Movie on F-22 vs F-23

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

edpop

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 159
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2008, 20:43
  • Location: Macomb, Michigan

Unread post25 Nov 2012, 08:06

I just rented on Amazon a movie called "Web of Secrecy - YF-23 Black Widow II Declassified which was released in 2011. They interview the major players at Northrop who were involved in the development of the YF-23. At the very end they all say that the YF-23 had better RCS numbers, speed, manueverability, etc than the YF-22 and how they all say theirs was the better fighter overall and how they were shocked and disappointed that they lost the competition. Obviously this is their opinion but was wondering does anyone have any facts to back up their claim? I agree with them that the YF-23 is definitely a better looking aircraft but that doesn't mean squat:-)

Thanks
Offline

count_to_10

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2124
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post25 Nov 2012, 13:55

That documentary is most of the information I have on the subject, too.
My understanding is that the YF-23 had better high-speed characteristics and a smaller RCS, but was less efficiently laid out (more empty space) and had more risky (from a developmental perspective) weapon bays and exhaust system.
Last edited by count_to_10 on 25 Nov 2012, 23:00, edited 1 time in total.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

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

sketch22

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2012, 11:08
  • Location: California

Unread post25 Nov 2012, 19:46

count_to_10 wrote:That documentary is most of the information I have on the subject, too.
My understanding is that the YF-23 had better high-speed characteristics and a smaller FCS, but was less efficiently laid out (more empty space) and had more risky (from a developmental perspective) weapon bays and exhaust system.

Which is understandable since it was less conventional and more experimental in its design than the YF-22. Still think it would've made a great strike bomber/F-15E/B-1B replacement with some modifications though.
Offline

mcraptor

Banned

  • Posts: 202
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2012, 16:22

Unread post01 Dec 2012, 14:32

The raw figures are certanly better for the YF-23.
Offline

Loader2088

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 210
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2007, 17:43
  • Location: Georgia

Unread post01 Dec 2012, 18:55

edpop wrote:I just rented on Amazon a movie called "Web of Secrecy - YF-23 Black Widow II Declassified which was released in 2011. They interview the major players at Northrop who were involved in the development of the YF-23. At the very end they all say that the YF-23 had better RCS numbers, speed, manueverability, etc than the YF-22 and how they all say theirs was the better fighter overall and how they were shocked and disappointed that they lost the competition. Obviously this is their opinion but was wondering does anyone have any facts to back up their claim? I agree with them that the YF-23 is definitely a better looking aircraft but that doesn't mean squat:-)

Thanks


Better looking can mean a lot when one of the alternatives is the Boeing X-32 JSF. That thing was way too ugly. I suppose if it had been selected, the same idiot that forced the F-35 designation would have forced a F-32 designation for it.
Offline

FlightDreamz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 722
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 17:18
  • Location: Long Island, New York

Unread post02 Dec 2012, 00:22

count to ten
That documentary is most of the information I have on the subject, too.
My understanding is that the YF-23 had better high-speed characteristics and a smaller RCS, but was less efficiently laid out (more empty space) and had more risky (from a developmental perspective) weapon bays and exhaust system.

I agree mostly with count to ten (and I have that DVD in my video library as well, I highly recommend it). Some thought the YF-22 would be (-ahem-) cheaper to produce than the YF-23 (the mind boggles at that thought considering the F-22 Raptors flyaway prices thanks to the production being cut from 450 to 381 to 181-183? aircraft).
The F-22 does have the two cheek bays if the bay doors for the belly jam/malfunction. The YF-23 Black Widow weapon bays were rumored to be deeper than the YF-22
Image
But we'll never know what might have been. I would've rather seen 350-400 Raptors built instead of 180-something fighters. :whistle:
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.
Offline

count_to_10

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2124
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post02 Dec 2012, 01:26

The proposed production model would have had a secondary bay for sidewinders under the cockpit.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

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

sketch22

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2012, 11:08
  • Location: California

Unread post02 Dec 2012, 06:29

But we'll never know what might have been. I would've rather seen 350-400 Raptors built instead of 180-something fighters.

Not to go off topic, but IMO heres how the 5th gen/21st century fighter procurement should've happened:
381 F-22s (as per the AF wanted), IOC 2005
180 FB-23 Strike Widows, IOC 2015
950 F-35As IOC 2016
Retire all F-15Cs, F-15Es, F-16C block 30-40s by 2020. Keep F-16C block 50/52s around until 2025, retire all B-1Bs by 2016. Keep A-10Cs in service until 2030, replaced by an actual attack aircraft instead of the F-35. Keep UCAV procurement to a minimum used mostly for recc/light CAS missions and not replacing manned aircraft yet (leave that for the next generation.)

Theoretically the FB-23 and the F-35 would have different missions. The FB-23 would be more of a long range deep strike bomber (similar to the F-117), while the F-35 assumes the fighter/attack role. This would've been a perfect 5th gen solution to our current dilemma of how to replace the B-1B and F-15E with one airplane.

One can dream...
Offline

Roscoe

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1308
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2004, 20:14
  • Location: Las Vegas

Unread post02 Dec 2012, 08:54

mcraptor wrote:The raw figures are certanly better for the YF-23.
Based on what?

count_to_10 wrote:That documentary is most of the information I have on the subject, too.
Yet you follow that with...

My understanding is that the YF-23 had better high-speed characteristics and a smaller RCS, but was less efficiently laid out (more empty space) and had more risky (from a developmental perspective) weapon bays and exhaust system.

I've read a ton of speculation about how much better/cheaper/faster/whatever the YF-23 was over the YF-22 but the bottom line is no one here knows or they would know better to discuss it. This is all pure speculation based on no data.

How an airplane looks has little to do with it's RCS...
Roscoe

"It's time to get medieval, I'm goin' in for guns" - Dos Gringos
Offline

JetTest

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 491
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2007, 00:22

Unread post02 Dec 2012, 12:55

Roscoe, No truer words have been written here. IF anybody on here really knows they are certainly not the ones commenting about it.
Offline

battleshipagincourt

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2011, 00:30

Unread post04 Dec 2012, 07:25

Well based on the rumors and unreliable sources I've read, the F-22 really won on three attributes... cost, low-speed agility, and a CATOBAR variant.

True that the YF-23 may have had a better RCS overall, it relied much more on RAM than the F-22, making it much more costly to maintain. That WAS one of the major things they wanted from the ATF program was an easier aircraft to maintain than the F-117.

Another thing that the F-22 had going for it was its agility at low speeds. Due to possessing thrust vectoring, the F-22 could maintain control in situations where the YF-23 couldn't. The YF-23 did certainly have more extensive control surfaces than the latter, those attributes were best suited for high speeds and altitudes.

The USAF and Navy also wanted to share the same fighter, and the F-22 was considered a much better candidate for being converted into a naval aircraft. Had this alone not been taken into consideration, the YF-23 probably would have won in spite of the two drawbacks I listed above. They were very seriously considering the F-22 for replacing the F-14, so it stands to reason the Navy's demands had to be met while this competition was going on.
Offline

discofishing

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1373
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008, 22:15
  • Location: USA

Unread post04 Dec 2012, 17:57

FlightDreamz wrote:
count to ten
That documentary is most of the information I have on the subject, too.
My understanding is that the YF-23 had better high-speed characteristics and a smaller RCS, but was less efficiently laid out (more empty space) and had more risky (from a developmental perspective) weapon bays and exhaust system.

I agree mostly with count to ten (and I have that DVD in my video library as well, I highly recommend it). Some thought the YF-22 would be (-ahem-) cheaper to produce than the YF-23 (the mind boggles at that thought considering the F-22 Raptors flyaway prices thanks to the production being cut from 450 to 381 to 181-183? aircraft).
The F-22 does have the two cheek bays if the bay doors for the belly jam/malfunction. The YF-23 Black Widow weapon bays were rumored to be deeper than the YF-22
Image
But we'll never know what might have been. I would've rather seen 350-400 Raptors built instead of 180-something fighters. :whistle:


I wonder if one of the lead engineers saw his son eating candy from a Pez dispenser and was like "eureka, that's it!" I can only see more empty space as less internal fuel.
Offline

count_to_10

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2124
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post05 Dec 2012, 02:28

Roscoe wrote:
mcraptor wrote:The raw figures are certanly better for the YF-23.
Based on what?

count_to_10 wrote:That documentary is most of the information I have on the subject, too.
Yet you follow that with...

My understanding is that the YF-23 had better high-speed characteristics and a smaller RCS, but was less efficiently laid out (more empty space) and had more risky (from a developmental perspective) weapon bays and exhaust system.

I've read a ton of speculation about how much better/cheaper/faster/whatever the YF-23 was over the YF-22 but the bottom line is no one here knows or they would know better to discuss it. This is all pure speculation based on no data.

How an airplane looks has little to do with it's RCS...

You do realize that "My understanding" means just that -- my limited understanding of the issue, not some kind of authoritarian declaration.
The NG engineers in the documentary make flat out statements that, though they can't reveal the numbers, the YF-23 beat the YF-22 in speed and RCS. That's really all we have to go on.
On the other hand, statements that the F-23 would have cost less than the F-22 goes beyond mere speculation and edges into conspiracy theory territory.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

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

FlightDreamz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 722
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 17:18
  • Location: Long Island, New York

Unread post05 Dec 2012, 02:52

discofishing
I wonder if one of the lead engineers saw his son eating candy from a Pez dispenser and was like "eureka, that's it!"

LOL!
As far as fuel load goes, I've heard that the YF-23 "made better use of internal volume" quoting an aviationweek post I believe (have the issue somewhere too lazy find it now). And yes this is pure speculation on my part and F-22 Raptor does have better nose pointing ability thanks to it's thrust vectoring. Remember the F-15A "not a pound for air to ground"? At one point the winner of the Advanced Tactical Fighter was supposed to replace the F-15A/C's one to one. Then it was cut to 381 fighters, than it was cut to 183(ish) fighters, etc. etc.
The YF-23 Black Widow could have made one hell of an attack aircraft/stealthy F-15E Strike Eagle replacement though (if only the U.S.A. wasn't up to it's eyeballs in debt)! :shock:
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.
Offline

cywolf32

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 620
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2005, 12:04
  • Location: USA

Unread post05 Dec 2012, 07:25

Roscoe wrote:
mcraptor wrote:The raw figures are certanly better for the YF-23.
Based on what?

count_to_10 wrote:That documentary is most of the information I have on the subject, too.
Yet you follow that with...

My understanding is that the YF-23 had better high-speed characteristics and a smaller RCS, but was less efficiently laid out (more empty space) and had more risky (from a developmental perspective) weapon bays and exhaust system.

I've read a ton of speculation about how much better/cheaper/faster/whatever the YF-23 was over the YF-22 but the bottom line is no one here knows or they would know better to discuss it. This is all pure speculation based on no data.

How an airplane looks has little to do with it's RCS...


Wrong.
Next

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests