YF-22 vs YF-23

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4748
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post08 Jun 2007, 04:39

well, it did have a gaping mouth
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

slicktry

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 56
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2007, 02:15

Unread post15 Aug 2007, 21:17

After going thru this thread, does anyone know which plane has the longest range, i/e carries more fuel and/or uses less? Just from the stuff viewed here, it looks like the military is completely political. Sad, but I guess that is what freedom allows.

God Bless
Jer
Offline

fox100

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2007, 16:00

Unread post16 Aug 2007, 11:59

VPRGUY wrote:Ok, so what does everyone think about this one- some people have claimed the YF-23 was a better airplane than the YF-22. If we can look strictly at the prototypes (YF models), which do you guys think was the better airplane? I know there will be talk of "well they saw down the road the -22 could do this and this and this and this while the -23 could only do this and this", but when they were going head to head, what was really the better jet?


Ok, its a hangover morning... So what the hell, lets beat this dead horse into bloody dog food...

YF-22 = more balanced aircraft; good at turning at low and high airspeeds, exceeded cruise velocity reqirements, could fend off anything from F-16 to the latest SAMs. Met the LO requirements in both EM and IR.

YF-23 was optimized for high altitude turning and airspeeds and for RCS and IR supression. Its obvious since the wings are god damned big on that thing, that at really high altitudes it can turn tighter than most anything else flying even today (F-22 may be able to do so because of tv nozzels). In that 10-30k.ft altitudes it could probably play with anything else flying at the time except for the YF-22.

The USAF took a gamble on devloping the ATB (by Nrthrp) and they didn't want to gamble on their frontline fighter. Much like the catarmaran USN carriers that were being drawn up circa 1984-5, the USN didn't want to gamble on their carriers and go with an entirely new design, and the USAF didn't want to gamble on its fighter. Personally, the USN I beklieve should have picked up on that YF-23 rather than fool around with flting dorito chip.

Essentially, the F-22 is a "stealthy" F-15 with supercruise, better turning, & longer legs. We all know the success of the F-15, so think of the F-22 and F-15 for the 21st century. The air foce wanted a conservative design since about 1983 and the F-22 of today looks "exactly" like USAF released artwork from 1983.
Offline

ANYTIMEBABY!

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 15 May 2007, 14:18

Unread post16 Aug 2007, 12:58

Can we bring back th F-23 and NAVALIZE IT! We need a real frontline fighter so the world will fear and respect us once again...lol.... FLY NAVY....18 isnt cuttin it........
Offline

awin266

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2007, 06:17

Unread post29 Aug 2007, 06:52

ANYTIMEBABY! wrote:Can we bring back th F-23 and NAVALIZE IT! We need a real frontline fighter so the world will fear and respect us once again...lol.... FLY NAVY....18 isnt cuttin it........
One more point on the selection of the YF-22 over the YF-23; the naval requirement. The U.S. Navy was part of the selection process as the NATF program was still active and tied to the ATF. It is understood the U.S. Navy personnel were NOT happy with the idea of an F-23 coming in slow, high AOA, high sink rate for a trap on the carrier. The F-22 was deemed as more suitable to carrier operation, with its more conventional tail surfaces and better low-speed handling qualities. As it was, the U.S. Navy abandoned the NATF not long after selection of the winning design, leaving the U.S. Air Force to foot the bill for delevopment and production of the ATF. The U.S. Navy took their funds and sunk them into the ATA stealth attack program, which was eventually killed by Dick Cheney after BILLIONS in development money got the U.S. Navy not even a prototype aircraft. So, the U.S. Navy took what funding it could scrape up (beg for) and developed the "Super"Hornet, all the U.S. Navy could afford after blowing the NATF and ATA programs. Although the F-22 is a great fighter, I believe Northrop got hosed with the ATF selection, and as usual, we taxpayers get to grin and bear it with the reduced production run getting the U.S. Air Force each Raptor at the bargain price of $339 million with development costs included. I just shake my head is disbelief that the U.S. Navy could screw the tactical aircraft procurement pooch this bad.
Offline

avon1944

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 406
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2004, 02:03

Unread post10 Dec 2007, 18:58

fox100 wrote:Personally, the USN I beklieve should have picked up on that YF-23 rather than fool around with flting dorito chip.

I am a fan of the YF-23 but, the USAF did not want another project with Northrop that has real cost over run problems like the B-2 had. Lockeed did a lot more extensive testing than Northrop and the USAF had more confidence in Lockeed's ability to meet the objectives.

fox100 wrote:Essentially, the F-22 is a "stealthy" F-15 with supercruise, better turning, & longer legs.

The F-22A is more than an F-15 on steroids! The F-22 brings a whole new way of aerial warfare. It not only brings the elements of surprise back to aerial warfare but, it allows the USAF to enter the fight quickly and exist before the bad guys can respond.

fox100 wrote:The air foce wanted a conservative design since about 1983 and the F-22 of today looks "exactly" like USAF released artwork from 1983.

In July of 1987 Lockeed redesigned the F-22! Previously the YF-22 looked like a modified F-117. After October 1987, the YF-22 looks like the F-22A that we know today.
The USAF was not looking for a conservative design, what they wanted was an aircraft that could deal with any future opponent, any potential altitude or, speed. If their new fighter could not fight effectively and low speed and or altitude.... there could be a perceived weakness that could be exploited.

Sorry the photo came out to large.

Adrian
Attachments
YF-22_OrigDes-1.jpg
Offline

_Viper_

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 91
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006, 10:53

Unread post25 Jan 2008, 23:13

If YF-23 would have beaten YF-22 this link could probably show the final production unit. Pretty-looking machine indeed.

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?page=9 8)
Offline

RobertCook

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 134
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2004, 21:20

Unread post26 Jan 2008, 02:21

_Viper_ wrote:If YF-23 would have beaten YF-22 this link could probably show the final production unit. Pretty-looking machine indeed.

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?page=9 8)


This model simply looks like a YF-23 with an F-22-like paint job. From what I've heard and read, the production F-23 would have had a slimmer, possibly more rounded aft section, modified intakes, and a rather different weapon bay configuration (most likely an additional short-range AAM bay ahead of a reduced-depth main bay).
Offline

end

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 09:19

Unread post26 Jan 2008, 10:19

here is an interesting one
Image
I think therefor I am
Offline

_Viper_

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 91
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006, 10:53

Unread post26 Jan 2008, 10:34

RobertCook wrote:
_Viper_ wrote:If YF-23 would have beaten YF-22 this link could probably show the final production unit. Pretty-looking machine indeed.

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?page=9 8)


This model simply looks like a YF-23 with an F-22-like paint job. From what I've heard and read, the production F-23 would have had a slimmer, possibly more rounded aft section, modified intakes, and a rather different weapon bay configuration (most likely an additional short-range AAM bay ahead of a reduced-depth main bay).
That is true. I remember reading that Northrop never realeased any official info about the final production unit. But I would expect that these things that you mentioned are correct.
Offline

cywolf32

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 623
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2005, 12:04
  • Location: USA

Unread post29 Jan 2008, 13:50

http://www.fas.org/spp/aircraft/part06.htm

This is pretty old, but still gives a good explanation for the USAF picking the 22 over the 23 and the balance between stealth vs. abilities. :D
Offline

ChairRepair

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 20:07

Unread post29 Jan 2008, 17:13

I remember watching the fly offs at Edwards during my time there. I do not recall an F-23 crashing, I do remember watching an F-22 doing the Porpoise into the runway on a bright and early Saturday morning.....due to the heat coming up off the runway and the over corrections of the flight controls. One of the deciding factors of selection was the fact the F-22 did a weapons shot, and the F-23 did not!
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4748
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post30 Jan 2008, 13:56

ChairRepair wrote:I remember watching the fly offs at Edwards during my time there. I do not recall an F-23 crashing, I do remember watching an F-22 doing the Porpoise into the runway on a bright and early Saturday morning.....due to the heat coming up off the runway and the over corrections of the flight controls. One of the deciding factors of selection was the fact the F-22 did a weapons shot, and the F-23 did not!


Much like how for JSF the X-35 did a STO-supersonic-VL transition and the X-32 COULD NOT.
Offline

Scorpion1alpha

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 1659
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:47

Unread post29 Feb 2008, 07:11

ChairRepair wrote:One of the deciding factors of selection was the fact the F-22 did a weapons shot, and the F-23 did not!


"One" is an understatement.

Certainly there were quite a few factors that favored Lockheed/Boeing/(and then) GD and their design. I'm not saying Northrop isn't a good company and didn't design a great ATF, but I believe then SECAF Don Rice made the right decision.

All other talk about coulda/whadda/shoulda is pointless.
Offline

theheik

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2008, 02:34

Unread post02 Nov 2008, 02:46

hmmm...
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pron and 10 guests