User Panel
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. |
|
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 |
|
|
|
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 Quoted:
Quoted:
Holy shit, 70 feet???!!! 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 |
|
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 Quoted:
Quoted:
Holy shit, 70 feet???!!! My buddies who were F-16 pilots thought the AF would go with the YF-23 simply because it was big and impressive. 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. |
|
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 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. |
|
The YF 23 looks like it was made out of Fonzies
And what was Fonzie? And thats all that counts in a strategic enviroment. |
|
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 YF-23 DEM/VAL Presentation by Test Pilots Paul Metz and Jim Sandberg |
|
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 Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Holy shit, 70 feet???!!! My buddies who were F-16 pilots thought the AF would go with the YF-23 simply because it was big and impressive. 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. |
|
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 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. 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. |
|
View Quote He was the f-22 chief test pilot and then an F-35 guy prior to first flight, then a VP at Lockheed Martin. |
|
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 |
|
View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpkv1ErWIf8 That video is well worth the watch for those that are really into the program. |
|
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 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? 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. |
|
|
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 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? |
|
View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpkv1ErWIf8 Is it wrong that I still like the FB-23 concept? |
|
Like Firefox the YF-23 was designed to be thought controlled. Total failure since the language was Beltway Consultant.
|
|
|
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 Quoted:
Quoted:
I’m surprised they never tried to make an FB-23 to replace the F-111 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. |
|
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 Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah, but as a rebuttal, the YF-23 looked cooler. 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. 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. |
|
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 Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah, but as a rebuttal, the YF-23 looked cooler. 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. 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. |
|
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. |
|
|
Quoted:
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 View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: yeah... say what you want about the F-35... but Oh God! The alternative! 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 Kharn |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: yeah... say what you want about the F-35... but Oh God! The alternative! 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 Kharn There's hope, or was, the mighty Bird of Prey: A hot gas ingestion model I sized: |
|
Anyone have a secondary citation about the 3 AMRAAM portion?
|
|
Quoted:
Anyone have a secondary citation about the 3 AMRAAM portion? View Quote 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. |
|
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. |
|
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.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.