YF-22 vs YF-23

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

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2614
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 11:01

“...a lot of people still feel that the better designs lost.”

The losers always say that.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4348
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 15:42

zero-one wrote:
Good enough for me.
What are your gut feelings on each plane?
We got engine power, dimensions, wing sweep angles, empty weights.


I feel that the fact that with any given engine the YF-23 cruised faster speaks volumes to having the lower wave drag, but with the area ruling that went into the design I am hardly surprised. Both had a trimmed 60deg AoA. This tells me that the giant V-Tail of the YF-23 was plenty capable in generating pitch forces. The use of TV on the YF-22 simply gave higher margins and allows for a QUICKER response. 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.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3319
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 15:52

Which was more maneuverable and why will be eternally debated. Which begs the question...

Why didn't the USAF more directly pit one against the other? We'd know for sure which was the more maneuverable and why, then could ascertain why this metric or that metric mattered the most - given the USAF picked the F-22.

Would seem a much better (and cheaper) way for both the USAF and F-16.net to get the answers we are seeking...
Offline

strykerxo

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 433
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 04:40

Unread post10 Apr 2019, 04:34

Paul Metz interview at the Western Museum of Flight in Torrance, CA., where one of the two YF-23 prototypes is on display, hope this isn't rehashed info.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... yf-23-lost
You can't shot what you can't see - Unknown
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2145
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post10 Apr 2019, 07:33

Yup, but I would put a pinch of salt there. Tom Morganfeld joked on his lecture that he knew there are a lot of retired Northrop folks in the crowd. If he sees a gun he would just duck for cover.

So I think it gives Paul a little more reason to give a more Pro-Northrop speech. He didn't lie or anything, but you can tell he gave the Northrop folks in the crowd a well deserved pat on the back for a job well done.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2249
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post10 Apr 2019, 12:07

Rather than ever build new F-22, wouldn't it be incredible to have a 2.0 airframe competition based off what the experiences with F-22 and F-35?
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3319
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post10 Apr 2019, 12:48

madrat wrote:Rather than ever build new F-22, wouldn't it be incredible to have a 2.0 airframe competition based off what the experiences with F-22 and F-35?


You're a little late to the game. A hybrid F-22/35 was pitched not long ago, but no real agreement was reached as to which airframe, systems, weapons etc would be best.

With respect to the F-22/F-23 possibilities, It just blows my mind we were flying prototypes of these birds 30 years ago, but there's talk about building the F-15EX :bang:
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1065
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post10 Apr 2019, 13:44

Cost, simple reason ; Cost and time.

All tooling and subcontractors and the complete logistical chain behind the F-23 and F-22 are gone or destroyed.

The F-15X can be build with minimal extra cost/investment.
Everybody is so concentrated on the airframe that they mostly forget that everything AROUND that airframe costs WAY more then the 8-12 tons of the end-product.

Want more and good airframes FAST.
Stop all other aircraft productions and have ALL aircraft factories build F-35.
Even Ford and Chevy factories can jump in, why not?
But few subcontractors can keep up to speed.
Parts, you are gonna need parts to build with, and they come "GOD" only knows why, from everywhere around the globe.

Even Turky-stan can stop the F-35 production chain at any given moment.

Nice work guys.
Really, my compliments, nice work.
Offline

f119doctor

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2019, 00:07

Unread post10 Apr 2019, 23:17

Most of the unused manufacturing tooling for the F-22 and F119 engine was pickled and is in long term storage in the Nevada desert, so it would be available if the aircraft was put back into production or spare parts needed to be manufactured. This was probably the only smart move made by Obama era DOD when they shut down F-22 production.

As the F119 reached the 1st 4325 cycle depot overhaul window, P&W started producing many new components for the F119 while OCALC inspection and repair activity was spun up. But manufacturing capacity is constrained due to the ramp up of F135
and commercial engine production.

However, the statement about subcontractors being gone ( or being busy making F-35 Hardware ) is pretty accurate. One of the big issues in getting any major aerospace hardware built is the lead time for raw material and making the large castings or forgings. It can easily take 3 years from signing a contract to having finished parts, let alone assembling them into a finished product, even if you have a qualified vendor available to make them.
P&W FSR (retired) - TF30 / F100 /F119 /F135
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1002
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post11 Apr 2019, 06:29

f119doctor wrote:Most of the unused manufacturing tooling for the F-22 and F119 engine was pickled and is in long term storage in the Nevada desert, so it would be available if the aircraft was put back into production or spare parts needed to be manufactured.


Actually the specialized tooling, machining, and manuals/instructions for the F-22 are stored somewhere in the US Army's Sierra Army Depot located in California's high desert at the base of the Sierra Nevada Mountain range bordering Nevada.
Offline

crosshairs

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2018, 19:03

Unread post11 Apr 2019, 13:06

USAF has already came out and said that the F-22 line can be reopened but the costs ($55B for another 180 copies with modern advancements) would be better spent elsewhere. More likely they fear if the line is re-opened that would be a nail in the coffin of PCA.

I have some experience with transferring tooling from one supplier to another because the initial supplier goes bust. It's no big deal. Happens often. There should be no issues transferring raptor tooling from supplier A to B. The USAF, if it did its job, has the control plans and GD&T to go along with the tools that are stored. Tools are transferred all the time. It's not uncommon to have the tool manufacturer do a couple of tuning sessions building parts before transferring tools to the OEM. That's in the case of the OEM outsourcing tool construction. The point is, tool transfer happens all the time.

But no point talking about it because the USAF doesn't want to spend the money to buy more raptors.

Ideally we should buy more and invest that $55B to hedge our bets on PCA being a success or failure. It's not good to have all the eggs in one basket as with we are doing with stubby.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3319
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post11 Apr 2019, 13:16

If it can't be quickly used again, and if it's so damn cost prohibitive - what good is it?

Storage isn't cheap, especially in such secure US underground/secure facilities. If the idiots were going to do it, they should have at least forseen these circumstances. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when your subcontractor's don't exist and when all that expertise has "moved on" or died, it wasn't a very bright decision.

Basically what we're being told is, "We have tons (literally) of tooling laying around, that nobody in their right mind would (or even could) use again..."

Brilliant.Thanks again Obama/Gates..
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5348
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post11 Apr 2019, 13:33

mixelflick wrote:If it can't be quickly used again, and if it's so damn cost prohibitive - what good is it?

Storage isn't cheap, especially in such secure US underground/secure facilities. If the idiots were going to do it, they should have at least forseen these circumstances. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when your subcontractor's don't exist and when all that expertise has "moved on" or died, it wasn't a very bright decision.

Basically what we're being told is, "We have tons (literally) of tooling laying around, that nobody in their right mind would (or even could) use again..."

Brilliant.Thanks again Obama/Gates..


It gets better. A lot of it isn't even where they think it is. There have been instances where they've gone looking for tooling to make spares and it was gone. :bang: :bang:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3319
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post12 Apr 2019, 15:54

sferrin wrote:
mixelflick wrote:If it can't be quickly used again, and if it's so damn cost prohibitive - what good is it?

Storage isn't cheap, especially in such secure US underground/secure facilities. If the idiots were going to do it, they should have at least forseen these circumstances. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when your subcontractor's don't exist and when all that expertise has "moved on" or died, it wasn't a very bright decision.

Basically what we're being told is, "We have tons (literally) of tooling laying around, that nobody in their right mind would (or even could) use again..."

Brilliant.Thanks again Obama/Gates..


It gets better. A lot of it isn't even where they think it is. There have been instances where they've gone looking for tooling to make spares and it was gone. :bang: :bang:


WTF?

Air Force mis-management of the F-22 continues long after they've shuttered the line. Why and how they screwed the most dominant air to air machine of all time should be a good read. Still a work in progress, it could be a series of books. I have to believe Russia and China are laughing at the whole spectacle.

If and when the US can't achieve air superiority in a future conflict, they'll know exactly where to look in answering the question of "why"...
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2145
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post15 Jul 2019, 15:03

wooster wrote:The F-22 offers practically nothing in the way of IR suppression. The 23 was probably magnitudes of order smaller in the IR bandwidth.

You got a link to support this?
Both designs officially met DOD requirements in Stealth (which included IR stealth) Speed and maneuverability.
Today the F-22 is renown for its Stealth, both RF and IR with claims that not even fighters with advanced Sniper and the latest IR missiles can kill it even from short range.
Read here: https://fightersweep.com/2526/helmet-mo ... -the-f-22/

wooster wrote:One cannot measure the reliability of a demonstrator and map it 1:1 into a production article.

It gives you an idea at least. Or else why did they bother with having a "Surge day" in the DEMVAL where both planes were tasked to be in an intensified readiness rate and sortie generation.

wooster wrote:It's also unfair for the op to compare the 22 and 23 to being like the 15 and 14. Not even a close comparison.


I'm not saying the YF-23 isn't a good fighter or is an F-14 (which is also not bad).
What I'm saying is if you ask me which one is a better "Fighter" an aircraft that can engage other aircraft at short and medium range, which is what a fighter traditionally does, I'd pick the F-22.

But if you ask me to pick a better interceptor, a plane that can get to an interception point faster, engage at long or extended ranges , then sure the YF-23 would be better for the job.

Again both excel in both roles and we are splitting hairs
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 7 guests