Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 3/26/2018 9:20:27 PM EST
[#1]
Damn, but OP delivers!

I followed the ATF contest as a kid, and it’s fascinating to see where the F-22 is now, as well as what information is now releasable.

As an ignorant kid, the YF-23 looked more exotic than the YF-22, itself a racy airplane. The edge alignment on both designs is mind-bending.

I’ve tried to read what was reasonably accessible about the reasons for the YF-22 selection, and was previously under the impression that the -23 was faster and stealthier, while the -22 was more manuverable; with both being fantastic designs. Programmatically, I’ve read that the -22 team was more aware of ACC’s desire for dogfighting capabilities, and that the -23 represented a greater technical risk. Considering the few numbers if -22s that were actually acquired adds an emphasis on this importance.

I’m surprised to see the exposed fan blades, and that the proposed evolution into the F-23A would not have addressed the issue.

The F-22 airshow demo is killer.
Link Posted: 3/26/2018 10:13:31 PM EST
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Damn, but OP delivers!

I followed the ATF contest as a kid, and it’s fascinating to see where the F-22 is now, as well as what information is now releasable.

As an ignorant kid, the YF-23 looked more exotic than the YF-22, itself a racy airplane. The edge alignment on both designs is mind-bending.

I’ve tried to read what was reasonably accessible about the reasons for the YF-22 selection, and was previously under the impression that the -23 was faster and stealthier, while the -22 was more manuverable; with both being fantastic designs. Programmatically, I’ve read that the -22 team was more aware of ACC’s desire for dogfighting capabilities, and that the -23 represented a greater technical risk. Considering the few numbers if -22s that were actually acquired adds an emphasis on this importance.

I’m surprised to see the exposed fan blades, and that the proposed evolution into the F-23A would not have addressed the issue.

The F-22 airshow demo is killer.
View Quote
You followed it as a kid but I lived it as a 20 something young engineer . Still didn’t help me when we didn’t get ghe engine contract... interesting days, yet sad too.
Link Posted: 3/26/2018 10:33:12 PM EST
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
View Quote
I had toys of this one as a kid.  I think it was a Micromachine or something, and many knockoffs.
Link Posted: 3/26/2018 10:44:33 PM EST
[#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Can't wait until 30 or 40 years from now when aviation "experts" will treat the YF-23 with the same reverence that the Avro Arrow is treated in the Commonwealth.
View Quote
Oh geez, don't get that started up again.
Link Posted: 3/27/2018 12:25:13 AM EST
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Look at the length of an F-15.  I was surprised the first time I found out.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Holy shit, 70 feet???!!!
Look at the length of an F-15.  I was surprised the first time I found out.
F-5E:  47 ft
F-16A/C: 49 ft
MiG-29: 57 ft
F/A-18E: 60 ft
F-22A: 62 ft
F-14: 63 ft
F-15:  64 ft
YF-23: 67 ft
Su-27: 72 ft
F-111: 73.5 ft
MiG-31: 74 ft
Link Posted: 3/27/2018 12:36:37 AM EST
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
oh, yeah, it was big.
My buddies who were F-16 pilots thought the AF would go with the YF-23 simply because it was big and impressive.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Holy shit, 70 feet???!!!
oh, yeah, it was big.
My buddies who were F-16 pilots thought the AF would go with the YF-23 simply because it was big and impressive.
To put things in perspective, a B-17 is 74 feet from nose to tail.

So we're talking about a fighter that's nearly as big (in length, anyway) as a WWII bomber.   And which can haul a higher bomb weight than a B-17
and has a hell of a lot more power to work with....and about the same combat radius.
Link Posted: 3/27/2018 1:51:19 AM EST
[#7]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
You followed it as a kid but I lived it as a 20 something young engineer . Still didn’t help me when we didn’t get ghe engine contract... interesting days, yet sad too.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Damn, but OP delivers!

I followed the ATF contest as a kid, and it’s fascinating to see where the F-22 is now, as well as what information is now releasable.

As an ignorant kid, the YF-23 looked more exotic than the YF-22, itself a racy airplane. The edge alignment on both designs is mind-bending.

I’ve tried to read what was reasonably accessible about the reasons for the YF-22 selection, and was previously under the impression that the -23 was faster and stealthier, while the -22 was more manuverable; with both being fantastic designs. Programmatically, I’ve read that the -22 team was more aware of ACC’s desire for dogfighting capabilities, and that the -23 represented a greater technical risk. Considering the few numbers if -22s that were actually acquired adds an emphasis on this importance.

I’m surprised to see the exposed fan blades, and that the proposed evolution into the F-23A would not have addressed the issue.

The F-22 airshow demo is killer.
You followed it as a kid but I lived it as a 20 something young engineer . Still didn’t help me when we didn’t get ghe engine contract... interesting days, yet sad too.
I watched a recent test pilot seminar including 2 test pilots from the YF-23 program, and they had slides in their powerpoint that showed the cruising speeds they achieved with PAV 1 and PAV 2. With the GE engines, they seemed to have faster cruise speed at Mach 1.8, but I've heard there were issues with the design of the YF-120 GE engine using some type of unique approach to engine design that had some major teething issues.
Link Posted: 3/27/2018 2:00:01 AM EST
[#8]
The YF 23 looks like it was made out of Fonzies

And what was Fonzie?

And thats all that counts in a strategic enviroment.
Link Posted: 3/27/2018 4:13:14 AM EST
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

I watched a recent test pilot seminar including 2 test pilots from the YF-23 program, and they had slides in their powerpoint that showed the cruising speeds they achieved with PAV 1 and PAV 2. With the GE engines, they seemed to have faster cruise speed at Mach 1.8, but I've heard there were issues with the design of the YF-120 GE engine using some type of unique approach to engine design that had some major teething issues.
View Quote
This one?
YF-23 DEM/VAL Presentation by Test Pilots Paul Metz and Jim Sandberg
Link Posted: 3/27/2018 4:20:46 AM EST
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
To put things in perspective, a B-17 is 74 feet from nose to tail.

So we're talking about a fighter that's nearly as big (in length, anyway) as a WWII bomber.   And which can haul a higher bomb weight than a B-17
and has a hell of a lot more power to work with....and about the same combat radius.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Holy shit, 70 feet???!!!
oh, yeah, it was big.
My buddies who were F-16 pilots thought the AF would go with the YF-23 simply because it was big and impressive.
To put things in perspective, a B-17 is 74 feet from nose to tail.

So we're talking about a fighter that's nearly as big (in length, anyway) as a WWII bomber.   And which can haul a higher bomb weight than a B-17
and has a hell of a lot more power to work with....and about the same combat radius.
Unfair comparison, for the modern fighter. Entire formations of B-17s were often needed to ensure a target got hit by a single bomb. Now we drop individual bombs through windows with reliability. In practical terms a modern fighter carries more ordnance that will reliably hit a target than quite a few B-17s.
Link Posted: 3/27/2018 4:33:55 AM EST
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I watched a recent test pilot seminar including 2 test pilots from the YF-23 program, and they had slides in their powerpoint that showed the cruising speeds they achieved with PAV 1 and PAV 2. With the GE engines, they seemed to have faster cruise speed at Mach 1.8, but I've heard there were issues with the design of the YF-120 GE engine using some type of unique approach to engine design that had some major teething issues.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Damn, but OP delivers!

I followed the ATF contest as a kid, and it’s fascinating to see where the F-22 is now, as well as what information is now releasable.

As an ignorant kid, the YF-23 looked more exotic than the YF-22, itself a racy airplane. The edge alignment on both designs is mind-bending.

I’ve tried to read what was reasonably accessible about the reasons for the YF-22 selection, and was previously under the impression that the -23 was faster and stealthier, while the -22 was more manuverable; with both being fantastic designs. Programmatically, I’ve read that the -22 team was more aware of ACC’s desire for dogfighting capabilities, and that the -23 represented a greater technical risk. Considering the few numbers if -22s that were actually acquired adds an emphasis on this importance.

I’m surprised to see the exposed fan blades, and that the proposed evolution into the F-23A would not have addressed the issue.

The F-22 airshow demo is killer.
You followed it as a kid but I lived it as a 20 something young engineer . Still didn’t help me when we didn’t get ghe engine contract... interesting days, yet sad too.
I watched a recent test pilot seminar including 2 test pilots from the YF-23 program, and they had slides in their powerpoint that showed the cruising speeds they achieved with PAV 1 and PAV 2. With the GE engines, they seemed to have faster cruise speed at Mach 1.8, but I've heard there were issues with the design of the YF-120 GE engine using some type of unique approach to engine design that had some major teething issues.
Variable cycle capability was the F120s claim to fame.

Its teething issues are essentially what one would expect from any new approach to engine design. The F119 is an excellent engine but was mostly a refinement of existing, proven engine concepts with improved materials and optimized design.

Canceling the F120 and later F136 has more to do with the two major competitors not wishing to repeat the Engine Wars. GE would rather work with P&W for military engine contracts than compete with them for only half the market.
Link Posted: 3/27/2018 6:28:14 AM EST
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Paul Metz is a great guy; a real class act.
He was the f-22 chief test pilot and then an F-35 guy prior to first flight, then a VP at Lockheed Martin.
Link Posted: 3/27/2018 6:36:55 AM EST
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I don't know shit about aircraft design, but I don't know why the YF-23 design couldn't have been revised for a larger bay?
View Quote
AeroE said it: Larger bay = bigger plane = bigger engine = more fuel = bigger plane = larger engine = more fuel = bigger plane = bigger engine = more fuel....
Link Posted: 3/27/2018 1:56:39 PM EST
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

I watched a recent test pilot seminar including 2 test pilots from the YF-23 program, and they had slides in their powerpoint that showed the cruising speeds they achieved with PAV 1 and PAV 2. With the GE engines, they seemed to have faster cruise speed at Mach 1.8, but I've heard there were issues with the design of the YF-120 GE engine using some type of unique approach to engine design that had some major teething issues.
This one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpkv1ErWIf8
Yes, but it looks like I had it backwards.  That slide shows the GE YF-120 engines PAV 2 "only" reaching 1.72 Mach.

That video is well worth the watch for those that are really into the program.
Link Posted: 3/27/2018 2:00:24 PM EST
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
AeroE said it: Larger bay = bigger plane = bigger engine = more fuel = bigger plane = larger engine = more fuel = bigger plane = bigger engine = more fuel....
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know shit about aircraft design, but I don't know why the YF-23 design couldn't have been revised for a larger bay?
AeroE said it: Larger bay = bigger plane = bigger engine = more fuel = bigger plane = larger engine = more fuel = bigger plane = bigger engine = more fuel....
The proposed F-23A was a bigger plane, with longer and larger nose to fit the radar and provisions for IRST, which compromised the near-perfect area ruling that the YF-23 used to make it so aerodynamic.

The F-23A was supposed to have an additional dual AIM-9 missile bay in front of the main bay, which would then be dedicated to AMRAAMs, bringing the total missile count internally to 7.

Speed and range would have been compromised some, with a heavier, longer fighter that had more drag.
Link Posted: 3/27/2018 2:03:29 PM EST
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

I disagree.
View Quote
Me too.
Link Posted: 3/27/2018 2:03:51 PM EST
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Holy shit, 70 feet???!!!
View Quote
That's got to be a typo.
Link Posted: 3/27/2018 2:08:01 PM EST
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
AeroE said it: Larger bay = bigger plane = bigger engine = more fuel = bigger plane = larger engine = more fuel = bigger plane = bigger engine = more fuel....
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know shit about aircraft design, but I don't know why the YF-23 design couldn't have been revised for a larger bay?
AeroE said it: Larger bay = bigger plane = bigger engine = more fuel = bigger plane = larger engine = more fuel = bigger plane = bigger engine = more fuel....
Eventually, a Standard Missile will fit.
Link Posted: 3/27/2018 2:08:12 PM EST
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

I watched a recent test pilot seminar including 2 test pilots from the YF-23 program, and they had slides in their powerpoint that showed the cruising speeds they achieved with PAV 1 and PAV 2. With the GE engines, they seemed to have faster cruise speed at Mach 1.8, but I've heard there were issues with the design of the YF-120 GE engine using some type of unique approach to engine design that had some major teething issues.
This one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpkv1ErWIf8
Paul Metz is an icon for me as a kid, must've been awesome to have gone from flying the hotrod econo F-20 Tigershark to the advanced YF-23!

Is it wrong that I still like the FB-23 concept?
Link Posted: 3/27/2018 2:11:25 PM EST
[#20]
Like Firefox the YF-23 was designed to be thought controlled.  Total failure since the language was Beltway Consultant.
Link Posted: 3/27/2018 2:13:49 PM EST
[#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Like Firefox the YF-23 was designed to be thought controlled.  Total failure since the language was Beltway Consultant.
View Quote
It kept trying to land at a bank to refuel.

Link Posted: 3/27/2018 2:38:15 PM EST
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Already had hundreds of F-15E delivered, with more in production, in addition to B-2A.

Soviets treated the F-111 as a strategic asset, including it in SALT talks, so B-2A already filled a lot of the role they were worried about, just going about it from a different mission profile/approach altitude.

The structure of the YF-23 intakes, even with the serpentine intake trunks, still exposed the first stage of the turbofans to radar emissions, and rotating turbofans are a huge contributor to RCS, and therefore defeat your stealthiness, especially from depressed frontal oblique aspect.

The Russian PAK-FA suffers from this same problem when subsonic, only it exposes its fan blades from direct frontal aspect, so is not very stealthy as long as it's subsonic:

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-db753856165e4822644bbd623abab3fc

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-cc5004386ac54278c21276e79aa63169

The F-22 does not:

http://i1347.photobucket.com/albums/p701/Engines101/f-22a_zpsf8d57c23.jpg

One of the main reasons the Indian Air Force pulled out of the joint venture with Russia on the PAK-FA was its lack of true 5th Gen stealth.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
I’m surprised they never tried to make an FB-23 to replace the F-111
Already had hundreds of F-15E delivered, with more in production, in addition to B-2A.

Soviets treated the F-111 as a strategic asset, including it in SALT talks, so B-2A already filled a lot of the role they were worried about, just going about it from a different mission profile/approach altitude.

The structure of the YF-23 intakes, even with the serpentine intake trunks, still exposed the first stage of the turbofans to radar emissions, and rotating turbofans are a huge contributor to RCS, and therefore defeat your stealthiness, especially from depressed frontal oblique aspect.

The Russian PAK-FA suffers from this same problem when subsonic, only it exposes its fan blades from direct frontal aspect, so is not very stealthy as long as it's subsonic:

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-db753856165e4822644bbd623abab3fc

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-cc5004386ac54278c21276e79aa63169

The F-22 does not:

http://i1347.photobucket.com/albums/p701/Engines101/f-22a_zpsf8d57c23.jpg

One of the main reasons the Indian Air Force pulled out of the joint venture with Russia on the PAK-FA was its lack of true 5th Gen stealth.
Except that the F-23 was to have specific RCS reduction techniques for eliminating being able to see the fan face directly. It wasn't included in the YF-23 because it wasn't necessary.
Link Posted: 3/27/2018 2:42:18 PM EST
[#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
If by "cooler" you mean "like a weird GI Joe toy", then sure.

I never liked how the YF-23 looks. It looks like some drunk aeronautical engineers at 2AM with no prior experience on fighters were told to design one before sunrise.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah, but as a rebuttal, the YF-23 looked cooler.
If by "cooler" you mean "like a weird GI Joe toy", then sure.

I never liked how the YF-23 looks. It looks like some drunk aeronautical engineers at 2AM with no prior experience on fighters were told to design one before sunrise.
Both the Chief Engineer and the Lead Configurator on the YF-23 are good friends of mine. Suffice to say, your assessment is incorrect.

I thought it ranked right up there with the SR-71 in terms of looks. Looks don't always win contracts but often swing a contract one way or the other if two competitors are roughly equal (e.g. F-35 vs. Boeing guppy-plane). IN the case of the YF-23 vs. YF-22, there were industrial base issues to consider that had nothing to do with the airframes themselves.
Link Posted: 3/27/2018 2:46:54 PM EST
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Both the Chief Engineer and the Lead Configurator on the YF-23 are good friends of mine. Suffice to say, your assessment is incorrect.

I thought it ranked right up there with the SR-71 in terms of looks. Looks don't always win contracts but often swing a contract one way or the other if two competitors are roughly equal (e.g. F-35 vs. Boeing guppy-plane). IN the case of the YF-23 vs. YF-22, there were industrial base issues to consider that had nothing to do with the airframes themselves.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah, but as a rebuttal, the YF-23 looked cooler.
If by "cooler" you mean "like a weird GI Joe toy", then sure.

I never liked how the YF-23 looks. It looks like some drunk aeronautical engineers at 2AM with no prior experience on fighters were told to design one before sunrise.
Both the Chief Engineer and the Lead Configurator on the YF-23 are good friends of mine. Suffice to say, your assessment is incorrect.

I thought it ranked right up there with the SR-71 in terms of looks. Looks don't always win contracts but often swing a contract one way or the other if two competitors are roughly equal (e.g. F-35 vs. Boeing guppy-plane). IN the case of the YF-23 vs. YF-22, there were industrial base issues to consider that had nothing to do with the airframes themselves.
yeah... say what you want about the F-35... but Oh God! The alternative!
Link Posted: 3/27/2018 2:51:09 PM EST
[#25]
These aircraft are not so stealthy as the press makes it to be for the lay person.   It's because what makes it stealthy in one band, adversely affects another.  Designers make tradeoffs, and they favor the bands used by other aircraft and targeting radars.

One reason being that radar in the longer wavelengths are large, and require more power, plus cooling.  It's impractical to outfit fighters with that type of radar today.

However, there are some promising development in semiconductors to where it's foreseeable for the future.  This is why CFIUS keeps blocking foreign acquisitions of US semiconductor companies that invested and have expertise in GaN.  They even block foreign companies from NATO countries.

The other reason is there are few fabs nowadays in the USA.  Even though most that have GaN production don't produce the components needed by the military, it's better retool rather than build from scratch in those cases.

The Russians and the Chinese are largely copying the shape as they lack the R&D technology needed for things like coatings.  Their gal, Hillary, is not the president, so they cannot buy it via the Clinton Foundation anymore.  Maybe some time down the road with Chelsea.
Link Posted: 3/27/2018 3:15:25 PM EST
[#26]
Link Posted: 3/27/2018 3:24:19 PM EST
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

yeah... say what you want about the F-35... but Oh God! The alternative!
The PWSC:

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/348/27496.JPG

Just don't look at the front or sheer view.

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/348/27498.JPG
The Monica.

Kharn
Link Posted: 3/27/2018 3:50:37 PM EST
[#28]
Link Posted: 3/30/2018 12:17:55 PM EST
[#29]
Anyone have a secondary citation about the 3 AMRAAM portion?
Link Posted: 3/30/2018 12:25:33 PM EST
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Anyone have a secondary citation about the 3 AMRAAM portion?
View Quote
I came across this website that seems to have been trying to get everything possible on the YF-23 program, including rare photos, employee interviews, design details, spec sheets, and schematics.

Northrop YF-23 specs

They also have preliminary drawings for the planned production F-23A, which had then additional weapons bay.

I was surprised too, because I always though the YF-23 had more room for missiles.

The problem with the deep bay is getting racks that can both stack and jettison AMRAAMs with nose-down presentation away from the aircraft while at speeds in excess of Mach 1.  If you stack missiles on top of each other, how will one jettison off the other, and where do the racks go?

It's a somewhat complex problem of storage and high speed weapons separation, as well as thermal insulation from supersonic speeds cooking the weapon electronics.
Link Posted: 3/30/2018 12:47:49 PM EST
[#31]
I am asking because I posted this on a thread about the YF-23 and there are fanbois getting all riled up about it.

I think the Raptor was the better aircraft in pretty much every respect.
Link Posted: 3/30/2018 5:06:50 PM EST
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I am asking because I posted this on a thread about the YF-23 and there are fanbois getting all riled up about it.

I think the Raptor was the better aircraft in pretty much every respect.
View Quote
Aerodynamically, the YF-23 was simply earth-shattering.

Paul Metz described the chase aircraft in burner trying to keep up with him after take-off and he had the gears down, eased way back on the throttle from where they all initially thought it would be.

If you look at how it's area-ruled, it's basically a large diamond uni-wing with 3 major appendages-2 the engine nacelles, and the 3rd being the forward fuselage.  It's diagonal stabs were basically wings as well, providing substantial amounts of lift and control authority.

Something like that would have really been elegantly powerful across the different altitudes, with a ton of control surface area to do what it wanted.

We have no open source video of how well it could pitch, but I've heard it was better than you would imagine.

If it was limited to only 5 internal missiles though as the EDM demonstrator, while the YF-22 had eight internal like an F-15, that probably would have stuck out in the comparisons. Northrop would need to spend the time developing and testing the new bay, increasing the length and drag of the aircraft, while Lockheed had already weapon separated.

I also see a lot of reference to the fact that the ATF program was also supposed to be capable for Naval ATF, and the Navy flat-out said the YF-23 was too large and unsuitable for carrier operations, whereas the YF-22 was shorter than a Tomcat.  Many references have said this was a deciding factor in the award going to Lockheed, along with the fact that the USAF really liked that the YF-22 demonstrated AIM-120 separation tests. The visible turbofan first stage through the intake didn't help matters either for frontal RCS.

Both aircraft would have been more than fine for the USAF ATF, so I don't think there is much room to really dog the YF-23.  It was a very bold, but beautiful execution of design and performance, still looking futuristic to this day, yet practical.



Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top