YF-22 vs YF-23

charlielima223 · by **charlielima223** » 03 Sep 2017, 06:29

can't believe after years people are still talking about this and some have butt hurt over the FACT the YF-22 won and went on to be the F-22 and the YF-23 lost...

I think all this talk about "what ifs" is fine but some people over the interwebs take it seriously (thankfully not here though :-D

)

In any case here is are two YF-23 pilots and a walk around of a mockup...

Walk around
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU8gWgz9n4U&t=896s

Presentation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpkv1ErWIf8&t=2s

count_to_10 · by **count_to_10** » 03 Sep 2017, 13:14

charlielima223 wrote:can't believe after years people are still talking about this and some have butt hurt over the FACT the YF-22 won and went on to be the F-22 and the YF-23 lost...

I think all this talk about "what ifs" is fine but some people over the interwebs take it seriously (thankfully not here though )

In any case here is are two YF-23 pilots and a walk around of a mockup...

Walk around
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU8gWgz9n4U&t=896s

Presentation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpkv1ErWIf8&t=2s

Let's be honest: it's all about looks. The performance of the two aircraft probably would not have been significantly different, but the YF-23 just looked so much better than the the YF-22 that we want to imagine it won.
Kind of the opposite of what happened in the JSF competition. Not many fans lamenting the loser there.

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 03 Sep 2017, 17:13

Boy you can say that again, LOL

The YF-23a was like an art sculpture. And deadly one at that. I have no doubt the final version would have looked even better, and for sure would have been more lethal. They would have worked out the wrinkles in those GE engines, came up with a much better tiles/heat management system and of course, weapons bay.

I hope the F-119 got tech transfer from the F-120, perhaps that's what explains the Raptor's mach 1.8 super-cruise...

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 03 Sep 2017, 19:23

mixelflick wrote:The YF-23a was like an art sculpture.

That is one thing NOBODY will ever say about the X-32 in the X-35 v X-32 debate. :mrgreen:

juretrn · by **juretrn** » 03 Sep 2017, 20:13

YF-23 looks?
It wasn't bad, but I must say I'm really partial towards the (Y)F-22's more "angular" appearance.
Fact is, she's a very photogenic one!

[obligatory F-22 porn]

disconnectedradical · by **disconnectedradical** » 03 Sep 2017, 21:22

mixelflick wrote:
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)...

How do I begin...

The AN/APG-77 was a Westinghouse/Texas Instruments design, and both the Northrop and Lockheed ATF teams chose the Westinghouse/Texas Instruments design over the Hughes/General Electric design. Incidentally Westinghouse was acquired by Northrop, I believe.

And no, the YF-23's speed is more than just engines, since the YF-22 had the same engines. The GE YF120 and P&W YF119 are separate and NOT related. The F-23 probably would've had better overall supersonic performance than F-22. The F-22 got faster than the YF-22 because the rear fuselage was slimmed down considerably, since thrust reversers were deleted, and the overall shape was refined to reduce wave drag.

A lot of the simple questions you're asking can be answered if you just read published material on the ATF that's been out for more than a decade, like this one.
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/4.867910

madrat · by **madrat** » 03 Sep 2017, 21:35

YF-23 looks like Rockwell's ATF concept art and Lockheed's YF-12A had a baby.

KamenRiderBlade · by **KamenRiderBlade** » 04 Sep 2017, 19:50

The rear of the YF-23 was overly complicated, if they had a exhaust design similar to the F-35's LOAN, it would've had a better chance of winning.

charlielima223 · by **charlielima223** » 04 Sep 2017, 20:58

KamenRiderBlade wrote:The rear of the YF-23 was overly complicated, if they had a exhaust design similar to the F-35's LOAN, it would've had a better chance of winning.

From my understanding it was designed that way to better mask and absorb heat better...

(item 39)

I remember way back when I was just a "weeone" reading about how the YF-23 used the same (or similar) heat tiles that the space shuttle uses. I would assume that would have increased the cost of maintenance over the course of the aircraft's service life.

count_to_10 · by **count_to_10** » 04 Sep 2017, 21:51

KamenRiderBlade wrote:The rear of the YF-23 was overly complicated, if they had a exhaust design similar to the F-35's LOAN, it would've had a better chance of winning.

I think there is a problem doing that with a twin engine aircraft--you have to consider interference and how the radio waves bounce off both.

alloycowboy · by **alloycowboy** » 05 Sep 2017, 01:43

You know you guys keeping talking out of your a$$ for another month or you could check out this presntation by Northop's Tony Chong.

https://youtu.be/uUNLf9OfWDA

milosh · by **milosh** » 05 Sep 2017, 20:02

charlielima223 wrote:I remember way back when I was just a "weeone" reading about how the YF-23 used the same (or similar) heat tiles that the space shuttle uses. I would assume that would have increased the cost of maintenance over the course of the aircraft's service life.

This is common misconception, YF-23 doesn't use similar tiles as Space Shuttle. YF-23 tiles are very complex construction titanium tiles:
https://youtu.be/iU8gWgz9n4U?t=933

KamenRiderBlade · by **KamenRiderBlade** » 06 Sep 2017, 02:01

count_to_10 wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:The rear of the YF-23 was overly complicated, if they had a exhaust design similar to the F-35's LOAN, it would've had a better chance of winning.

I think there is a problem doing that with a twin engine aircraft--you have to consider interference and how the radio waves bounce off both.

That depends on the reconfiguration with a LOAN nozzle, will there be a fixed structure in the middle like the PAKFA with a rear pointy bit, or will the Nozzles be Side by Side.

I'm for having a structure in the middle to help create a larger internal structure for internal weapons bay.

Also having the LOAN Nozzle reflect the Radio waves off a larger fixed central structure makes it easier to calculate / control the Radar Signature off reflection, including the V-Tail.

zero-one · by **zero-one** » 12 Sep 2018, 13:34

Interesting article on the ATF competition
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-b ... uilt-14328

Noticed a few things. Its often said that the YF-23 was superior in the following ways.
-Stealth
-Speed
-Supercurise
-Range

While the YF-22 was better in:
-maneuverability
-reliability
-cost

However this article seems to have a few interesting quotes

In fact operational Raptor pilots tell me that it’s not very useful during real world missions. “Supercruise is impressive on paper but not very practical in a fighter with limited fuel,” a senior Air Force F-22 pilot said. “I would much rather have an aircraft that accelerates and gains energy back quickly than one that supercruises.”

So are they implying that the F-22 had better acceleration and energy retention numbers than the YF-23. Even if they never flew the 23, I would imagine they have access to the classified E-M charts

The YF-23—contrary to popular belief—did not have an overall top speed that was any faster than the YF-22. Both jets were limited to an aerodynamic max speed of about Mach 2.2 as a result of their fixed-ramp external compression inlets. In fact, operational F-22 Raptors are “red lined” at exactly Mach 2.0 with an artificial placard because the aircraft’s stealth coating are prone to delamination if the jet went any faster—particularly around the canopy.

So it wasn't faster
But it would still have better range although I would doubt the production model will retain the range of the YF-23 prototype.

Production models are always heavier than the prototypes so we may be looking at a combat radius closer to 500 or 600 NM rather than the 750- 800 nm

Lastly Both the YF-119 and 120 were deemed next generation engines.
We know that the YF-120 used a 3rd stream similar to Advent.

But what about the YF-119, is it just an improved version of the current F-100 series or is there more to it?

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 12 Sep 2018, 15:47

I would suggest there's a LOT more to it (F-119) vs. being just an up rated F-100.

As far as the YF-23A's top speed goes, I'm hearing conflicting things. On the one hand, you say here where it wasn't substantially faster than the YF-22A. Yet in more than one youtube documentary, officials that had worked on the YF-23A said it was a LOT faster vs. the YF-22A.

So who knows what the truth is. I'm leaning toward the fact it was a lot faster, but we'll never know. Let's just hope they do PCA right. I predict Northrup will lead with a scaled up YF-23a type airframe. If so, will be fun to watch the whole thing unfold..