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 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1182
  • 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.
Offline

white_lightning35

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 249
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07

Unread post30 Aug 2017, 20:15

mixelflick wrote: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:


False. Pierre Sprey would say sidewinders always miss, are obsolete, and could be taken out with a .22 bullet.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 538
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44

Unread post31 Aug 2017, 00:19

mixelflick wrote: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..


Treating China as the "obvious enemy" right after the Soviet Union collapsed is completely bull and predicates on having a magic crystal ball. Remember the Chinese didn't even have a 4th generation aircraft until after the mid-90s when they got their hands on the Su-27SK. Who knew back in the early 90s that the Chinese would develop nearly this quickly? I bet in the early 90s if you said that China would be producing their 5th generation fighter faster than Russia, people would think you've gone off the deep end.

Regardless of theater, the F-23 probably would've been the better plane.
Offline

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 306
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post31 Aug 2017, 00:58

disconnectedradical wrote:Treating China as the "obvious enemy" right after the Soviet Union collapsed is completely bull and predicates on having a magic crystal ball.


The US and the West more broadly were selling some weapons to China in the 1980s, before relations broke off after the student protests at Tiananmen Square.

Remember the Chinese didn't even have a 4th generation aircraft until after the mid-90s when they got their hands on the Su-27SK. Who knew back in the early 90s that the Chinese would develop nearly this quickly? I bet in the early 90s if you said that China would be producing their 5th generation fighter faster than Russia, people would think you've gone off the deep end.


Exactly. I see some comments on here that do not give China the benefit of the doubt that it can come up with some amazing military tech in the 2030s. The US will not always hold a large technology lead if it does not spend extensively to support that lead. The US is spending a lot of money on next gen fighter aircraft and on ballistic missile defense but seemingly less on anti-submarine warfare and ground vehicles, for example.
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1683
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post31 Aug 2017, 02:58

That's because the average guy doesn't give China credit for it's sheer population size and the existential threat it poses to the world's population. China's combination of raw size and talent is a fierce threat to all of its neighbors both near and far. The population is mathematically going to proliferate geniuses at a higher rate than most other whole continents let alone any other single country, even statistically greater than India although the populations are quite similar. China, like Russia, spread its political network via ethnicity. The ethnicity of China is more dominate to one group than probably any other country in the world, and because of it's isolated nature enjoys no meddling from the outside world for being 'too Chinese'. It's ironic that a systematic attack on European and the United States political systems is based upon 'being too white' when the reality is there is no single white ethnicity. However, China has an overly dominant Han ethnic population compromising greater than 90% of China's population. The population is so dominant in the region that the Chinese government - long before it became communist - has in the recent several centuries literally replaced whole populations in the countries it's neighbored through mass immigration, invaded the political machines of those neighbors, and subsequently gave protection to protect it's Chinese ethnic members because they were 'asked'. Ironically, the original population being now a minority has zero say in such matters. This aggressive historical practice is over a millennium long. And the ruling party perpetuates the myth that it is right and just for the Chinese to continue to use this strategy to dominate the world.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4343
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post31 Aug 2017, 03:40

disconnectedradical wrote:Treating China as the "obvious enemy" right after the Soviet Union collapsed is completely bull and predicates on having a magic crystal ball.


I was right there with them. And I didn't believe for a second they were buying a "casino".
"There I was. . ."
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1683
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post31 Aug 2017, 04:15

The YF-22 won. It's over. No amount of reminiscing what coulda-shoulda-woulda is going to change that.

disconnectedradical wrote:Treating China as the "obvious enemy" right after the Soviet Union collapsed is completely bull and predicates on having a magic crystal ball.


Did you sleep during history class? China has always been a regional threat. The cultures around it literally formed as defenses to their rapid and aggressive imperialism. The sad reality is that China has waged a systematic war trying to win the minds of American intellectuals. This has been going on for several decades and was well documented when I wasn't even yet a teenager. But somehow the babyboomers that predated my generation was asleep during all this public group thought in American society originating from the 'greatest generation' that came before it. How they missed the obvious cues that China was just as if not more dangerous than Russia simply escapes my comprehension. The flower child and moonbat dumbasses in the babyboomer generation obviously had no idea the history of the region even though many had parents that fought in Korea and many of themselves had fought in Vietnam. Just uneffff-ing believable.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3156
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post31 Aug 2017, 12:21

There are some indications that an early version of the F-35's sensors and avionics would have been included on the F-23, which could have given it more capability, but also might have significantly delayed development.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6975
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post31 Aug 2017, 15:44

Why would that have affected its schedule any more than the sensors on the F-22?

In a related note, I think the smartest thing that the DoD could do is mandate the F-35 Avionics suite on the PCA and B-21.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

dsc

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2017, 05:57

Unread post31 Aug 2017, 15:59

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..
...


Yeah true, the YF-23 met the the requirements for maneuverability... But i think in more or less the same way the YF-22 also met the stealth requirements.
And still, tbh, i think people overrate a bit the YF-23's maneuverability. I mean, at least regarding slow speed maneuverability...

First and foremost, AFAIK, 2 ruddervators/stabs are not better than a 4 stabilizer dedicated typical/conventional (2 horizontal and 2 vertical stabs) layout the YF-22/F-22 has.

And second, no matter how big ruddervators/stabs can be, at low airspeeds, they never work as good as TVC for control and directional purposes.


mixelflick wrote:...
The large ruddervators allowed for thrust vectoring like maneuvers.

Who said that?
Ok, some northrop or MD guys might have said, yeah... but it's all in theory...

According to this video here, the YF-23 max AoA in test flights was 25 degrees (At 37:35 into the video):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpkv1ErWIf8

Who knows if the YF-23 could really go much beyond that and maneuver in total control like the YF-22/F-22 can do...
IMHO, i really don't think it's ruddervators allowed for thrust vectoring like maneuvers...
In the best case, it could perform only at F-35 level. But that's me and my thoughts...


mixelflick wrote:...
Not hard to imagine, given the Super Hornet can perform the same. See also: 2017 F-35 Paris display..
...


It's not that simple.
Neither the Super Hornet nor the F-35 can perform the same type of maneuvers that thrust vectoring aircraft like the F-22, X-31, F-16 VISTA, some Flankers, etc.., could/can perform.

C'mon, you surely know there are lots of maneuvers the F-22 can perform but the Super Hornet or the F-35 cannot.

Aircraft with TVC usually have no AoA limits, or have a very high AoA limit.

In the F-35 is "just" 50 degrees, and in the Super Hornet is even lower than that if i'm not mistaken.
Which yeah, it's pretty high/good if you compare them with F-16's, F-15's or Typhoon's for example.
But clearly below of what TVC equipped aircraft can do.

And the F-35 performance at Paris air show you mentioned also proves my point.
Do you really see the F-35 doing those maneuvers the same way the F-22 performs them?!

You can see that in the mini/semi, kinda pedal turn the F-35 performed: compared to what the F-22 usually does, it was wider in radius, the nose was pointing more towards the ground, and it was short-lived...

I think it was impressive... but just because it's a non TVC aircraft.

If the YF-23 was capable of the doing the same the F-35 is capable of, then i would be impressed with the YF-23 slow speed/high AoA, maneuvering capablities as well.

But i think you get my point:
The same way the F-35 is incapable of performing J-Turns, cobras, power loops, etc..., IMO the YF-23 is incapable too.

But who knows...
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 538
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44

Unread post02 Sep 2017, 02:03

sferrin wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:Treating China as the "obvious enemy" right after the Soviet Union collapsed is completely bull and predicates on having a magic crystal ball.


I was right there with them. And I didn't believe for a second they were buying a "casino".


The "casino" excuse was ridiculously transparent. But back in the early 90s what made you think China would develop as quickly as they are now, enough to warrant them as the next obvious adversary?
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1683
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post02 Sep 2017, 02:48

Something tells me the YF-23 would have adopted TVC if there was a multiple round tender. Same thing, YF-22,would have adopted any superior features of YF-23. Sure the competitors would have ended up with a homogenized - maybe even a generic commodity style - results, but is that a bad thing?
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 764
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post02 Sep 2017, 03:58

madrat wrote:Something tells me the YF-23 would have adopted TVC if there was a multiple round tender. Same thing, YF-22,would have adopted any superior features of YF-23. Sure the competitors would have ended up with a homogenized - maybe even a generic commodity style - results, but is that a bad thing?


I disagree given Billy Flynn's recent comments on thurst vectoring during his recent interview with aviation week I don't think the F-23 would had thrust vectoring. Billy Flynn was invoved in much of the thrust vectoring. See the interview.....

http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/podca ... ilots-view
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1683
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post02 Sep 2017, 05:36

The thing is, right or wrong, the engineer doesn't pick the winner or the design specs.

If the TVC was a cited reason for one design strength over another, he does add it. If the engineer wants to work he holds his opinions - or his nose in some cases - and gives the customer what they wanted.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1677
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post02 Sep 2017, 17:31

madrat wrote:Something tells me the YF-23 would have adopted TVC if there was a multiple round tender. Same thing, YF-22,would have adopted any superior features of YF-23. Sure the competitors would have ended up with a homogenized - maybe even a generic commodity style - results, but is that a bad thing?


Speaking of which, do what know what transferred from the YF-23a to the F-22?

First I heard it was the YF-23a's blistering speed. Now I'm hearing about engines... which I assume is related? It seemed the YF-23a's speed/stealth advantage was related more to shape, but maybe I'm wrong?

Anyone know what else transferred from bird to bird (besides Metz, LOL)...
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests