YF-22 vs YF-23

[charlielima223]

Production F-23 uses DSI inlet so it doesn't have expose fan blades from any direction, it also doesn't have the splitter plate gap like F-22 => fewer cavity reflection and edge scattering, production F-23 will have better frontal VLO characteristic than F-22

How do you know the production F-23 would have DSI design feature? I haven't seen or read about that being applied to the production F-23 anywhere but here. Besides the DSI was being researched by Lockheed Martin for their JSF proposal. Why didn't they incororate it in the F-22 if thats case?
All other proposed designs and pictures I've seen of a production F-23 had been well after the fact of the ATF dem/eval phase and most of them not being official. I've seen and read people make a lot of assumptions of what the F-23 might or could've have as well as it capabilities.

At this point IMO of a F-23 is nother more than a "should of would of could of" fantasy.

[SpudmanWP]

Not sure of the source, but this is where that came from.

[disconnectedradical]

Thrust reverser?? Maybe you are thinking of thrust vectoring.

Originally ATF had thrust reverses and the big square nacelles on the YF-23 was because of that.

[disconnectedradical]

Heres the B-2 in a close range IR shot, the YF-23 borrowed a lot of the same technology
Nothing is IR stealthy from extreme close range

Do you not notice the difference between the F-22 and B-2 IR shot? Difference is B-2 you can't see the actual plume, while you can see it on F-22. So F-22 plume is reduced compared to normal fighters, but F-23 exhaust trench like on B-2 hides much more of the plume. At medium ranges that makes a big difference.

[charlielima223]

Do you not notice the difference between the F-22 and B-2 IR shot? Difference is B-2 you can't see the actual plume, while you can see it on F-22. So F-22 plume is reduced compared to normal fighters, but F-23 exhaust trench like on B-2 hides much more of the plume. At medium ranges that makes a big difference.

I think that isn't a fair comparison. For one the B-2 has engines that only operate in the subsonic range... much like airliners. Look at the size of the IR plume of a passenget jet liner to a fighter jet




Yes the YF-23 would have had a significantly smaller IR signature but I doubt the YF-23 would have an IR plume signature comparable or equal to a B-2. For one the YF-23 and hypothetical F-23 has massively powerful engines.

[wooster]

Do you not notice the difference between the F-22 and B-2 IR shot? Difference is B-2 you can't see the actual plume, while you can see it on F-22. So F-22 plume is reduced compared to normal fighters, but F-23 exhaust trench like on B-2 hides much more of the plume. At medium ranges that makes a big difference.

I think that isn't a fair comparison. For one the B-2 has engines that only operate in the subsonic range... much like airliners. Look at the size of the IR plume of a passenget jet liner to a fighter jet




Yes the YF-23 would have had a significantly smaller IR signature but I doubt the YF-23 would have an IR plume signature comparable or equal to a B-2. For one the YF-23 and hypothetical F-23 has massively powerful engines.

Yes, powerful engines that would rarely operate in AB as percentages of time. Furthermore the exhaust would mix with cool air before finally exiting from the shielded troughs. There is no way around the F-23 was stealthier throughout the important spectrums. My guess is that it cruised around 2 Mach in military power which is why the number is classified today. With that kind of performance, afterburners for loaded takeoffs and for fastest rate of climb in an intercept. It would rarely be seen by bogies in AB. Faster, stealthier, longer ranged, and slightly less capable maneuvering that doesn't even matter or hasn't mattered for a long time. Final costs? Who knows. But Northrop didn't have the enemies Lockheed had in the F-22. It can't have simply come down to the missile racks between the 2 contenders as that would be even too myopic for the USAF.

[milosh]

You don't just slim up a design and magically maintain range. The redesign of the F-23 must have lost considerable fuel by the redesign.

Only thing which is smaller are nacelles which were design bigger then needed because of reverse thrusting. Plane neck is elongated so it can have AIM-9 bay but also more fuel I think it have two fuel tanks while YF-23 had only one, well I would need YF-23 blueprint if it is somewhere to be sure.

Also big difference between YF-23 and F-23 are materials. F-23 would use lot more composites, I think it would be over 50% mass in composites (it was long when I read about that so maybe I am wrong).

So airframe is slimed and longer compared to YF-23 which would have noticable impact on drag. Even if it carry less fuel it could have similar range and surely it would be faster then YF-23.

[zero-one]

Neither YF-23 nor YF-22 was used for evaluating stealth because both are "tech demonstrators" without any actual details for VLO.

So basically the Northrop staff that said
"we knew the numbers, we know their RCS numbers compared to ours, and there was no reason for us to loose"
when describing the YF-23, didn't know what they were talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYLiMYGBE2Q

If you look at EMD F-23 drawings and compare to YF-23 you see that F-23 does not lose much volume while F-22 lost a lot more volume compared to YF-22 especially by the engines.

you calculate volume, weight and drag by looking at drawings?

How does number of control surface even factor into supersonic maneuverability? Also, it doesn't matter if it's "traditional" or TVC, you compare numbers like C_Lalpha for lift induced drag numbers and also tail volume. It's not just size or number of control surface but also how they're placed. F-23 can fly at 60 AOA too, but probably transitions slower without TVC.

Both planes could have identical max AoA, max Lift, and max G, but the TVC could allow the YF-22 to have the superior onset rates.

Also, the use of TVC in pitch only means that the tailplanes of the YF-22 are available for roll/yaw without impacting the primary AoA generating device. The TVC is what is pulling the tail down. On the YF-23 the tails are what pulls the tail down, meaning any use of them in a differential manner to effect roll/yaw lessens the pitch load.

In this sense, even with the info we have, the YF-22 was certainly more maneuverable. It had more capability, especially on the edge, than the YF-23.

YF-23 was not pushed to the limits and dem/val is also not about pushing the prototypes to the limits but to show how well contractors can verify requirements.

Okay, so let me ask you this, do you honestly believe they did not test the YF-23 to it's best possible limit within safety boundaries in order to impress the selection panel?

"hey Paul, so Lockheed's been doing some real neat tricks with their prototype, like holding 60 AoA, shooting all kinds a missiles and all and you know what, we can do the same thing, lets super-cruise to Mach 2, then dash to Mach 2.5, lets open the weapons bay doors while we're at it.....on second thought, Nah.......Supercruising at Mach 1.8 is good enough, we got this in the bag

and thats how McDonnel Douglas ended their career as a fighter manufacturer.
Paul Metz said Lockheed had the more impressive demonstration, they did things that were not required but were certainly impressive. That was a factor, in fact that may have been the deciding factor.

Besides according to Jim Sandberg's photo, the YF-22 had the higher absolute max speed as of the time of this test. (see photo)

What's the point of comparing technology demonstrator "reliability" when they are both one off machines so different from the actual production design?

You know thats the perfect excuse. You can imagine the theoretical F-23 to be what ever you want it to be. And if some one calls you out by saying the prototype was not that way, You'll simply say, they'll change that.

I'm not buying it, the YF-23 is the closest we have to an actual F-23. So if the prototype couldn't do it, any theoretical improvements should be considered purely as personal opinion. I'm not saying its wrong, but its just an opinion.

[disconnectedradical]

So basically the Northrop staff that said
"we knew the numbers, we know their RCS numbers compared to ours, and there was no reason for us to loose"
when describing the YF-23, didn't know what they were talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYLiMYGBE2Q

Again, for stealth requirements NEITHER YF-22 NOR YF-23 was used, they evaluated the EMD proposals. Neither prototypes had full stealth features, and in that interview he was NOT specifically talking about YF-23, but the production airframe design. The F-22's shape was mostly frozen in 1990 from the EMD proposal, and similar deal with F-23.
https://www.codeonemagazine.com/article ... tem_id=180

Seriously, before trying to be snarky at least get basic information and history about the ATF program right.

you calculate volume, weight and drag by looking at drawings?

You can definitely get a good calculation of volume by using cross sections and integrating along longitudinal axis. This is basic math. Both YF-23 and F-23 drawings with cross sections have been published. Cross section distribution is a big part of drag, especially supersonic wave drag.

F-22 losing volume around the engines is what gives it lower drag than YF-22 and better supercruise.

Both planes could have identical max AoA, max Lift, and max G, but the TVC could allow the YF-22 to have the superior onset rates.

Isn't that pretty much exactly what I said?

F-23 can fly at 60 AOA too, but probably transitions slower without TVC.

Okay, so let me ask you this, do you honestly believe they did not test the YF-23 to it's best possible limit within safety boundaries in order to impress the selection panel?

You clearly don't understand what the goal of dem/val was. AGAIN, read this book to understand why YF-22 and YF-23 was so different from production designs, and why the dem/val flyoff was not a simple prototype vs prototype competition. Until you read that book I'm tired of seeing you making wrong assumptions over and over again.
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/4.867910

To save you some effort, let me quote the book, page 88.

Under the revised plan, each airframe contractor would deliver two flying prototypes of their aircraft. These would be "best-effort" proof of concept prototypes, not intended for a direct competitive flyoff or to show compliance with every performance requirement, but rather to demonstrate that each company's concept was fundamentally viable...It was agreed early on that "the prototypes would not be used for an OT&E, but instead that the data generated from the prototype phase woudl be used for preliminary observational assessments and would serve to provide part of the data base for ATF FSD decision."

Paul Metz said Lockheed had the more impressive demonstration, they did things that were not required but were certainly impressive. That was a factor, in fact that may have been the deciding factor.

It LOOKS more impressive. Metz even stated that the missile launches and high AOA were done in pretty benign environments.

I'm not saying F-22 was a bad aircraft or it doesn't have some advantages over F-23 design. But with how USAF is using the F-22 that focuses on stealth and less on maneuverability, and also some of the things they wish F-22 had more of like range, the F-23 would probably better suit how USAF actually uses the ATF.

[disconnectedradical]

Yes the YF-23 would have had a significantly smaller IR signature but I doubt the YF-23 would have an IR plume signature comparable or equal to a B-2. For one the YF-23 and hypothetical F-23 has massively powerful engines.

When not using afterburner F-23 may have IR signature almost as small as B-2. Remember B-2 actually uses low bypass turbofans, F118 which is pretty much F110 without afterburner, and it has four of them.

[zero-one]

To save you some effort, let me quote the book, page 88.

Under the revised plan, each airframe contractor would deliver two flying prototypes of their aircraft. These would be "best-effort" proof of concept prototypes, not intended for a direct competitive flyoff or to show compliance with every performance requirement, but rather to demonstrate that each company's concept was fundamentally viable...It was agreed early on that "the prototypes would not be used for an OT&E, but instead that the data generated from the prototype phase woudl be used for preliminary observational assessments and would serve to provide part of the data base for ATF FSD decision."

You're proving my point aren't you?
By your own source, the purpose of the DEM/VAL was ""best-effort" proof of concept prototypes". So why on Earth would you speculate that they did not push the YF-23 to its limit, that it could somehow go faster but they simply chose not to test it there.

What they mean by its not a competition is that its not contest to see who is better, rather its a test to see who is more likely to turn their proposals into reality. Proposals that were given because of a specific set of requirements.

However since both teams were able to turn their proposals into outstanding prototypes and meet requirements then you start to split hairs and try to see who was better at meeting those requirements. What we know is that the YF-22 won, ergo it was the better proposal.

Yeah the YF-23 could do this and that in theory, but the YF-22 really went out and did it and by the photo I sent, it was also tested to a higher max speed.

[eloise]

You're proving my point aren't you?
By your own source, the purpose of the DEM/VAL was ""best-effort" proof of concept prototypes". So why on Earth would you speculate that they did not push the YF-23 to its limit, that it could somehow go faster but they simply chose not to test it there.
What they mean by its not a competition is that its not contest to see who is better, rather its a test to see who is more likely to turn their proposals into reality. Proposals that were given because of a specific set of requirements.
However since both teams were able to turn their proposals into outstanding prototypes and meet requirements then you start to split hairs and try to see who was better at meeting those requirements. What we know is that the YF-22 won, ergo it was the better proposal.
Yeah the YF-23 could do this and that in theory, but the YF-22 really went out and did it and by the photo I sent, it was also tested to a higher max speed.

I don't think he is proving your point, it was quite clear from the paragraph that the prototype was to see whether the concept was viable rather than a fly off. Secondly , there are others factors decide which aircraft is choosen other than pure technical. You are fanboy the F-22 a little too much to be honest, it is a good fighter but not better than everything else at everything

[zero-one]

it is a good fighter but not better than everything else at everything

Its not.. I never said it was, If it wasn't stealth, it would be a mediocre strike platform.
But its the best at air to air and I won't apologize for saying that. I'd go as far as to say its the best ever at A-A, I love the F-35 too, but nope, its not better than a Raptor at air-air.

if the discussions on this thread are to be believed, the YF-22 was better overall than the YF-23.
Saying the DEM/VAL wasn't a contest is the politically correct statement to make. It wasn't. But you have 2 teams of companies, competing for a contract, both meeting or exceeding their objectives, yet 1 was selected the other was not.

Why? Depends on who you ask. For YF-23 fanboys the DEM/VAL had nothing to do with the selection. It was bureaucracy at its finest....

Sorry, I'm not buying that. My personal opinion is that since both teams were able to prove that they can realistically meet their proposed concepts, it simply came down who they liked more. Metz said "The Eagle community was very influential during the time and factored in to the decision later adding that Lockheed left a better impression" Would the Eagle community care about company profiles or bureaucratic non sense. Nope they'd most likely look at all the available info and pick what they wanted.

[disconnectedradical]

You're proving my point aren't you?
By your own source, the purpose of the DEM/VAL was ""best-effort" proof of concept prototypes". So why on Earth would you speculate that they did not push the YF-23 to its limit, that it could somehow go faster but they simply chose not to test it there.

What they mean by its not a competition is that its not contest to see who is better, rather its a test to see who is more likely to turn their proposals into reality. Proposals that were given because of a specific set of requirements.

However since both teams were able to turn their proposals into outstanding prototypes and meet requirements then you start to split hairs and try to see who was better at meeting those requirements. What we know is that the YF-22 won, ergo it was the better proposal.

Yeah the YF-23 could do this and that in theory, but the YF-22 really went out and did it and by the photo I sent, it was also tested to a higher max speed.

You still don't understand. Paul Metz even said in the video you linked. The dem/val prototypes are supposed to show proof of concept and how well flight test meet engineering predictions. That part of the program is focused on risk reduction and technology development instead of max performance of prototypes. If you don't believe me, here is the opening paragraph of Chapter 4, page 103, of the book which is directly about dem/val.

Consistent with the early thrust of the ATF program, bidders for the ATF demonstration and validation (Dem/Val) phase were instructed to focus on risk reduction and technology development plans, rather than specific aircraft designs, in their proposals. Even after the decision was made to fly ATF prototypes during Dem/Val, this overall strategy did not change. Every aspect of Dem/Val was oriented towards proving technologies and concepts, refining requirements, and reducing risk.

If you keep wanting to point to max performance even though it's said repeatedly that it's not a competitive prototype vs prototype flyoff, YF-22 never reached 9g either, it most it pulled was 7.9g.

[disconnectedradical]

it is a good fighter but not better than everything else at everything

Its not.. I never said it was, If it wasn't stealth, it would be a mediocre strike platform.
But its the best at air to air and I won't apologize for saying that. I'd go as far as to say its the best ever at A-A, I love the F-35 too, but nope, its not better than a Raptor at air-air.

if the discussions on this thread are to be believed, the YF-22 was better overall than the YF-23.
Saying the DEM/VAL wasn't a contest is the politically correct statement to make. It wasn't. But you have 2 teams of companies, competing for a contract, both meeting or exceeding their objectives, yet 1 was selected the other was not.

Why? Depends on who you ask. For YF-23 fanboys the DEM/VAL had nothing to do with the selection. It was bureaucracy at its finest.

Of course dem/val was a contest, but it's not a YF-22 vs YF-23 competition to see which had the best performance numbers. They evaluate the whole proposal from technical design of the PRODUCTION airframe to manufacturing plan and dem/val is a big part of that in order to show technology development and risk mitigation. Where did anyone say it has nothing to do with the selection? You're the one who is misunderstanding what dem/val is about.

I'll say this again, if you just read this book about the ATF then you won't be saying so many incorrect things about the program (it also covers F119/F120 development). It's getting tiresome.
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/4.867910