Movie on F-22 vs F-23

sketch22 · by **sketch22** » 05 Dec 2012, 09:11

How an airplane looks has little to do with it's RCS...

Uhhh... how an airplane looks has everything to do with its RCS. RAM can only do so much..

wrightwing · by **wrightwing** » 05 Dec 2012, 16:42

To be more specific, how an airplane looks to a radar, is what's important in terms of RCS.

count_to_10 · by **count_to_10** » 06 Dec 2012, 01:44

While you can visually see a number of details that contribute to RCS, there are a lot that you really can't. So, you can eyeball a plane and decide whether it could be stealthy, you can't say that it definitely is.

flateric · by **flateric** » 10 Dec 2012, 08:12

according to Northrop vet, this patent has nothing to do with F-23A (as many including yours truly thought for a while), and came from the 'white world' advanced design group, while YF-23 was a responsibility of 'black world' AD team.

Roscoe · by **Roscoe** » 11 Dec 2012, 07:54

sketch22 wrote:
How an airplane looks has little to do with it's RCS...

Uhhh... how an airplane looks has everything to do with its RCS. RAM can only do so much..

And your technical background in this area is what exactly? I can't comment in any official capacity but I will say that LO is all about what's under the skin, not the external appearance.

cywolf32 wrote:
Roscoe wrote:
mcraptor wrote:The raw figures are certanly better for the YF-23.
Based on what?

count_to_10 wrote:That documentary is most of the information I have on the subject, too.
Yet you follow that with...

My understanding is that the YF-23 had better high-speed characteristics and a smaller RCS, but was less efficiently laid out (more empty space) and had more risky (from a developmental perspective) weapon bays and exhaust system.

I've read a ton of speculation about how much better/cheaper/faster/whatever the YF-23 was over the YF-22 but the bottom line is no one here knows or they would know better to discuss it. This is all pure speculation based on no data.

How an airplane looks has little to do with it's RCS...

Wrong.

Wow, now there's a post with some meat. Care to elaborate as to which part is "wrong"?

FlightDreamz · by **FlightDreamz** » 11 Dec 2012, 12:35

flateric
according to Northrop vet, this patent has nothing to do with F-23A (as many including yours truly thought for a while)

Hadn't heard that before. I've seen that YF-23 graphic before - used to be able to Google it up under a Northrop Grumman patent. Probably still have the jpeg on my Windows XP laptop hard drive somewhere. Nothing to do with the F-23A? :shock:

I'm definitely surprised. Would love to see confirmation on that (if possible - would love to see more info/data on a lot of aspects of the YF-23). :shrug:

flateric · by **flateric** » 11 Dec 2012, 13:37

FlightDreamz wrote:Would love to see confirmation on that (if possible - would love to see more info/data on a lot of aspects of the YF-23).

I've heard that AFAIR from Bill Rogers of Northrop's 'White' ATF Team.

Patent drawings also doesn't match AIM-120 arrangement (missiles staggered one above another with provisions for fins clearance, but upper "row" spaced apart wider than lower) and retractable launcher "pallet" concept that every insider says of.

You can make a conclusion from attached drawing of EMD aircraft that was occasionally leaked during YF-23A roll-out ceremony.
Surprisingly, it was available back then - in 1990 in Japanese Koku-Fan magazine, and only several years ago when official F-23A drawings were released (with weapon bay details carefully omitted), it became clear that roll-out ceremony leak was not an urban legend.

[Much] more ATF-23/NATF-23 stuff here
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... 0/all.html
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... 0/all.html
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... 730.0.html
(must be registered to see attachments)

Obi_Offiah · by **Obi_Offiah** » 30 Dec 2012, 06:38

Was there ever any information released about the F-23's proposed external payload configuration?

cywolf32 · by **cywolf32** » 30 Dec 2012, 16:25

Well let's see. Chined fuselage, no sharp angles, inlet design, axisymmetric nozzle, canted tails. Shape, shape, shape. Are you now going to tell me this has nothing to do with an acft's RCS/looks??????

linkomart · by **linkomart** » 30 Dec 2012, 16:51

Roscoe wrote:
And your technical background in this area is what exactly? I can't comment in any official capacity but I will say that LO is all about what's under the skin, not the external appearance.

according to all technical experts that have tried to learn me anything about stealth,
low RCS is about "shape shape and shape".

I'll believe them fisthand if you excuse me.

Google "RCS equations" and you will get some more information if you are interested. Materials are good, and neccesary at some applications, but they can never ever substitute bad geometry.

I saw the Movie of YF22 vs YF-23 on youtube before it was removed, I'm just sad I didn't save a copy....

my 5 cent

ruderamronbo · by **ruderamronbo** » 30 Dec 2012, 23:37

battleshipagincourt wrote:Well based on the rumors and unreliable sources I've read, the F-22 really won on three attributes... cost, low-speed agility, and a CATOBAR variant.

True that the YF-23 may have had a better RCS overall, it relied much more on RAM than the F-22, making it much more costly to maintain. That WAS one of the major things they wanted from the ATF program was an easier aircraft to maintain than the F-117.

Another thing that the F-22 had going for it was its agility at low speeds. Due to possessing thrust vectoring, the F-22 could maintain control in situations where the YF-23 couldn't. The YF-23 did certainly have more extensive control surfaces than the latter, those attributes were best suited for high speeds and altitudes.

The USAF and Navy also wanted to share the same fighter, and the F-22 was considered a much better candidate for being converted into a naval aircraft. Had this alone not been taken into consideration, the YF-23 probably would have won in spite of the two drawbacks I listed above. They were very seriously considering the F-22 for replacing the F-14, so it stands to reason the Navy's demands had to be met while this competition was going on.

Hadn't the Navy long since dropped out of the ATF program by the time the decision on the winner was made?

sorrydog · by **sorrydog** » 04 Jan 2013, 05:26

discofishing wrote: I can only see more empty space as less internal fuel.

...or space for a backup oxygen tank... :roll:

I dunno...but if history has anything to do with it, the F22 was preferred for the cancelled NATF capability....I mean how many times has the government declared a winner on criteria that later turns out to be irrelevant.