YF-22 vs YF-23

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?

Do you have a source for these simulations you're talking about? And for Pacific even F-23 range would probably not be enough.

Do you have a source for these simulations you're talking about? And for Pacific even F-23 range would probably not be enough.

Speaking of withholding information — At Northrop I witnessed an interesting simulation event that relates to these
tests. The adversaries were to prevent “blue” strike packages (formations) composed of F–15s (and sometimes very stealthy
B-2s) escorted and protected by very stealthy ATFs, from entering their “red” airspace. Success against the intruders was
very low at first. But, with time, a clever, thinking adversary (red) pilot created a system of tactics using their numbers to
unmask the stealthy aircraft permitting successful attacks of the strike forces and the ATFs. To suppress their unanticipated
and undesirable mounting successes, more and more cues were removed from the adversary aircraft until the test lost all
semblance to reality. Needless to say, the successful adversary tactics and the unfavorable results went unrecorded and
were certainly not reported to their superiors.

http://www.pogoarchives.org/m/dp/dp-fa2 ... 082005.pdf

F-23 lacked F-22 agility, so F-22 be better option. Also in 1990s USSR would be much tougher opponent then Russia today, USSR was working on MiG MFI (which wasn't stealthy but had much smaller RCS then Su-27, also MiG-31M would be field and that was beast upgrade, 1.4m antenna and more efficient, more fuel and more powerful engines and R-37s missiles). So F-22 was good solution back then but F-23 would be better today.

By that logic, then you also can't say for sure that F-22 will be more maneuver than production F-23.

Well, personally here's what I believe the strategy would be:
1. If Lockheed won, they would improve their production model's:
-speed (to match or exceed Northrop's Super-cruise and top speed characteristics at the cost of range).

-RCS (to match the B-2 which is perhaps as good as Northrop's promised RCS figures for the F-23, unless you will suggest that the F-23 has lower RCS than even the B-2)

2. If Northrop won, they wouldn't change much, the F-23 EMD is very similar to the YF-23, they might improve the weapons capacity to carry more missiles to match the YF-22.

I know on paper the F-23 looks so much more stealthier than the F-22, the spliter gap, corner reflection, 4 tails vs 2, etc. but the B-2 should also be so much more stealthier. But at least on publicly released RCS figures they are widely regarded as equal. I can go as far as to accept that the F-23 may be a little stealthier, but not by any meaningful margins. I don't know how they managed to match the B-2 but they did. The B-2 is much bigger but so is the F-23 and the F-23 has tails.

The USAF has also never indicated that the F-22 is less stealthy than the B-2.
In fact the purpose of the ATF was to escort the B-2 deep into the Soviet Union. Both designs were considered capable of that.

Nearly all VLO fighter projects from other countries seem to have a semblance of the Raptor in them, the only one with traces of the YF-23 in them is the Su-57 which is regarded as the least VLO of the bunch.

F-23 tails isn't bigger than F-22 vertical tails.

I tried my best to find the size of the tails, couldn't do it. I remember watching a documentary that said the YF-23's tails had the same surface area as the main wing. I'll look for it and confirm

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

I can't answer that but its certainly more than the F-22 detection range.
The F-22's top speed is still classified, but there have been many statements that said its not unreasonable to believe that it can go to Mach 2.4 maybe more.

://www.pogoarchives.org/m/dp/dp-fa22-Riccioni-03082005.pdf

I have problems with the statements on the paper

Due to its very large 26 percent gain in weight, the Raptor has a very ordinary thrust-to-weight ratio
and wing loading, comparable to the F–15C. Hence, its maneuverability, acceleration, and rate of
climb are comparable to the performance of the F–15C

Sprts has a very comprehensive comparison on the Raptor vs the F-15 found here:
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=25735&hilit=comprehensive+F+16+F+15+F+35&start=465

The agility and range of the F-22 are far and away better than the F-22, They are not comparable in any way. This is particularly obvious at corner velocity where the Raptor's turn radii are 1,000 feet or more less than that of the F-15's.

The F-22's T/W ratio, Drag area and W/L are also considerably better.

Now remember that Sprts said the F-22 data is simply from his own analysis and pilot statements, the F-15 data on the other hand is from the dash 1.

Pilot statements on the F-22's agility vs the F-15 or anything else has been nothing less than overwhelmingly in favor of the former.

Well, personally here's what I believe the strategy would be:
1. If Lockheed won, they would improve their production model's:
-speed (to match or exceed Northrop's Super-cruise and top speed characteristics at the cost of range).
-RCS (to match the B-2 which is perhaps as good as Northrop's promised RCS figures for the F-23, unless you will suggest that the F-23 has lower RCS than even the B-2)
2. If Northrop won, they wouldn't change much, the F-23 EMD is very similar to the YF-23, they might improve the weapons capacity to carry more missiles to match the YF-22.

1. -The speed of production model for both F-22 and F-23 will be better than their prototype because you don't push a prototype to the limit, and there is no point to
- F-22 RCS is not as good as B-2, maybe it can match B-2 in the frontal but not at the side or at lower frequency
2. Production F-23 has RAM, and smaller details will be fine-tuned so its RCS will be better than the prototype, and the production one is longer so that is better for L/D ratio.

I know on paper the F-23 looks so much more stealthier than the F-22, the spliter gap, corner reflection, 4 tails vs 2, etc. but the B-2 should also be so much more stealthier. But at least on publicly released RCS figures they are widely regarded as equal. I can go as far as to accept that the F-23 may be a little stealthier, but not by any meaningful margins. I don't know how they managed to match the B-2 but they did. The B-2 is much bigger but so is the F-23 and the F-23 has tails.
The USAF has also never indicated that the F-22 is less stealthy than the B-2.
In fact the purpose of the ATF was to escort the B-2 deep into the Soviet Union. Both designs were considered capable of that.

F-22 is not equal to B-2 in stealth characteristic. F-22 can possibly match B-2 from frontal at high frequency but it won't match B-2 RCS at low frequency or RCS from the side aspect, and F-22 will also inferior to F-23 in these aspect.

Nearly all VLO fighter projects from other countries seem to have a semblance of the Raptor in them, the only one with traces of the YF-23 in them is the Su-57 which is regarded as the least VLO of the bunch.

Skunk Works and Lockhead Martin rendering of 6 generation fighter

Dassault FCAS

I tried my best to find the size of the tails, couldn't do it. I remember watching a documentary that said the YF-23's tails had the same surface area as the main wing. I'll look for it and confirm

I can't answer that but its certainly more than the F-22 detection range.
The F-22's top speed is still classified, but there have been many statements that said its not unreasonable to believe that it can go to Mach 2.4 maybe more.

The distance that SR-71 can detect Mig-31 with its radar is well within RVV-BD range
I think it is very unreasonable to think F-22 can go Mach 2.4, it has never done that and it doesn't have a variable intake

Hm I think Paul Metz in some interview said they achieved 2400km/h and were forbidden to go faster (F-22 testing). Maybe that was with plane without RAM but still F-22 can achieve Mach 2.4 if there is need for that.

For example Su-57 is limited to Mach 2.1 but in patent for intake Mach 3 is mentioned. So in case of danger either F-22 or Su-57 can go faster then normal max speed.

@eloise

I know logic dictates us to believe that the B-2 is stealthier than the F-22. And believe me I am inclined to believe that as well. However publicly released RCS figures say they are the same. And until I read anything that may suggest otherwise, I think my bias is justified.

The Lockheed concept for 6th gen only copied the V tails from the YF-23 and practically nothing else. I'd say the nose area looks more like a Raptors.

Boeing's concept for NGAD has intakes reminiscent of the Raptor's, its obviously not DSI there should be a splitter gap there, I think there actually is.

Basically all designs have bit and pieces of both the YF-22 and 23 in them.
anyway, I don't think we should be putting too much stock on concept art.

Are the Raptor's numbers all estimates? And what fuel states are both jets at 50%, 60%, or ?

I think it is very unreasonable to think F-22 can go Mach 2.4, it has never done that and it doesn't have a variable intake

According to Paul Metz himself it'll do at least 1600 mph. Do the math.

Are the Raptor's numbers all estimates? And what fuel states are both jets at 50%, 60%, or ?

For that chart? The Raptors numbers are from a performance model that is based on the publicly available data and pilot statements. IIRC (I made that a long time ago) all the planes were at 60% fuel if they did not carry EFTs and full fuel if they did (but they were dropped).

Thanks Spurts.

I thought it was in "Yet Another Format pdf" on pg 35 in the other thread: "Operational Comparison...". Almost positive I have it saved on my pc at home.

Yeah, I'm trying to find that right now too. It's not from the P35 upload.

I did find this statement
"There was not a fixed range with that one. Each plane was at the maximum intercept range based on a max speed profile. Each plane had enough fuel for "three sustained turns at .8M at 20,000ft and then had to perform an optimum cruise profile RTB."

So I think the fuel load was quite variable.

http://www.pogoarchives.org/m/dp/dp-fa2 ... 082005.pdf

F-23 lacked F-22 agility, so F-22 be better option. Also in 1990s USSR would be much tougher opponent then Russia today, USSR was working on MiG MFI (which wasn't stealthy but had much smaller RCS then Su-27, also MiG-31M would be field and that was beast upgrade, 1.4m antenna and more efficient, more fuel and more powerful engines and R-37s missiles). So F-22 was good solution back then but F-23 would be better today.

Oh boy, Riccioni was the self-anointed “Don” of the fighter mafia. The click of a handful of fighter pilots and engineers from industry that disagreed with the direction that the USAF and DoD in general were taking fighter designs. Only Boyd had any practical combat experience and Riccioni flew a desk much of his career. None of them liked big fighters and by in large most of their views have been discredited. Point is that their viewpoints have to be taken with a large dose of salt. Sure, there ARE some valid criticisms of the F-22 et al. but they all have a major axe to grind and its pretty obvious that they resort to half truths and general mendacious “analysis” to prove their hypotheses.

Regarding that particular anecdote it doesn’t really tell you anything. No detail about the scenario, how that particular ATF model related to either the F-23A or the F-22A’s capabilities etc. Nor the fidelity of the model itself. Further, and perhaps I missed it, but I don’t see how one could reach the conclusion that the F-22A would’ve fared any better in that scenario even if that ATF model was representative of the F-23A in its final proposed configuration just before EMD contract award. Remember all anecdotal evidence suggests that the F-23 did meet and in some cases exceed ATF maneuverability requirements and RUMIT suggests that the area where the F-22 was superior to the F-23 was in the slow speed, high alpha and post stall environment whereas the F-23 was superior in the high altitude/high speed regime. Also note that Northrop stated that the F-23 was capable of 50 AoA maneuvers. All in all, I think it’s too speculative to reach any viable conclusions with this one anecdote.

I tried my best to find the size of the tails, couldn't do it. I remember watching a documentary that said the YF-23's tails had the same surface area as the main wing. I'll look for it and confirm.

The reference tail area of the F-23A was 213 sqft. Reference wing area is 950 sqft. Those are available on the unclassified F-23A blueprint sheet that’s floating around. Its my understanding that that is not the final configuration that was submitted but is very close.

Oh boy, Riccioni was the self-anointed “Don” of the fighter mafia.

He's right up there with Sprey for spewing uninformed BS.

http://www.pogoarchives.org/m/dp/dp-fa22-Riccioni-03082005.pdf

I'm sorry I can't take POGO military analysis seriously at all. They are on a mission to paint the F-22 and ATF as a whole in the worst light possible and make it seem like even F-16A is better. Need something more substantial than just this.

Nearly all VLO fighter projects from other countries seem to have a semblance of the Raptor in them, the only one with traces of the YF-23 in them is the Su-57 which is regarded as the least VLO of the bunch.

That is simply wrong, only Su-57 forward fuselage is remotely similar to YF-23. Reason Su-57 stealth is criticized is because of shaping of rear fuselage with circular nacelles and perpendicular angles between nacelle and fuselage. If you can't see this difference between YF-23 shaping and Su-57 shaping then I can't help you.

I know on paper the F-23 looks so much more stealthier than the F-22, the spliter gap, corner reflection, 4 tails vs 2, etc. but the B-2 should also be so much more stealthier. But at least on publicly released RCS figures they are widely regarded as equal. I can go as far as to accept that the F-23 may be a little stealthier, but not by any meaningful margins. I don't know how they managed to match the B-2 but they did. The B-2 is much bigger but so is the F-23 and the F-23 has tails.

The USAF has also never indicated that the F-22 is less stealthy than the B-2.
In fact the purpose of the ATF was to escort the B-2 deep into the Soviet Union. Both designs were considered capable of that.

I know logic dictates us to believe that the B-2 is stealthier than the F-22. And believe me I am inclined to believe that as well. However publicly released RCS figures say they are the same. And until I read anything that may suggest otherwise, I think my bias is justified.

YOU STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND. What makes B-2 stealthier overall than F-22 is for several reasons. First with no tails it does not have a corner reflector like F-22 does. F-23 is similar that it doesn't have a horizontal tail to form a corner reflector, though still not as good as tailless like on B-2. Second, B-2 bigger size makes it stealthier against low frequency radars because of Rayleigh scattering. So for high frequencies F-22 and B-2 RCS may be similar but at low frequencies B-2 will be much better.