F-23 versus the F-22

Tiger: I was involved in the flight test program as Edwards

Paul Metz said (unnoficially) that the YF-23 was every bit as maneuverable as the F-22. Seeing as how he is the only pilot (at least that I know of) to have flown both birds, I would say he is in the know.

Now, as for price, I do believe that both companies met the target price set by the programme. However, because the F-22 was introduced a little more stylishly with proven technologies, it became a case of going with the "safe" bet.

There is no doubt in my mind that the F-23 was the better bird. It was better engineered, and had a much larger growth potential than the F-22.

However, this discussion may be moot. US congress is threatening the F-22 programme because Boeing is about to lay off 7000 employees due to the lack of F-15 sales.

Seems like a crock to me because those same employees would be used on the F-22 line.

But I'm sure politics will win out over common sense.

Tiger, out.

Boeing's part of the F-22 is being made in Seattle. Boeing's F-15 line is in St. Louis. Long commute for those same 7000 employees!!!!!! Also Boeing's F-22 line is already manned, so there are no available jobs.

Where did you hear about cuts to F-22, because the F-15 line is closing. I would just like to read that article. I would agree that cutting F-22 to keep the F-15 open is not a smart move. I crewed F-16's in the USAF, but now I do work for Boeing St. Louis. I have grown very fond of the F-15, especially the F-15E. Again, the F-15 did an awesome job, but it's time to let the F-22 to do it's job.

Just remember those 7000 employees busted their butts to build an awesome fighter for our airmen that protected them for decades. Now, they are being shown the door. Thanks!!! Now get!!!

supersport wrote:TIGER :I WAS INVOVLED IN THE FLIGHT TEST PROGRAM AT EDWARDS

Paul Metz said (unnoficially) that the YF-23 was every bit as maneuverable as the F-22. Seeing as how he is the only pilot (at least that I know of) to have flown both birds, I would say he is in the know.

Now, as for price, I do believe that both companies met the target price set by the programme. However, because the F-22 was introduced a little more stylishly with proven technologies, it became a case of going with the "safe" bet.

There is no doubt in my mind that the F-23 was the better bird. It was better engineered, and had a much larger growth potential than the F-22.

First of all, this thread needs to be moved over to the F-22 and F-35 boards.

I do not know nor would I pretend to know the relative merits of the F-23 vs. the F-22. I would say the F-23 was probably the greatest fighter jet never to go into production, and it is a shame that such a phenomenal piece of engineering is now relegated to a museum. However, I do know enough to state that Lockheed simply outsmarted Northrop in the way it sold the F-22 to the USAF. While the YF-23 met the flight test requirements as essentially a proof-of-concept test vehicle, the YF-22 was closer to a production-representative test vehicle. It has been said before: if both airframes meet your requirements, and one is not significantly better than the other, but one is substantially less risky, you go for the latter. What Lockheed did was show the USAF: here is not only a concept of what we would like to do, here is what we WILL do.

As for pricing, I honestly don't think either Northrop or Lockheed could have or would have ever met THAT requirement.

However, this discussion may be moot. US congress is threatening the F-22 programme because Boeing is about to lay off 7000 employees due to the lack of F-15 sales.

This is 100% wrong. Congress has made nor will make any decision regarding the F-22 on the basis of F-15 sales or lack thereof. Completely unrelated. And, by the way, Business Week recently updated Boeing stock to a "strong buy." Boeing doesn't need any help maintaining its particular chunk of the military industrial complex going.

First of all, this thread needs to be moved over to the F-22 and F-35 boards.

Done.

supersport wrote:I was involved in the flight test program as Edwards

<snip>

There is no doubt in my mind that the F-23 was the better bird. It was better engineered, and had a much larger growth potential than the F-22.

Problem with the first statement is no one who worked on the demval program worked both programs. For competitive and contractual reasons, the two test teams were firewalled. The prime contractors were concerned that info from one program would leak through the government to the other. Metz is the only guy I would trust.

As for the second statement, pure speculation with no factual basis. I don't even know what you mean by "much larger growth potential". Besides, remember that the winner is picked on the basis of many factors, aircraft performance only being a part of it. Manufacturing, history, and oh yea, PRICE are factors as well.

supersport wrote:However, this discussion may be moot.

It is.

This has been done ad-nauseum. It doesnt matter. We have a quality product in the F-22A and it is unmatched in the skies.

The F-22A is a very different bird than the Yf-22, and so would be the F23. SO comparing one airceaft thats in service with another thats a prototype makes no sense.

Pilotasso!! Welcome over here! Long time no see!

Pilotasso, do you fly in LOMAC, I think I've played with you a couple times

Hey guys...lol I figured I would come across LOMAC fliers here someday. Yeah, I drop by when the activity on the other forums is low. Have been laying low on the SIM for a while now. Been busy.

I know what you mean

I know what you mean