YF-22 vs YF-23

[zero-one]

. It's getting tiresome.

No ones asking you to reply if you're getting tired. I enjoy our little talks. All you're book says is that the DEM/VAL's goal was not to see who was better. And you're right, it was not the goal.

What I am saying is that, "Who was better?" had a part to play in the selection simply because both teams met their goals.

[disconnectedradical]

. It's getting tiresome.

No ones asking you to reply if you're getting tired. I enjoy our little talks. All you're book says is that the DEM/VAL's goal was not to see who was better. And you're right, it was not the goal.

What I am saying is that, "Who was better?" had a part to play in the selection simply because both teams met their goals.

These talks can be a lot more useful and informed if you actually read these books that cover the ATF program. Then you won't be wasting time posting your misunderstandings.

And I'm not saying the F-23 would be better at everything. But it would be better suited to how USAF actually uses the ATF which focuses on stealth and more range. In the end both F-22 and F-23 were great designs and they should have built all 381 F-22s that USAF wanted.

[zero-one]

Well Even if "which was better" was never factored in the selection process, this thread is all about discussing which is better. But I still think it was a factor. Metz said, Lockheed left a greater "impression" which was a factor? What impression was that? Better company management? I doubt it, the Eagle community was said to have a hand in the selection process, they wouldn't care about management, they would care all about performance.

But it would be better suited to how USAF actually uses the ATF which focuses on stealth and more range

We can't judge combat effectiveness specially at peace time. The J-20 would have been perfectly suitable for how the USAF uses the ATF.

[mixelflick]

You can't armchair quarterback this thing.

World is starting to look a lot more like the cold war years now, but it went through a period of "Drones, RPG's and IED's" to get there. Unfortunately, the F-22 was caught in the latter era when decisions were made. I suspect the F-23 may have fared even worse, given its development probably would have taken longer (but not long enough, to justify its existence).

Aesthetically, I would have LOVED to see a production F-23 model, but it was not to be, and no amount of discourse is going to bring it back. Besides, it lives on today in the form of the SU-57, LOL

[disconnectedradical]

Well Even if "which was better" was never factored in the selection process, this thread is all about discussing which is better. But I still think it was a factor. Metz said, Lockheed left a greater "impression" which was a factor? What impression was that? Better company management? I doubt it, the Eagle community was said to have a hand in the selection process, they wouldn't care about management, they would care all about performance.

But it would be better suited to how USAF actually uses the ATF which focuses on stealth and more range

We can't judge combat effectiveness specially at peace time. The J-20 would have been perfectly suitable for how the USAF uses the ATF.

Neither YF-22 nor YF-23 should be used to judge stealth, both are technology demonstrators that's quite different from production design and have no RAM. If you really want to discuss which is "better", YF-23 demonstrated better supercruise speeds. In fact, the production F-23 would have pretty much same area ruling as YF-23, except that the volume from the large square nacelles is now put into the fuselage and also fill in the space between the nacelles. The rounded nacelles on the production design also produces some more lift in the rear.

J-20 shouldn't be compared to F-23, while it may have the range and speed because of the long fuselage it's not aiming for nearly same level of stealth as ATF.

Aesthetically, I would have LOVED to see a production F-23 model, but it was not to be, and no amount of discourse is going to bring it back. Besides, it lives on today in the form of the SU-57, LOL

You can't really compare F-23 and Su-57, only the forward fuselage is remotely similar. In configuration Su-57 actually is more similar to F-22 since both have intakes in front of wings and also the placement of control surfaces and wing geometry. And again Su-57 isn't aiming for the stealth that F-22 and F-23 were going for.

[zero-one]

Neither YF-22 nor YF-23 should be used to judge stealth, both are technology demonstrators that's quite different from production design and have no RAM.

Yes but the shaping is also a factor in RCS, were the YF-22 and 23 prototypes not tested for RCS measurements at all even without RAM? (Legitimate question cause I really don't know)

Now we know the F-22 production model changed drastically from the YF-22 prototype. The F-22's published RCS is said to be -40db which is as high as the published RCS of the tailess B-2.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ft-rcs.htm

So its either the F-22's RCS was drastically improved from the prototype
or
both the YF-22 and F-22 had similar RCS without RAM and the YF-23 had an even smaller RCS than a tailless design. I would say its the former.

But just because Lockheed managed to improve the RCS of their final product from their prototype, we cannot assume that Northrop will do the same. In the end, both the F-22 and F-23 may have ended up within the same -40 db signature ballpark, give or take a few.

If you really want to discuss which is "better", YF-23 demonstrated better supercruise speeds. In fact, the production F-23 would have pretty much same area ruling as YF-23, except that the volume from the large square nacelles is now put into the fuselage and also fill in the space between the nacelles. The rounded nacelles on the production design also produces some more lift in the rear.

But by how much?
Officially, the YF-22 went up to Mach 1.58 and the YF-23 went up to Mach 1.62, thats not really a big difference.
Granted the YF-23 is rumored to have super-cruised all the way to Mach 1.8, but according to the photo I shared the YF-22 was tested to a top speed of Mach 2+ while the YF-23 was only up to Mach 1.8

in fact, on that photo both Lockheed prototypes were tested to higher speeds than their Northrop counterparts. What I'm saying is, its possible that the YF-23 may have had higher super cruise speeds while YF-22s may have higher absolute top speeds.

For what its worth, I'm trying to read the book you sent, but it looks like its behind the pay wall. I'm seriously considering on buying it. but I'll try to see if I can get a free one first.

[eloise]

Yes but the shaping is also a factor in RCS, were the YF-22 and 23 prototypes not tested for RCS measurements at all even without RAM? (Legitimate question cause I really don't know)
Now we know the F-22 production model changed drastically from the YF-22 prototype. The F-22's published RCS is said to be -40db which is as high as the published RCS of the tailess B-2.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ft-rcs.htm
So its either the F-22's RCS was drastically improved from the prototype
or
both the YF-22 and F-22 had similar RCS without RAM and the YF-23 had an even smaller RCS than a tailless design. I would say its the former.
But just because Lockheed managed to improve the RCS of their final product from their prototype, we cannot assume that Northrop will do the same. In the end, both the F-22 and F-23 may have ended up within the same -40 db signature ballpark, give or take a few.

F-22 RCS is drastically improved from the prototype due to RAM as well as fine tuning of small details, but the same is also true for F-23EMD vs YF-23, most notable change is the DSI. Your comparison with B-2 is moot because
1- B-2 is bigger, so while F-22 might has similar RCS ball pack to it, that does not mean F-22 design has the same VLO characteristic as a tailless design. If you scale down B-2 to F-22 size, it will be more stealthy.
2- Main advantage of tailless design is the side view RCS, which you don't have any number. I suggest that you look at some scattering chart.
P/S: we get that you like the F-22 a lot, and you are very passionate about it, but you shouldn't let your preference get in the way. This is getting to the point that you are very quickly accept positive claims of F-22 and overly defensive and deny any claims about anything better than the F-22.
If you can understand that F-22 is more maneuver thanks to more control surface then you should also understand the reduction of control surface (lead to gaps and corner) will make F-23 stealthier

[zero-one]

but the same is also true for F-23EMD vs YF-23, most notable change is the DSI

See thats the problem with the F-23, because it was never built, supporters can imagine it to be as perfect as they want it to be.

Because the F-22 got stealthier, we assume the F-23 will also get stealthier
Because the F-22 got faster some people assume the F-23 will as well.
To be fair, maybe it will, but then again maybe it won't.
What I do when comparing the F-22 to the hypothetical F-23 is imagine the YF-23 as it was (possibly lengthened) , plus RAM, plus the avionics, sticking as close to the YF-23 prototype as possible.

If you scale down B-2 to F-22 size, it will be more stealthy.

Thats true, but the YF-23 is also physically larger than the F-22, the F-23EMD is even larger and much longer, Personally I think it will still achieve the -40 db ballpark, on most angles. It may be a little better, -45 or -50 perhaps but I really don't think it will be much better. -60 db is pushing it.

Main advantage of tailless design is the side view RCS, which you don't have any number.

But the F-23 isn't tailess, IIRC it has the largest tails ever fitted into a fighter. when that moves, just imagine the spike in RCS,

but you shouldn't let your preference get in the way. This is getting to the point that you are very quickly accept positive claims of F-22 and overly defensive and deny any claims about anything better than the F-22.

I don't deny that, but to be fair its the same as the bias towards the F-35 a lot of people here show. There was a time it got so bad that people were actually saying it was better than the Raptor in A-A. Scorpion1Alpha has a long rant against them.

Kidding aside, I know I have a bias towards the Raptor, but I'm trying to be as objective as possible. Please extend more patience with me regarding this fact.

If you can understand that F-22 is more maneuver thanks to more control surface then you should also understand the reduction of control surface (lead to gaps and corner) will make F-23 stealthier

Yeah but, again its bigger and those tails, once they move....

[eloise]

See thats the problem with the F-23, because it was never built, supporters can imagine it to be as perfect as they want it to be.
Because the F-22 got stealthier, we assume the F-23 will also get stealthier
Because the F-22 got faster some people assume the F-23 will as well.
To be fair, maybe it will, but then again maybe it won't.
What I do when comparing the F-22 to the hypothetical F-23 is imagine the YF-23 as it was (possibly lengthened) , plus RAM, plus the avionics, sticking as close to the YF-23 prototype as possible.

Production F-23 will be stealthier than the prototype because of the fine-tuning of details plus RAM
As for speed, thinner design often has a better L/D ratio, logically with same engines, the advantage in speed will go to F-23

Thats true, but the YF-23 is also physically larger than the F-22, the F-23EMD is even larger and much longer, Personally I think it will still achieve the -40 db ballpark, on most angles. It may be a little better, -45 or -50 perhaps but I really don't think it will be much better. -60 db is pushing it.

This is the dimension of F-22 vs YF-23 vs F-23EMD

This is the dimension of F-22 vs B-2

The photos speak for themselves
F-23EMD might be slightly better than F-22 at frontal aspect, due to the elimination of the splitter plate gap. But at the side, it will be much better.

But the F-23 isn't tailess, IIRC it has the largest tails ever fitted into a fighter. when that moves, just imagine the spike in RCS, Yeah but, again its bigger and those tails, once they move....

F-23 isn't tailless but it only has a single tail on each side and nothing to make a corner with. No corner = better for stealth.

On F-22 the horizontal and vertical stabilizers making a corner. Not a perpendicular angle but still worse for stealth than F-23 design.

I don't deny that, but to be fair its the same as the bias towards the F-35 a lot of people here show. There was a time it got so bad that people were actually saying it was better than the Raptor in A-A. Scorpion1Alpha has a long rant against them.

F-35 could well be better than F-22 versus stealth aircraft, since, at the moment, F-22 doesn't have IRST, F-35 also have other toys such as decoys or DIRCM. Just because F-22 is very good doesn't mean it has no flaw or there isn't a specific set of targets that F-22 is less suited than another aircraft. For example, I am sure Mig-31 is better against SR-71 than F-22.

[zero-one]

Production F-23 will be stealthier than the prototype because of the fine-tuning of details plus RAM

Even with the fine tuning and RAM coating, we can't say for sure that the F-23's RCS will be much lower than the F-22's. It was never built, if it was it will be bigger and those big tails also produce substantial RCS returns specially when moving.
We can't safely assume that it will be much stealthier than the F-22, Personally I think it will be a little stealthier, but not by any considerable margins.

As for speed, thinner design often has a better L/D ratio, logically with same engines, the advantage in speed will go to F-23

I honestly don't see the F-23 EMD as thinner, It's definitely longer, but I'm not sure about thinner. The F-22 was able to match the YF-23 in super cruise despite being short and wide. Plus the YF-22 was tested to a higher top speed.

On F-22 the horizontal and vertical stabilizers making a corner. Not a perpendicular angle but still worse for stealth than F-23 design.

What worries me is the huge tail surface. correct me if I'm wrong but they are said to be almost the same size the main wing. When they move, it will disrupt the planned form alignment which is the corner stone of 5th gen Stealth.

F-35 could well be better than F-22 versus stealth aircraft, since, at the moment, F-22 doesn't have IRST, F-35 also have other toys such as decoys or DIRCM.

Well thats the debatable part. RF sensors are still the primary long range sensors of fighters and in that regard, the F-22 still has the bigger radar and 30 passive RF sensors in AN/ALR-94 vs the F-35's 10 in the AN/ASQ-239.
So unless the enemy stealth planes go full on passive mode, the F-22 still has a chance to detect them earlier.

Now the F-35 certainly has more ways to detect them with IR and optical sensors. but both are more effective in the medium to short ranges and at those ranges the necessity to maneuver and or run is much greater and everyone agrees that the F-22 is far and away the best at that game.

Against the SR-71 the Mig-31 can be detected and avoided, the F-22 is Stealth and though it can't reach Mach 3, its reasonable to believe that it may be able to dash to 2.5 for short periods, with the SR-71 not knowing that its coming, it won't avoid it.

[eloise]

Even with the fine tuning and RAM coating, we can't say for sure that the F-23's RCS will be much lower than the F-22's. It was never built, if it was it will be bigger and those big tails also produce substantial RCS returns specially when moving.
We can't safely assume that it will be much stealthier than the F-22, Personally I think it will be a little stealthier, but not by any considerable margins.

By that logic, then you also can't say for sure that F-22 will be more maneuver than production F-23. May be it will, may be it won't. F-23 was never gone into serial production, so you don't know. Either you accept that the advantages of each designs in prototype phase will carry on to the production version, or you think that production versions and prototype are completely different. There is no point discussing if in one paragraph you argue F-22 will be more maneuver than F-23 because that was the trend between YF-22 and YF-23 (thanks to the extra control surface). Yet when the situation flip, you refuse to believe that the V-tail and DSI will give F-23 better VLO characteristic than F-22 even though the same trend was observed between YF-23, F-23EMD and YF-22.
Secondly, the V-tails of F-23 isn't larger than F-22 vertical tails. When view from the side, it is smaller and at a steeper angle

I honestly don't see the F-23 EMD as thinner, It's definitely longer, but I'm not sure about thinner. The F-22 was able to match the YF-23 in super cruise despite being short and wide. Plus the YF-22 was tested to a higher top speed.

Others have already explained this to you, these prototype wasn't tested to their maximum speed, F-22 was able to match YF-23 demonstrated supercruise speed, but YF-23 is a prototype, you don't push prototype to their absolute limit unless you want accident to happen. F-23 is thinner as in the mass is spread out and the L/D is better

What worries me is the huge tail surface. correct me if I'm wrong but they are said to be almost the same size the main wing. When they move, it will disrupt the planned form alignment which is the corner stone of 5th gen Stealth.

F-23 tails isn't bigger than F-22 vertical tails.
When they move , you get some surface discontinuity, scattering. But even when they don't move, the vertical tails of F-22 generate corner reflection

Well thats the debatable part. RF sensors are still the primary long range sensors of fighters and in that regard, the F-22 still has the bigger radar and 30 passive RF sensors in AN/ALR-94 vs the F-35's 10 in the AN/ASQ-239.
So unless the enemy stealth planes go full on passive mode, the F-22 still has a chance to detect them earlier.
Now the F-35 certainly has more ways to detect them with IR and optical sensors. but both are more effective in the medium to short ranges and at those ranges the necessity to maneuver and or run is much greater and everyone agrees that the F-22 is far and away the best at that game.

How big is APG-77 compare to surface to air radar? It is tiny and the power is negligible.
That doesn't stop F-22 and F-35 from remain undetected in modern IADS, so their radar size is a non factor
And The number of antenna of an ESM doesn't show you their detection range.

[eloise]

Against the SR-71 the Mig-31 can be detected and avoided, the F-22 is Stealth and though it can't reach Mach 3, its reasonable to believe that it may be able to dash to 2.5 for short periods, with the SR-71 not knowing that its coming, it won't avoid it.

What distance do you think SR-71 radar can detect Mig-31?
When have F-22 dash to Mach 2.5?

[disconnectedradical]

Yes but the shaping is also a factor in RCS, were the YF-22 and 23 prototypes not tested for RCS measurements at all even without RAM? (Legitimate question cause I really don't know)

The YF-22 and YF-23 prototypes WERE tested for RCS but these results are not what's used in the F-22 and F-23 proposals submitted in 1990. YF-22 and YF-23 had basic stealthy shapes but they were not meant for full stealth testing with all the RAM and edge treatments, they used special pole models of production design for that. The prototypes were more of a proof of concept.

Now we know the F-22 production model changed drastically from the YF-22 prototype. The F-22's published RCS is said to be -40db which is as high as the published RCS of the tailess B-2.

So its either the F-22's RCS was drastically improved from the prototype
or
both the YF-22 and F-22 had similar RCS without RAM and the YF-23 had an even smaller RCS than a tailless design. I would say its the former.

Only at high frequencies. At low frequencies B-2 will have much better all aspect stealth because no tail means no corner reflects and also bigger size means less Rayleigh scattering. F-23 stealth would probably be better than F-22 especially from the side since there is no corner reflector from the vertical and horizontal tail. It still won't be as good as B-2 though.

For what its worth, I'm trying to read the book you sent, but it looks like its behind the pay wall. I'm seriously considering on buying it. but I'll try to see if I can get a free one first.

That is THE go to history book about the ATF program from the 1980s to the mid 1990s since one of the authors, Col. Piccirillo, was the USAF ATF program managers. It doesn't include some more recent stuff since it was published in late 1990s, but for dem/val and early EMD it's about as authoritative as you get.

[disconnectedradical]

If you scale down B-2 to F-22 size, it will be more stealthy.

That's not fully true, if you make it smaller then it becomes more susceptible to Rayleigh scattering from low frequency radars. One of the reason B-2 is stealthier than F-117 and F-22 at more frequencies is BECAUSE of bigger size.

What I do when comparing the F-22 to the hypothetical F-23 is imagine the YF-23 as it was (possibly lengthened) , plus RAM, plus the avionics, sticking as close to the YF-23 prototype as possible.

As for speed, thinner design often has a better L/D ratio, logically with same engines, the advantage in speed will go to F-23

The YF-23 and F-23 configuration is pretty much the same but there are quite a bit more changes in detail than what you said. First the forward fuselage is longer since now it has two weapon bays instead of just one. Also volume in nacelles was reduced while volume in the middle fuselage and between the nacelles was increased to keep the same area ruling. The F-23 intake is also more like a DSI instead of the special plate on YF-23.

So F-23 isn't really thinner, just the volume redistributed. But frontal area is a bit lower than YF-23.

But the F-23 isn't tailess, IIRC it has the largest tails ever fitted into a fighter. when that moves, just imagine the spike in RCS,

F-22 horizontal tails are also all moving. Also, F-23 isn't tailless so not as good as B-2, but it doesn't have a corner reflector from the horizontal and vertical tails, so it would be better than F-22. With the size of the v-tail they don't have to deflect as much either.

[milosh]

Stealth wise F-23 would be better, I mean it wouldn't have pitot tubes which only point out how much stealth was important to NG. F-22 stealth was good enough but is was more agile which was important it those days, chance of Soviet fighter get close was very high.

In fact one of fighter mafia guys which work on ATF (NG team) consider F-22 better plane. He mentioned simulations done by NG were F-23 would escort bombers deep in USSR and it always was massacre for blue force, so longer range and better stealth didn't help F-23 in that scenario, and in war over Germany agility and easy of maintenance is lot more important. F-22 looks like easier to maintain, it have lot more metal which can be fixed in some way in FOB (reducing stealth though), good luck with Ad hoc fixs on plastic plane like F-23 or EF2000 in FOB.

Today though F-23 looks as better option. Real opponent to USA is China and China have advantage of much better logistic in two island strategy then USA would even have. So longer range faster stealth is must in that scenario but 1990 how could predict 2020s China?