YF-22 vs YF-23

SoCal_CJ · by **SoCal_CJ** » 08 Feb 2006, 02:21

snypa777 wrote:Keep `em coming SoCal CJ, great pictures! Pity we can`t get some hi-res versions!

I have many in high res PM me your email, and I will see what I can do, send a discription of what your looking for etc...

Tinito_16 · by **Tinito_16** » 03 Jun 2007, 07:34

From what I have read the YF-22 was selected over the YF-23 mostly because of peripheral issues and not aircraft performance. One thing that did chew the YF-23's tail was the launch rails for the missles: these were arranged one on top of the other, and if one jammed, the plane couldn't fire the others.

....Or so the theory goes

Afterburned · by **Afterburned** » 05 Jun 2007, 14:31

I always thought that the YF-23 would make one hell of a strike fighter like the f-15E. I know there are concepts out there for enlarging the fuselage to make room for bomb bays on what could be the YB-23. While the F-22A would capitalize on its agility for air to air roles, the YB-23 could use its superior stealth and speed for deep strike missions. I wish it would be put into production because the cancellation of the YF-23 seems like a complete waste of time, money, and a cool lookin' airframe...

Tinito_16 · by **Tinito_16** » 06 Jun 2007, 01:18

I agree Afterburned. The YF-23 would be awsome for that role; and it probably wouldn't be a slouch at defending itself either! I think had Northrop put thrust vectoring and demostrated missile release in the DEM/VAL, it would've gotten the nod.

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 06 Jun 2007, 05:40

TVC wasnt needed as it already exceeded the maneuverability requirements with that huge tail

Tinito_16 · by **Tinito_16** » 06 Jun 2007, 17:27

Yeah but LM had other advantages as well

I think had the YF-23 really blown the YF-22 out of the water, it would be in production by now.

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 06 Jun 2007, 20:05

part of the decision was political too, the B-2 was late and WAY over a reasonable budget, the F-117 was on time and on budget.

falconrep · by **falconrep** » 06 Jun 2007, 21:11

I had the pleasure of working at Edwards at the turn of the Century, one of the YF23's was parked right beside the test cell where we tested all of the Pratt& Whitney Flight test engines. I was working the F100 program but spent a lot of my free time admiring the lines and beauty of the YF23. Far and away a better looking A/C than the F22. I did see a note in here that the F23 wasn't supposed to have vectoring nozzles, but my recollection was both flight test jets used the same engine which does have pitch vectoring nozzles. Nothing like we used in the F-15B Active Jet, which were Pitch and Yaw.
The YF23 just looked like you didn't WANT to see it when it was angry. The F22 dosen't have that look about it, maybe it was just time for a kinder gentler killing machine?
One day I went to work and the YF23 was gone, never knew where they took it, but I missed having it there.

Tinito_16 · by **Tinito_16** » 06 Jun 2007, 23:47

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:part of the decision was political too, the B-2 was late and WAY over a reasonable budget, the F-117 was on time and on budget.

The irony...

Afterburned · by **Afterburned** » 07 Jun 2007, 12:13

eh... I think the production raptor is a huge aesthetic improvement over the prototype... I thought that the YF-22 was ugly as sin, kind of dorky looking really, but now IMO the F-22A is up there in looks with the YF-23.

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 07 Jun 2007, 14:07

so imagine how sexy a production F-23 could have been?

Guysmiley · by **Guysmiley** » 07 Jun 2007, 16:14

Good thing the fly-off wasn't about looks. Can you imagine a group of generals sitting around arguing about which prototype looks cooler? "No! This one is totally more AWESOME than that ugly POS!" "Nu-uh, THIS one is the coolest!"

I have faith that the testing criteria was more involved than that. But the YF-23 was one bad-a#% looking machine.

Afterburned · by **Afterburned** » 07 Jun 2007, 17:49

hahaha yea imagine that... "the YF-XX supercruises at mach six... but the YF-YY looks siiiiiiiiick... YF-YY it is!"
seriously though a lot of yf-23 fans out there, while probably not on this forum, base their opinion on looks alone. $hits weak.

parrothead · by **parrothead** » 07 Jun 2007, 18:07

Hey, I know it's a bit, :offtopic:

, but I was hoping the'd base the JSF competition on looks - imagine if we'd wound up with the Boeing :shock:

!

Tinito_16 · by **Tinito_16** » 07 Jun 2007, 20:18

parrothead wrote:Hey, I know it's a bit, , but I was hoping the'd base the JSF competition on looks - imagine if we'd wound up with the Boeing !

You know, they called the X-32 the "Monica". I wonder why...