http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-f-23-fighter-the-super-plane-america-never-built-14328?page=show

READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE

The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is the best air superiority fighter ever built, but could America have done better?

But why did the YF-23 get beat by the Raptor?

The second factor was the U.S. Navy.
Even though the service had dropped out of the ATF program, the U.S. Navy still had a vote on which aircraft would be selected.
The Navy’s choice was the naval variant of the YF-22 design, which looked like bizarre hybrid of a Raptor and F-14 Tomcat with variable geometry wings.

The Navy was not fond of the naval derivative of the YF-23, which had a canard configuration the service found less than appealing.
In fact, because the Navy’s reaction was so favorable, Lockheed later pitched a modified version of its NATF proposal for the ill-fated AF-X project that the Navy was ultimately forced to cancel in favor of the Joint Strike Fighter program.
Some Navy officials are bitter about that fact to this day.

Damn  interesting article.

Pretty interesting. I think the F-22 would have still won without the Navy's input.

What if's don't count.


We are now beholden to the monstrosity that is the  F-35.

Get both.

Indeed

Which one? Because it's 3 different planes.

It is too bad we can't go back to the days when "getting both" was a realistic option. During the 1960s, we had all sorts of fighter/interceptor aircraft operational at the same time....the F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104, F-105, F-106, F-4, F-8, F-111, etc. And nearly all of those were developed within a few years of each other. These days, each of the services have to make due with just a couple of different fighter designs and as such, these aircraft have to be suitable to performing a wide variety of missions.

If things could be like they once were, we could have placed both the F-22 and F-23 into service. The YF-23 did possess better range and better supersonic cruise capability. And it also had better overall stealth characteristics. So it would have likely performed the interceptor and long range escort mission better than the Raptor. It could have also been superior for penetrating the most dense and capable air defense networks early in the fight and taking out the most heavily defended targets. It is a shame that the cost to develop military aircraft have become so astronomical that we can no longer afford to design and build specialty aircraft and instead have to develop "jack of all trades" designs that are masters of none. It would also be nice to have more variety in the fleet in case one particular fighter experienced some type of major problem that resulted in the type being grounded until a fix could be found.

I'll stay mad about the YF-23 for the rest of my life. Such a gorgeous plane

Kelly Johnson would have had a fuckin fit and something would have been done.

It boggles my mind that these things are already 25 years old and barely operational.

Holy fuckballs, I can't believe that this program started in 1992

For perspective:

The best selling car of 1992:

YF23 is coming back

Bigger and better for the air force next gen bomber program

It had teh Robotech exausts, I was sold from day 1

This, one sexy aircraft

Help me wrap my head around this:



Doesn't the article's paragraphs say the F-23 is different from the F-22, but the F-22 is the same as the F-23?  

I'm getting the Navy had a say-so in the F-22 being picked.    

Where's my outrage?  I want to be outraged dammit!

Multiple platforms increase life-cycle maintenance costs.  By consolidating functions and integrating cross-service supply chain requirements we are better able to plan and procure parts and support thus reducing our cradle to grave costs.

The author doesn't argue very strongly for the F-23.

YF-22:
+More maneuverable
+More reliable engines
+Lockheed consulted closely with the customer and found out what they actually wanted
+++Lockheed built exactly what the customer actually wanted
Upshot "world beating air superiority fighter that offers performance that is unmatched by anything else flying", "grossly exceeded the Air Force's requirements"

YF-23:
+More range
+More stealth
-Northrop and McDD had recently pissed the Pentagon off
-Northrop and McDD strictly followed the requirements without paying attention to what the customer actually wanted
---Northrop and McDD built something that was at a strong disadvantage if stealth didn't work and the customer distrusted stealth

World beating awesome murder machine built exactly the way you want it, or slightly awesomer world beating murder machine that might be castrated if you've guessed wrong about the state of radar technology, and it's built by people you think are assholes?

They've been operational for 9 years, 11 months.

.

Because there werent a whole lot of argument's FOR the F23. There were far to many technological hurdles to leap and the program was fraught with mismanagement. It was the right decision, the better fighter won.

I always liked the look of the YF-23 but in the end the YF-22 wins.

My thoughts too.

I can't speak to how much NATF factored into the decision, but the author is clumsy enough with technical detail that I'm sort of wondering how well sourced the NATF stuff is.

The author is reporting, not making a case for a specific aircraft.
In some cases that's called objective reporting.  

Like I said, the author is kind of clumsy with details and in trying to connect the dots between what his interviewees explicitly said.

Why does a branch of service that isn't part of the program or even going to use a weapon system given a vote on what other branches of service get to have?

I'd argue that 185 of the fastest, most maneuverable, stealthiest aircraft in service or likely to be in service for a generation or more is probably a game changer if it ever came down to it.  

And a great deal of the lessons learned and the tech from the F-22 found its way into the F-35 program as well.