YF-22 vs YF-23

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

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2033
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post17 Jul 2015, 12:07

Thank you very much for all your helpful insights. Just to recap what I read,

the YF-120 was a revolutionary variable cycle engine that offered more thrust than it's more conventional low bypass turbofan YF119 counterpart.

The YF-119 on the otherhand was simply a very powerful low bypass turbofan similar to legacy the F100 series but manages to produce
far more thrust with fewer compression stages. It was also more reliable, able to whitstand very high core temperatures probably due to advanced materials.
In order to match the performance requirements of the more advanced YF-120, PW produced a larger fan, effectively making one of the
most powerful turbofan installed on a Fighter to date.

In light of this, it looks like GE won the performance criteria but PW won the reliability and risk mitigation.
PW would later go on and match the YF-120's performance with a larger fan.

But how would this affect performance at high altitude where the Variable cycle engines have certain advantages?
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3185
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post18 Jul 2015, 23:26

I think if the air force is honest with themselves, when they look at the YF-23a - they see only regret.

The F-22 is a magnificent bird, but the 23 had so much more potential IMO. Speed, legs and avionics/weapons growth in particular. May very well be the Raptors achilles heel (legs), especially in the Pacific theater...
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5231
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post18 Jul 2015, 23:59

mixelflick wrote:I think if the air force is honest with themselves, when they look at the YF-23a - they see only regret.

The F-22 is a magnificent bird, but the 23 had so much more potential IMO. Speed, legs and avionics/weapons growth in particular. May very well be the Raptors achilles heel (legs), especially in the Pacific theater...


Yeah but you just know "*GASP* breaking news, the USAF has been covering up the fact that the new, most expensive fighter in history, can't do a Cobra at the airshow" would have spewed forth from the Basement Dweller crowd. Because, you know, "a REAL man's fighter would have thrust vectoring and be able to do a Cobra." They'd have went on about "Northrop, not satisfied with only making the most expensive bomber in history now ups the ante to create the most expensive fighter in history". God, I f--king HATE stupid people.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

charlielima223

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 972
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post19 Jul 2015, 01:19

mixelflick wrote:I think if the air force is honest with themselves, when they look at the YF-23a - they see only regret.

The F-22 is a magnificent bird, but the 23 had so much more potential IMO. Speed, legs and avionics/weapons growth in particular. May very well be the Raptors achilles heel (legs), especially in the Pacific theater...


This always comes up :bang:

Its more supposition than anything else. Had the YF-23 been picked over the YF-22 it would have most likely run into the same political and economical problems as the F-22 had. The F-22 had shown that it clearly out performs the Wests best fighter at the time (F-15) and it still had to paddle up the s13rr@ hotel 1nd1@ tang0 stream known as politics.

As far as the avionics is concerned I think the YF-22 showed more maturity over the YF-23. For one the YF-22 was able to successfully deploy a Sidewinder and AMRAAM during the Demonstration Evaluation phase. Another is the cockpit. The YF-22's cockpit was a completely new design (eventually the F-22's cockpit would be similar to F-16's cockpit layout). To reduce cost and ease of manufacturing the YF-23 had a modified F-15E cockpit. With avionics growth that is again supposition. What the F-22 today has now is not what the USAF had envisioned. Some would say that the F-22 in some ways the F-22 had been neutered. Who is to say that the same thing wouldn't have happened to the "F-23"?

The fact is that both aircraft met and exceeded the standard the USAF put out. The timing was just bad. Had the YF-23 been picked over the YF-22 I don't believe that things would have been any different. You'd still have uneducated putzes going against it (POGO and the one of the most famous Delta-Foxtrot/blue falcon; Pierre Sprey). You would still have a shift in politics and economics. You would still have a down size in the US military.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7676
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post19 Jul 2015, 01:39

mixelflick wrote:I think if the air force is honest with themselves, when they look at the YF-23a - they see only regret.

The F-22 is a magnificent bird, but the 23 had so much more potential IMO. Speed, legs and avionics/weapons growth in particular. May very well be the Raptors achilles heel (legs), especially in the Pacific theater...

I've never come across any report of the AF expressing buyer's remorse over the selection of the YF-22.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 843
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post19 Jul 2015, 06:21

mixelflick wrote:I think if the air force is honest with themselves, when they look at the YF-23a - they see only regret.

The F-22 is a magnificent bird, but the 23 had so much more potential IMO. Speed, legs and avionics/weapons growth in particular. May very well be the Raptors achilles heel (legs), especially in the Pacific theater...


After the testing I think they wanted them both :D Both aircraft had there strengths, what we ended up with was a fantastic, but expensive, aircraft that has yet to be matched 25 years after it's prototype flew.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2033
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post20 Jul 2015, 15:30

The USAF and the Northrop program managers had the same basic reaction when they saw the YF-22.
"it was obvious that Lockheed, emphasized agility on their prototype design"

So I'm not sure where everyone is getting the impression that Lockheed's design only offered better maneuverability
in the slow speed and post stall arena.

According to Paul Metz, the TV nozzles are very effective in maneuvering the aircraft at the supersonic regieme as well.

Lets say in hypothetical Universe the YF-23\GE-F120 got the Nod and the YF-22\PW-F119 was scrapped. Can you imagine
what everyone would be talking about?

Just for fun


-The YF-22 was clearely the better design, with Thrust vectoring and more control surfaces it was more maneuverable than what the YF-23 could ever be,

-the airforce always seems to revert back to the thinking that we will never get into close in engagements again which is why they
picked the better interceptor, not the better fighter.

-If the YF-22 was picked, we would not be stuck with all these F-23s that are always grounded

-I heared the engine of PW was more reliable, but wasn't as powerful as the GE engine

-PW was testing a new fan on their prototype to match GE's thrust output, without any of the reliability issues.

-The YF-23 was slightly faster but the YF-22 had a superior maneuvering envelope, frankly maneuverability is more useful in
an air to air engagement than top end speed. Most fights happen in the high subsonic region anyway which is well within the capabilities of the YF-22.

-Lockheed had always made incredible aircraft like the SR-71 which has a topspeed unchallanged to this day, what has Northrop
created? oh a $2B bomber and this F-23 that is just as good as a clean F-16 in high G performance and a SHornet in high AOA,

Russian Sukhoi pilots are probably feeling sorry for us by now.

Offline

charlielima223

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 972
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post20 Jul 2015, 16:02

zero-one wrote:Lets say in hypothetical Universe the YF-23\GE-F120 got the Nod and the YF-22\PW-F119 was scrapped. Can you imagine
what everyone would be talking about?

Just for fun


-The YF-22 was clearely the better design, with Thrust vectoring and more control surfaces it was more maneuverable than what the YF-23 could ever be,

-the airforce always seems to revert back to the thinking that we will never get into close in engagements again which is why they
picked the better interceptor, not the better fighter.

-If the YF-22 was picked, we would not be stuck with all these F-23s that are always grounded

-I heared the engine of PW was more reliable, but wasn't as powerful as the GE engine

-PW was testing a new fan on their prototype to match GE's thrust output, without any of the reliability issues.

-The YF-23 was slightly faster but the YF-22 had a superior maneuvering envelope, frankly maneuverability is more useful in
an air to air engagement than top end speed. Most fights happen in the high subsonic region anyway which is well within the capabilities of the YF-22.

-Lockheed had always made incredible aircraft like the SR-71 which has a topspeed unchallanged to this day, what has Northrop
created? oh a $2B bomber and this F-23 that is just as good as a clean F-16 in high G performance and a SHornet in high AOA,

Russian Sukhoi pilots are probably feeling sorry for us by now.



:) :-D :lol: :lmao: :thumb:
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1711
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post20 Jul 2015, 18:07

zero-one wrote:
-The YF-22 was clearely the better design, with Thrust vectoring and more control surfaces it was more maneuverable than what the YF-23 could ever be,

-the airforce always seems to revert back to the thinking that we will never get into close in engagements again which is why they
picked the better interceptor, not the better fighter.

..................



Nail on the head I think :thumb:
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3185
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post20 Jul 2015, 22:49

zero-one wrote:The USAF and the Northrop program managers had the same basic reaction when they saw the YF-22.
"it was obvious that Lockheed, emphasized agility on their prototype design"

So I'm not sure where everyone is getting the impression that Lockheed's design only offered better maneuverability
in the slow speed and post stall arena.

According to Paul Metz, the TV nozzles are very effective in maneuvering the aircraft at the supersonic regieme as well.

Lets say in hypothetical Universe the YF-23\GE-F120 got the Nod and the YF-22\PW-F119 was scrapped. Can you imagine
what everyone would be talking about?

Just for fun


Yeah this was good... :)
-The YF-22 was clearely the better design, with Thrust vectoring and more control surfaces it was more maneuverable than what the YF-23 could ever be,

-the airforce always seems to revert back to the thinking that we will never get into close in engagements again which is why they
picked the better interceptor, not the better fighter.

-If the YF-22 was picked, we would not be stuck with all these F-23s that are always grounded

-I heared the engine of PW was more reliable, but wasn't as powerful as the GE engine

-PW was testing a new fan on their prototype to match GE's thrust output, without any of the reliability issues.

-The YF-23 was slightly faster but the YF-22 had a superior maneuvering envelope, frankly maneuverability is more useful in
an air to air engagement than top end speed. Most fights happen in the high subsonic region anyway which is well within the capabilities of the YF-22.

-Lockheed had always made incredible aircraft like the SR-71 which has a topspeed unchallanged to this day, what has Northrop
created? oh a $2B bomber and this F-23 that is just as good as a clean F-16 in high G performance and a SHornet in high AOA,

Russian Sukhoi pilots are probably feeling sorry for us by now.

Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3281
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post29 Aug 2017, 01:24

Came across this article today and though "Eh, why not post it?" Of course, it took me a while to find this thread...
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... wins-22080
Stealth War: F-23 Stealth Fighter vs. the F-22 Raptor (Who Wins?)

I don't think there is much new of substance here, but I don't think I've seen the quotations before.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5231
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post29 Aug 2017, 15:33

zero-one wrote:-I heared the engine of PW was more reliable, but wasn't as powerful as the GE engine

-PW was testing a new fan on their prototype to match GE's thrust output, without any of the reliability issues.


You forgot the mandatory, "the F120's variable bypass is unproven and it's value is open to question. Pratt & Whitney says. . ." And you just know the "unproven" bull$hit line will get used on the 3-stream engines coming down the pike. As if anything could be "proven" before it's actually, you know, proven.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3185
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post30 Aug 2017, 15:17

OK I can appreciate your points about F-22 buyers remorse, but allow me to point out some very pertinent facts..

* The YF-23A (F-23A EMD) would have undoubtedly have far superior range. By any measure, longer legs are going to be necessary to successfully battle the Chinese in that region of the world. If that wasn't so, then you wouldn't see much greater range being baked in as a requirement for PCA...

* The F-22 is more maneuverable assumption. Question assumptions. What I've read was the the YF-23a more than met maneuverability requirements just not via thrust vectoring. The large ruddervators allowed for thrust vectoring like maneuvers. Not hard to imagine, given the Super Hornet can perform the same. See also: 2017 F-35 Paris display..

* Any engine/airframe issues would have been given the same long lead time as the Raptor benefited from. 1991 to an IOC of 2005 would have been plenty of time to resolve any airframe/engine issues.

So you'd have an undisputed greater supercruise (given F-22 fuel limitations vs the F-23), much longer range, sufficiently similar sub/super-sonic maneuverability and likely a more robust avionics/weapons load.

I dunno. It just seems that post 1991 Gulf War/demise of the USSR, the obvious enemy should have been China, but instead we opted for the cold war fighter designed to win a war with Russia. At the very least, we could have re-worked the Raptor's combat radius requirements to more accurately reflect the likely south china sea theater it'd be fighting in..

Then again, we have always enjoyed a robust tanker force. Perhaps that's why they decided to compromise on the Raptor's range..
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3185
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post30 Aug 2017, 17:26

Plus, I just consulted Pierre Sprey. He says both aircraft are turkeys, and only having thousands of F-16's (the a model day only fighter) with sidewinders is going to fix this...

Time to raid the boneyard! :mrgreen:
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2033
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post30 Aug 2017, 19:53

mixelflick wrote:
* The YF-23A (F-23A EMD) would have undoubtedly have far superior range. By any measure, longer legs are going to be necessary to successfully battle the Chinese in that region of the world. If that wasn't so, then you wouldn't see much greater range being baked in as a requirement for PCA...


I believe it was Paul Metz who said that when the ATF program was being conceptualized, the engineers on both sides said "Speed, Maneuverability and Range, you can only choose 2"

To me it looks more like a scale of 1-10 for each category (speed, maneuverability and range) but you are only given 20 points total. LM may have went for 8 on Maneuver, 7 on Speed and just 5 on Range.

But in the end your right, the USAF knows they have the most number of tankers and the ability to protect them close to the AO. So sacrifices on range can be justified.


mixelflick wrote:* The F-22 is more maneuverable assumption. Question assumptions. What I've read was the the YF-23a more than met maneuverability requirements just not via thrust vectoring. The large ruddervators allowed for thrust vectoring like maneuvers. Not hard to imagine, given the Super Hornet can perform the same. See also: 2017 F-35 Paris display..


Watching the documentary about the YF-23, upon first glance of the YF-22 even Northrop engineers said that it was clear that Lockheed leaned more towards creating a more agile aircraft. But you are still right, both planes exceeded the maneuvering requirements set by the DOD.

Anyway, what ever LM did to double down on the maneuverability category is the same thing that Northrop did when they double downed on the Speed category. The Yf-23 was faster but LM also met the speed requirements.

mixelflick wrote:* Any engine/airframe issues would have been given the same long lead time as the Raptor benefited from. 1991 to an IOC of 2005 would have been plenty of time to resolve any airframe/engine issues.


No argument there

mixelflick wrote:So you'd have an undisputed greater supercruise (given F-22 fuel limitations vs the F-23), much longer range, sufficiently similar sub/super-sonic maneuverability and likely a more robust avionics/weapons load.


I would agree except I wouldn't be so sure that it would have "much greater range" it could have been greater, I'm just not sure about the "much" part, Some sources peg the Combat radius of the YF-22 at 700 nmi and the YF-23 at 800 nmi, so yeah, theres an improvement there. It would still need tankers for China though.

Avionics and weapons? How would the YF-23 have better Avionics and weapons? The Avionics suit of either the YF-22 or 23 would have been the same.

Both would also carry the same types of weapons. They would have exactly the same Avionics and weapons.

mixelflick wrote:It would of had greater speed than the F-22 even if both
I dunno. It just seems that post 1991 Gulf War/demise of the USSR, the obvious enemy should have been China, but instead we opted for the cold war fighter designed to win a war with Russia. At the very least, we could have re-worked the Raptor's combat radius requirements to more accurately reflect the likely south china sea theater it'd be fighting in..


The Raptor is the best as it is, the range problem is easily countered by having tankers which are already there and have been used effectively even in high threat environments. You can add more range by having tankers and EFTs, but you can't add more speed and maneuverability once you've reached your limits.

How many times in combat and in training have pilots wished they had more maneuverability but the plane just won't deliver.

I know that SA is king and most WVR engagements don't really involve much turning anymore. But if the time comes that you do need it, like when your 9X misses, then its good to know that you can turn and burn with late model Flankers just in case.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: energo and 12 guests