should be expressed as "but not as surprised as I am by THE utteRly appalling spelling and grammer of almost everybody here." Thank you so much for raising the bar, my friend.

I was surprised that the F-23 did not win, but not as surprised as I am by uttely appalling spelling and grammer of almost everybody here. "Aircrafts" "loose" not "lose", water "vaper". Didn't any of you people learn English at school? It's also amusing to note that so many of you imbeciles feel that the prettiest aircraft deserved to win the contract.

I've been to the Air Force Historical Research Agency at Maxwell AFB and tried to find information about the YF-23. It remains classified to this day. I have heard it was far faster than the YF-22 but the figures are classified. Bear in mind though that the airplane was being produced by the Northrop/McDonnell Douglas team and at the time there was fear that McDonnell Douglas couldn't produce the airplane at the contract price and on time. McDonnell Douglas's reputation contributed to the demise of the YF-23, but later they regained it by producing the C-17 at contract price and on time.

Someone said the F-22 is 15 years behind schedule... more like 2. The only problem is that the F-22 has had to change a number of components, adding to the original cost, thus pushing back the program and creating a reduction of the total production. If cost was the initial factor for choosing the YF-22 over the YF-23, by now the numbers would have been negligable. YF-23 anyday!!

I think both are awesome and yes yf23 has the better specs that the f22, like some of you guys are saying "politic" or maybe there are things that we don't know why they choose f22 over f23 besides the politics. it maybe less expensive that the f22 but is it easy to be upgraded.think about this, when they bild the AH-64A and it was battle tested and so many confim kills, but they wanted a newer model and thats why the made the AH-64D..from looking at the picture you can see a little diff..but there's more into it and made an upgrade from AH-64D lot 1 to now the most or shall I call it super apache the AH-64D lot 9...why didn't they do that to the Alpha model..who nows

I think McDonnell's Douglas builds really good planes such as the Hornet,Harrier,Phantom,and many many more. ^_^

yf23 was actually the better aircraft,but lockheed got the contract,politics. all spec's of yf23 vs.yf22,tell you that,what a shame

After reading all these comments I think I've found the answer to everyone's dilemma. Why not buy Sukhoi aircraft and build them in the USA?
Cheaper, less than half the price of any American fighter in production.
Faster than any American aircraft.
Flies just as high fully laden as the F-23 will empty.
Flies much further than any US aircraft.
Turns inside all US aircraft.
Similar avionics and weaponry.
Too easy!

im sorry but i cant see how the f-22 won, the black widow 2 is faster, prettier, more stealthy and cheaper i think
then again, i am a bit bias, it is my favourite american aircraft!

Mr. Husteds' information is 1,000% accurate and truthful in that it's all confirmed by hundreds of first person eye witness accounts, flight test reports and actual missions flown from Edwards and Nellis AFB re: the YF-23 vs. the YF-22.
The Northrup aircraft was and is superior all around to the Lockheed submission and just now in early 2008 the
F-22 is coming into squadron service.
That's 15 years BEHIND schedule and I don't want to know the cost ovveruns on this program.
Again, Northrop and the American people got the shaft.

It's "aircraft" for singular or plural use, not "aircrafts." (think "deer")

Why was one chose over the other? There is not simple answer to that one. It's too bad that the Navy and Marine Corps did not choose to go with the YF23 instead of the JSF...but that decision was made for them in the early 90s by the Clinton Administration.

Well, I agree the Yf-23 should have won and I think the YF-23 looks batter than the F-22 raptor.

Absolutely right. As was mentioned earlier, Sam Nunn was the Chairman of the Armed Service Committee, and Sam happens to be from Georgia where Martin Marietta is based. No surprise there. Janes said that the F-23 was the better plane, and more in line with what the Air Force wanted.

The F-15 is a great fighter, and one of the few aircrafts that can fly completely vertical and accelerate at the same time. You've probably seen the comments from the test pilot of the 23 that have said that when he took off, he was pulling away from F-15's while the 15's were in full "re-heat". But speed was just one of the amazing attributes of this plane- the avionics were unmatched and are still unmatched today.

I believe the main reason was politcal for this reason. Northrop just rolled out the B-2, and the powers to be were not going to give the two largest advanced next generation stealth contracts to the same company. That would have meant we were going to single source stealth to one company for the next 20 years. While the F-23 was the better plane Northrop should have teamed up with another contractor to prevent the decision.

My Dad was the chief engineer for the F-23 at McDonnell Douglas. I think he would be very pleased with the comments that you folks have made about this aircraft. He was an amazing man, and he was sure this aircraft was the best in the world. It was a hell of a plane, and I hope that the plan for this is still alive.
Thank you all.

Jim Smith, there are no YF-23 Blackwidow IIs in service sadly. This is becaue only the F-22 was given a production contract. Though both the F-22 and YF-23 are great aircrafts, only one was allowed to go into production. Though in my oppinion, the YF-23 could have easily been made the replacement for the F-117 Nighthawk.

Anyone on this website if you could find out how many are in service that would be great?

how many are in service

Dennis Hussted is correct. In today world is not the best aircraft get the contract. Is the most political and cheapest. I beleive the YF-23 will make a come like the YF-17 as F/A-18

I was taking a computer programming class in college and I was required to give a report on technology applications in the 21st Century. I chose the ATF competition and read all I could and studied both planes and read everything I could.
1.YF-23 was faster than the YF-22.
2.YF-23 could out accelerate a clean F-16 in afterburner going vertical.
3.The first time the YF-23 took off it reached a speed that was immediately classified which impressed the Air Force. 4.The YF-23 was much stealthier than the YF-22.
5.The YF-23 had a far less drag penalty than the YF-22 because of it's thrust vectoring nozzles which had a significant weight penalty.
6.The YF-23 proved to be much more maitainable by not having any flight delays due to maintenance problems which resulted in the YF-23 finishing all flight tests almost two months earlier than the YF-22.
7.The YF-23 had fewer parts to maintain versus the YF-22.
8.1000 fighter pilots were polled and asked which was more important to them in a dog fight:Speed or manuverability, over 90% chose speed!
9.The YF-23 had a greater range and was more aerodynamic and could fly farther are less fuel than the YF-22.
10.Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia was Chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the Lockheed-Martin plant is in Georgia whereas Northrop is in California. Sam Nunn influenced the Air Force to select the F-22 or their may not be enough money to fund any other program. Even though Northrop would have added 3000 more jobs over Lockheed, Nunn
was not concerned about generating more jobs for the country as a whole as he was for Georgia to improve his chances or re-election. The F-22 decision was political.

Politics made this decision. Texas connection factored in...

the YF-23 was agreat looking fighter, it had a greater mass than the F-22 AND ALSO LEFT WATER VAPER TRAILS IN ITS FLIGHTS THAT COULD BE PICKED UP BY RADAR THAT WAS THE BIGGEST REASON IT WAS NOT PICKED AND IT WAS FASTER THAN THE YF22.

I do remember hearing that the plane also prooved much less reliable during the testing compared to the Raptor

The Yf-23 lost the contract for several reasons.
-It was slightly harder to maintain than the F-22.
-The YF-23 was less manuverable that the F-22.
-It was also a more expensive aircraft over all, but not by much.
-A possible sub reason is that the Yf-23 is large in size compared to the F-15 that it would have replaced had it got the contract. (YF-23 Length:67 feet, 5 inches [20.6 meters]; F-15 Length:63 feet, 9 inches [19.43 meters])
On the other hand, the YF-23 had a slightly better radar cross section than the F-22, though debatable, many say that the YF-23 was the better looking plane.
many people thatI have talked to thingt the Yf-23 should have been given a contracts to replace the F-117 Nighthawk, but that probably wont happen.

the Yf-23 lost the contract because the F-22 has a more convential looking plane than the F-22 and the F-23 was considered to radical for the time
What i have read about the atf competition it was the airforces heirachy that decided that
That is why the airforce has the F-22 and not F-23
i think the F-23 should have won and not he F-22

why did the YF23 loose the contract. what are the pro's & con's of this plane.

why did it loose the contact. what were the pro's & con's of the YF-23

well i like planes alot and im realy up to date with all new models f-22, and all the other, but wow this 1 never eraly heard of it.