YF-22 vs YF-23

[milosh]

F-22 lost volume over YF-22 especially in rear fuselage and is also a bit shorter.

But is still 10,000 lbs heavier

F-23 is actually longer than YF-23 and looking at cross sections the fuselage volume increased especially at middle.

Hence will be much heavier.

Why are you obsessed with making F-22 best at everything? It's a great aircraft but it's not magically unbeatable.

the YF-22 prototype beat the YF-23 and post above clearly says why. I'm not saying its undefeatable but it is better than than anything in service in A-A and better than a fictional F-23 variant.

F-22 and YF-22 material wise are similar, F-23 and YF-23 aren't. F-23 would be plastic plane (over 50% of plane weight would be composites). YF-23 was metal plane. So we can't use F-22 and YF-22 analogy.

YF-22 was more agile that is sure but YF-23 had much better supersonic range, this was confirmed by Northrop ATF folks, YF-23 could do whole sortie flying supersonic and F-23 would be even better because it would carry more fuel then YF-23.

[disconnectedradical]

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24 ... ompetition

Modeler used the F-23 diagrams to show what the production aircraft would've looked like.

Unlike F-22, F-23 tails are placed far back so are not blanked out even at high AOA, which is why it can reach 60 degrees AOA even without thrust vectoring. F-22 is a fine aircraft but F-23 would've been better in most cases. Shame that McDonnell Douglas dropped the ball with the manufacturing and management plan.

[mixelflick]

This debate will never die, and it's easy to see why - both are eye watering aircraft.

Whether you prefer one or the other, the fact is the US was flying not 1, but 2 stealth fighters more capable than anything flying today, almost 30 years ago!. We wound up with the F-22, without question the most capable air dominance fighter today, and likely for the next 20 years. The F-23 would have been equally capable, probably better suited to the SCS scenario but also might have been more expensive, resulting in even fewer than 187 airframes.

I do believe the F-23 would have been as maneuverable, even without the thrust vectoring. Look at the F-35, performing thrust vector like maneuvers without thrust vectoring. The F-23 had massive control surfaces and outrageously powerful engines. The very ingredients needed for such.

You always remember fondly the one that got away...

[zero-one]

I agree with nearly everything you said except for this last line

I do believe the F-23 would have been as maneuverable, even without the thrust vectoring.

On the documentary about the YF-23 Even Northrop executives were quick to admit that Lockheed's design emphasized maneuverability much more than they did.

Like the F-35, I think there will be parts of the envelope where the F-23 will closely match the F-22 in maneuverability. However what sets the F-22 apart is the maneuverability it has in the extreme ends of the envelope. According to Paul Metz

All aircraft experience a loss of control effectiveness at supersonic speeds. To generate the same maneuver supersonically as subsonically, the controls must be deflected further. This, in turn, results in a big increase in supersonic trim drag and a subsequent loss in acceleration and turn performance. The F-22 offsets this trim drag, not with the horizontal tails, which is the classic approach, but with the thrust vectoring. With a negligible change in forward thrust, the F-22 continues to have relatively low drag at supersonic maneuvering speed. . But drag is only part of the advantage gained from thrust vectoring. By using the thrust vector for pitch control during maneuvers the horizontal tails are free to be used to roll the airplane during the slow speed fight. This significantly increases roll performance and, in turn, point-and-shoot capability.

No matter how exceptionally well designed the YF-23 is, it will still suffer the same trim drag increase caused by the tail surface deflection. It'll be better than F-15s and Flankers but not as good as the Raptor, not in my opinion

[crosshairs]

Saying that this fighter or that that fighter is more maneuverable is not as 1-dimensional as saying one fighter is faster than another. At what speed, and what altitude, and what loadout, and what maneuver? Loops? Barrel rolls? Instantaneous turn?

Both aircraft were designed to be better than anything else. Both were successful.

But to say one is better is glossing over a very complex subject.

I'm sure in a fantasy world where a yf-22 faced off against yf-23 it would be pilot versus pilot.

[zero-one]

Saying that this fighter or that that fighter is more maneuverable is not as 1-dimensional as saying one fighter is faster than another. At what speed, and what altitude, and what loadout, and what maneuver? Loops? Barrel rolls? Instantaneous turn?

Both aircraft were designed to be better than anything else. Both were successful.

But to say one is better is glossing over a very complex subject.

I'm sure in a fantasy world where a yf-22 faced off against yf-23 it would be pilot versus pilot.

Thats true, but then again, it was the DOD setting the requirements. And I highly doubt they were as vague as "Make it more maneuverable than anything else".

My guess is that they were very specific in their maneuvering requirements. They want it pull X amount of Gs at X speed at X altitude with X ordnance and fuel loads. They want it to be capable of X AoA at X speed and altitude etc..

So both Northrop and Lockheed were gunning for just 1 set of requirements. Its unreasonable to think that the 2 planes will have vastly different maneuvering characteristics since the maneuvering requirements were the same.

The amount of how much they will exceed their requirements is up to the contractor. And according to the official statement both exceeded the requirement. But judging by Northrop executive statements that Lockheed focused far more on maneuverability. It leads me to believe that the YF-23 may have simply barely exceeded requirements while the YF-22 substantially exceeded them.

The reverse is true for speed. The requirement for super-cruise was Mach 1.5, YF-22 went 1.58 officially (exceeded) while the YF-23 went Mach 1.62 officially (substantially exceeded)

[charlielima223]

The amount of how much they will exceed their requirements is up to the contractor. And according to the official statement both exceeded the requirement. But judging by Northrop executive statements that Lockheed focused far more on maneuverability. It leads me to believe that the YF-23 may have simply barely exceeded requirements while the YF-22 substantially exceeded them.

The reverse is true for speed. The requirement for super-cruise was Mach 1.5, YF-22 went 1.58 officially (exceeded) while the YF-23 went Mach 1.62 officially (substantially exceeded)

I can't remember where I heard or read it but someone involved in the ATF dem/eval phase said that Northrop Grumman gave the Air Force what they asked for but Lockheed Martin gave what they wanted.

[marsavian]

Yep, the USAF got a stealthy more maneuverable F-15 which they could more easily relate to.

[zero-one]

I can't remember where I heard or read it but someone involved in the ATF dem/eval phase said that Northrop Grumman gave the Air Force what they asked for but Lockheed Martin gave what they wanted.

I think that was Paul Metz when he was invited as a guest speaker on a retirement home.
Guys the people who made the decision probably know more about air combat and are more qualified than anyone in the world at the time.

Lets give the decision some respect and not act like it was a bunch of 12 year olds who wanted to out Cobra the Flanker in air shows that made the call

[disconnectedradical]

I agree with nearly everything you said except for this last line

I do believe the F-23 would have been as maneuverable, even without the thrust vectoring.

On the documentary about the YF-23 Even Northrop executives were quick to admit that Lockheed's design emphasized maneuverability much more than they did.

Like the F-35, I think there will be parts of the envelope where the F-23 will closely match the F-22 in maneuverability. However what sets the F-22 apart is the maneuverability it has in the extreme ends of the envelope. According to Paul Metz

No matter how exceptionally well designed the YF-23 is, it will still suffer the same trim drag increase caused by the tail surface deflection. It'll be better than F-15s and Flankers but not as good as the Raptor, not in my opinion

The only real obvious maneuvering advantage of YF-22 is low speed high alpha. Even then, YF-23 is designed to have 60 degrees trimmed AOA, but maybe it doesn't get to that state as fast without thrust vectoring. Also you can't compare trim drag of two different aircraft just because thrust vectoring. There are a lot of other factors like static margin and tail volume and how it moves with Mach number, stuff that you need to take aeronautical engineering courses to understand.

Thats true, but then again, it was the DOD setting the requirements. And I highly doubt they were as vague as "Make it more maneuverable than anything else".

My guess is that they were very specific in their maneuvering requirements. They want it pull X amount of Gs at X speed at X altitude with X ordnance and fuel loads. They want it to be capable of X AoA at X speed and altitude etc..

No, if you follow the program the only maneuvering KPP is a g requirement at 30,000 ft at Mach 0.8. There may be more requirements flowed down from the TRD but that is the one measurable parameter.

I think that was Paul Metz when he was invited as a guest speaker on a retirement home.
Guys the people who made the decision probably know more about air combat and are more qualified than anyone in the world at the time.

Lets give the decision some respect and not act like it was a bunch of 12 year olds who wanted to out Cobra the Flanker in air shows that made the call

The decision isn't entirely on technical side. When announcing the decision SecAF Donald Rice said "On balance, across the whole range of factors, we believe that this team ... offers the best value to the government". There's also the political and industrial part. At that time Northrop already had the B-2, and the Air Force can think that giving them ATF is too many eggs in one basket.

Don't get me wrong F-22 is still a great aircraft and at the time it may seem like the right decision. But now looking back seems like F-23 is more suited for how the ATF is really used.

Also, YF-23 just looks much better than YF-22.

[zero-one]

The only real obvious maneuvering advantage of YF-22 is low speed high alpha.

Paul Metz said that the F-22's TVC was essential in supersonic maneuverability because using moving control surfaces generated supersonic trim drag. I don't think the YF-23 is immune to that. Coming from the test pilot of the YF-23, I think that speaks volumes on the superiority of the F-22 over the YF-23.

Even then, YF-23 is designed to have 60 degrees trimmed AOA,

In theory at least

No, if you follow the program the only maneuvering KPP is a g requirement at 30,000 ft at Mach 0.8. There may be more requirements flowed down from the TRD but that is the one measurable parameter.

We will need declassified information to prove or disprove this.

Don't get me wrong F-22 is still a great aircraft and at the time it may seem like the right decision. But now looking back seems like F-23 is more suited for how the ATF is really used.

On the flip side I think the YF-23 was a great design, but hands down the USAF made the right choice in making the F-22.
You're right that the YF-23 is more suited to what the USAF is using right now, which is just interceptions and long duration no fly zone patrols, plus the occasional bombing.

But my opinion is, once missiles start flying and you really need air dominance, the F-22 is what you'll want to fly more than the theoretical F-23. Albeit the F-23 can do the job superbly as well.

The Raptor has More missiles and better supersonic maneuverability which is essential in BVR. If you ever need to merge or if somehow someone makes it there for some reason, the F-22 will have the edge in WVR performance across the envelope.

Also, YF-23 just looks much better than YF-22.

Agree, but the production F-22 looks better than the YF-23 IMO.
The production F-23 would of looked very much like the prototype
So for me F-22 > F-23
But hey, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[disconnectedradical]

Paul Metz said that the F-22's TVC was essential in supersonic maneuverability because using moving control surfaces generated supersonic trim drag. I don't think the YF-23 is immune to that. Coming from the test pilot of the YF-23, I think that speaks volumes on the superiority of the F-22 over the YF-23.

You're really reaching here to try to paint that quote as Metz saying that F-22 is superior to the YF-23. All aircraft experience trim drag, including YF-23, F-22, etc but trim drag is one component. Also because YF-23 is unstable it is less affected by the increasing static margin when you go supersonic, same applies to F-16 which is why it is less affected by trim drag when supersonic. There is also lift induced drag, parasitic drag, wave drag. You can't just use one part of drag and say it's superior. Especially in supersonic, the most important part of drag is wave drag.

Also, if you really want to hear Metz talking about the YF-23 and F-22 here is what he has to say.
https://youtu.be/Vpkv1ErWIf8?t=3040

In theory at least

You take Metz's words seriously, so why start to doubt him when he clearly say what F-23 should do?

On the flip side I think the YF-23 was a great design, but hands down the USAF made the right choice in making the F-22.
You're right that the YF-23 is more suited to what the USAF is using right now, which is just interceptions and long duration no fly zone patrols, plus the occasional bombing.

But my opinion is, once missiles start flying and you really need air dominance, the F-22 is what you'll want to fly more than the theoretical F-23. Albeit the F-23 can do the job superbly as well.

The Raptor has More missiles and better supersonic maneuverability which is essential in BVR. If you ever need to merge or if somehow someone makes it there for some reason, the F-22 will have the edge in WVR performance across the envelope.

There's nothing saying F-22 has better supersonic maneuverability. Only that with TVC it can have lower trim drag, but that is only one part of drag so how can you say that it just means better supersonic maneuverability? I don't know why you're so obsessed about saying F-22 will have advantage in WVR or maneuvering. It probably does have advantage in some parts but you're pulling things out of your a$$ if you're claiming somehow it got the edge across the envelope without any documentation.

Also you're going to judge one better than the other based just on WVR?

Also, with depth of the F-23 bay, it's much more adapted to vertical stacking of missiles with a pallet system. Even without that it's a difference of one missile and the bigger volume of F-23 bays let it carries stuff that F-22 can't.

I get you like F-22 but you keep trying to say how it's technically superior to F-23 with really shoddy "analysis". No offense but you lack understanding of aircraft design and engineering (i.e. only using trim drag to declare maneuvering superiority of an aircraft).

[zero-one]

To start, I'm trying my best to have an intelligent discussion so that I can learn more and at the same time share my thoughts with you. You don't need to agree with me, just tell me what you think because I'm interested

If you will continue to attack me personally then lets stop this.

You're really reaching here to try to paint that quote as Metz saying that F-22 is superior to the YF-23.

Its not just that, Northrop also said that Lockheed's design focused more on maneuverability than they did.
Watch the documentary, Blackwidow declassified.

Since we are only working with bits and pieces of information which can be interpreted in a number of ways, everything should be taken with grains of salt. To me it is Northrop saying, the YF-22 is more maneuverable Which is already common belief anyway. But thats just my opinion.

There is also lift induced drag, parasitic drag, wave drag.

Is the YF-23 superior to the YF-22 on all those other properties? (legitimate question. I really don't know)
But I think they both have 0 parasitic drag due to internal bays.

Also, with depth of the F-23 bay, it's much more adapted to vertical stacking of missiles with a pallet system
I don't know why you're so obsessed about saying F-22 will have advantage in WVR or maneuvering. It probably does have advantage in some parts but you're pulling things out of your a$$ if you're claiming somehow it got the edge across the envelope without any documentation.

Northrop executive statements about the YF-22's focus on maneuverability carries a lot of weight for me. Again thats just me.

Also you're going to judge one better than the other based just on WVR?

No, Better supsersonic maneuverability (if true) and more missiles (which is what the YF-22 could carry without modifications) are both BVR attributes.

And both are already unbeatable BVR. Its in WVR where they are vulnerable so yes if your weakness is stronger than the other guys weakness, then isn't that worth considering.

Also, with depth of the F-23 bay, it's much more adapted to vertical stacking of missiles with a pallet system

Would't this require some modifications to the YF-23's fuselage design? (again, legitimate question)

[disconnectedradical]

Is the YF-23 superior to the YF-22 on all those other properties? (legitimate question. I really don't know)
But I think they both have 0 parasitic drag due to internal bays.

You ALWAYS have parasitic drag, that's basic fluid dynamics. Stealth fighters has 0 ADDITIONAL parasitic drag from weapons because they carry them inside.

Since both aircraft have complex fuselage shapes and very low AR (less than 3) it's hard to eyeball parasitic drag. Induced drag is also hard to compare because of low AR and we don't know their airfoils. On the other hand wave drag is easier to compare because YF-23 is longer while fuselage waists near the wingtips which reduces max cross section area, both means greater fineness ratio than YF-22. There's also area ruling but that's harder to compare without cross section diagrams. Either way wave drag is the most important when supersonic and YF-23's better wave drag is shown since the supercruise speed is higher.

No, Better supsersonic maneuverability (if true) and more missiles (which is what the YF-22 could carry without modifications) are both BVR attributes.

And both are already unbeatable BVR. Its in WVR where they are vulnerable so yes if your weakness is stronger than the other guys weakness, then isn't that worth considering.

Why assume they're equal in everything except for WVR? F-23 proposal has better RCS, so good that Air Force at first didn't believe it and thought Northrop didn't model control surface gaps in their testing until an engineer drove the Air Force to the test range so they can see for themselves.

What makes you think YF-22 has better maneuverability across the board? Better in what aspect? Energy? Angles? Everything?

Would't this require some modifications to the YF-23's fuselage design? (again, legitimate question)

AGAIN, if you look at F-23 diagrams and the model you'll see it's different from YF-23. The AIM-9 bay is in front of the main bay.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/YF-23%204%20View.gif

[crosshairs]

Northrop executive statements about the YF-22's focus on maneuverability carries a lot of weight for me. Again thats just me.

That N-G statement says a lot. It says that N-G focused more on items other than maneuverability. What things? Obviously stealth. Perhaps N-G also focused on speed. We know the YF-23 reached a classified speed that is still secret today. If faster than the YF-22 at the same power settings, then you can conclude the YF-23 would fly farther on the same amount of fuel. Therefore the F-23 would have longer ranger than the F-22. We also know the F-23 was going to have more internal volume than the YF-23

The N-G statement doesn't say that the YF-22 was significantly more maneuverable.

What does the pilot who flew both say about this? Anything?

Amazing we are still debating this today.

EDIT: I'm not trying to say the F-23 would have been the better choice. It could have been disaster. It could have been awesome. We will never know. But at least we would have 2 companies with experience mass producing 5th gen equipment.