Forum: F-22A Raptor

Salute!

Great to have a Northrop puke here. Looks like you have been lurking the boards for some time, but .... nevermind. Heh heh.

We may have crossed paths in late '84 or early '85 when I was on the Northrop legal team for the F-18 versus F-20 avionics and co-production lawsuit. Was one of the avionics "transfer of technology" pilot "experts".

I doubt that politics ( U.S. Congress, etc) influenced the USAF decision to go with the F-22. Others have put the reasons forward here, and to some extent they are right about the Lockheed-Martin/General Dynamics approach to the flyoff. As with the F-16 and F-17, the team on base first with good PR and a demonstrated adherence to the "schedule" had a big edge.

The F-16 clearly beat the Northrop F-17 in several parameters, and just talk to anyone there in the flyoff.

The F-23 was different. My personal sources claimed it was a "speed merchant" WRT to supercruise and was very stealthy. They also said it couldn't hold up versus the F-22 in the "dogfight" arena, as others have stated. Another problem with the selection was that USAF valued L-M/GD's track record with the Viper. Northrop had not fielded a new plane in many moons, despite McAir using the basic design for the Hornet. And the Hornet didn't approach the performance of the YF-17 in several regards.

So if USAF wanted "Battlestar Gallactica" that could zip around at 50,000 feet and poke slammers from BVR, never worry about getting close enough to have to turn, etc., then the F-23 was the choice. And USAF then had to decide if Northrop could meet the production schedule. And then ......

+++++++++++++++++

great to have a Northrop vet here, and I really enjoyed working with the engineers there in '84 and '85, so let's toast frog-man!

Gums sends .....

F-16.net Sponsor

Gums wrote:

Salute!

Great to have a Northrop puke here.

There's a few of us here..For me, it was '85-'97 on B-2, YF-23, NATF, TSSAM, etc...

The good 'ol days Wink

Quote:

So if USAF wanted "Battlestar Gallactica" that could zip around at 50,000 feet and poke slammers from BVR, never worry about getting close enough to have to turn, etc., then the F-23 was the choice. And USAF then had to decide if Northrop could meet the production schedule. And then ......

Precisely -> that could zip around at 50,000 feet and poke slammers from BVR. A developed F-23 would have had a very low RCS, high altitude and
high speed! Imagine DAS and EOTS upgrades to a production F-23!
Supposedly, the F-23's sustained turning speed at supersonic speeds
was extremely impressive, so I don't buy that it couldn't turn.

jetblast16 wrote:

Quote:

So if USAF wanted "Battlestar Gallactica" that could zip around at 50,000 feet and poke slammers from BVR, never worry about getting close enough to have to turn, etc., then the F-23 was the choice. And USAF then had to decide if Northrop could meet the production schedule. And then ......

Precisely -> that could zip around at 50,000 feet and poke slammers from BVR. A developed F-23 would have had a very low RCS, high altitude and
high speed! Imagine DAS and EOTS upgrades to a production F-23!
Supposedly, the F-23's sustained turning speed at supersonic speeds
was extremely impressive, so I don't buy that it couldn't turn.

The F-22 also has a very low RCS/high speed. It also has a better weapons bay layout , and maneuverability. If money was no object, then putting an EOTS/DAS/cheek AESA arrays, JHMCS, SAR, etc.. would be pretty nice too.

The simplest answers are often accurate. Maybe the YF-22 just simply better matched what they were looking for... I've looked at some of the earlier designs in the ATF program, and found myself asking: "What the hell were they thinking?"

Sorry to all you YF-23 fans out there, but most likely the YF-23 just wasn't as all around capable as the YF-22. Would it have made a good stealth jet fighter? Sure. Would it have been as capable as the F-22? Probably not.

wrightwing wrote:

The F-22 also has a very low RCS/high speed. It also has a better weapons bay layout , and maneuverability. If money was no object, then putting an EOTS/DAS/cheek AESA arrays, JHMCS, SAR, etc.. would be pretty nice too.

I’d agree that the general arrangement of the F-22 was better for employing WVR missiles, but IMO the production F-23A’s bays were better overall. If those EMD drawings that surfaced a couple years ago are accurate (they look accurate) the main bay is absolutely colossal, easily able to handle not only 2,000lb class weapons (plus a couple of slammers) but also had a moveable bulkhead between the two bays allowing for flexible stowage for oversized weapons. Plus, due to its enormous volume, the main bay should be able to handle at least 10 slammers, depending on the launcher technology to be employed.

Ironically, while the smaller sidewinder forward bay was not optimum for seeker FOV at the time of the down select, the currently emerging LOAL technology would make that arrangement quite favorable. Even more ironically the F-22 is currently being employed with a CONOPS that was envisioned for the F-23; i.e. overwhelming BVR advantage and then closing to sweep up the stragglers WVR with a positional advantage.

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Why was the F-23 not chosen?