YF-22 vs YF-23

[jetblast16]

Until the advent of the NGAD/PCA, in my opinion, the most advanced manned fighter prototype ever produced.

[charlielima223]

It certainly is beautifual in an "other worldly" kind of way.

[disconnectedradical]

Those were not my words. Boeing said that.
https://www.airspacemag.com/military-av ... c=y&page=2
They had a delta design for the X-32. But then the Navy requested for increased maneuverability. So they chose between Pelican and conventional tail. They went with Pelican, however it became heavier and went back to conventional tail.

You need to understand the context of the JSF, since it has to land on a carrier, it needs to have good maneuvering and handling at very slow speeds, so a v-tail there is not suitable, as I mentioned before. Also, carrier landing is why LM's X-35 design went from canard delta to conventional tail. All variants then have the same tail because of airframe commonality.

Can you name one feature of F-22 that is more suited for stealth than F-23?

That's a flawed argument. You can always point to a specific feature that is stealthier, but that doesn't mean the whole aircraft is stealthier. For example, F-22 has single piece canopy while F-23 has two piece, so F-22 canopy is better because of surface continuity. But the benefit of that is lower order compared to the benefit of v-tail versus four tails.

[zero-one]

No one? V-tail may be inferior to conventional tails in maneuverability but in term of signature, it is absolutely superior, it is used a lot on UAV where stealth is required

The fact that no one is using it on front line fighters, to me, speaks volumes.
by the way the RQ-4 has a V-Tail and Iran had no problems shooting it down. It isn't considered VLO anyway.

That is a bit disingenuous to use an example of conventional legacy fighters versus stealth fighter to prove a point about IR signature between 2 stealth aircraft

What he said was that the Raptor has practically no IR suppression.So I simply countered by saying that even with advanced IRST sensors like the PIRATE and Sniper ATP, the Raptor was still wiping the floor with them. I feel like we are downplaying the F-22's IR stealth characteristics way too much. Thats the reason why I bring up these exercises.

These podded IRST are currently the best IRST sensors anywhere

there is fair reason for him not to believe that. The more official article didn't have these bits

I wouldn't say more official, but simply an earlier, less detailed report. Plus both sources confirmed that the exercise occurred in 07/08, long after F-15s transitioned to the 9X

[disconnectedradical]

The fact that no one is using it on front line fighters, to me, speaks volumes.
by the way the RQ-4 has a V-Tail and Iran had no problems shooting it down. It isn't considered VLO anyway.

This here shows you making wrong conclusions from data without understanding the engineering aspects.

Before fly-by-wire, v-tail has issue of yaw and roll coupling, which is why you don’t see them on older fighters. Once you have fly-by-wire, the pilot no longer directly pulls the control surfaces so the problem is significantly mitigated. Paul Metz highly praised the YF-23 handling. Even with fly-by-wire, before 5th gen fighters stealth was not a concern so the VLO benefit is also not considered. If you look at all the fighters after fly-by-wire became a thing:

Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen are all Eurocanards where stealth wasn’t a big factor and the configuration done at make much sense for V-tail anyways. You can put J-10 in this group too.

For 5th gen fighters other than F-22:
* Su-57 clearly puts a lot into post stall maneuvering, so they’re willing to give up the stealth and drag benefit of v-tail.
* J-20 is a canard delta either canted all moving vertical tails, so configuration is not comparable.
* F-35 has four tails and conventional configuration mostly because of Navy’s carrier landing requirements which require maneuvering at very low landing speeds, which is not what V-tail is good at. All variants have the same tail configuration for commonality.

None of this is because V-tail is somehow worse or not viable.

[zero-one]

None of this is because V-tail is somehow worse or not viable.

I'm talking about 5th gen or 6th gen projects that have been designed after the YF-23.

-JSF: The X-32 played with the idea of Pelican tails but abandoned it due to weight concerns
-J-31: Copied the F-22's tail section
-ATD-X: Copied the F-22's tail section
-TF-X: Conventional tail
-KF-X: Copied the F-35's tail in most iterations
-HAL AMCA: Conventional tail

If it was so good, why isn't anyone scrambling to make it. The only one we see is a concept art by Lockheed that may adopt the design.

[disconnectedradical]

None of this is because V-tail is somehow worse or not viable.

I'm talking about 5th gen or 6th gen projects that have been designed after the YF-23.

-JSF: The X-32 played with the idea of Pelican tails but abandoned it due to weight concerns
-J-31: Copied the F-22's tail section
-ATD-X: Copied the F-22's tail section
-TF-X: Conventional tail
-KF-X: Copied the F-35's tail in most iterations
-HAL AMCA: Conventional tail

If it was so good, why isn't anyone scrambling to make it. The only one we see is a concept art by Lockheed that may adopt the design.

Why do you keep using all these examples without understanding why V-tail isn't used? X-32 abandoned V-tail because of carrier landing, which requires maneuvering at very low landing speeds. Japan's ATD-X is a technology demonstrator for their F-3 program, and the configuration is not even final yet. Several design versions actually did consider v-tails, like 24DMU.

Conveniently you left out Dassault's NGF, which has v-tails. On the other hand, Boeing and Northrop Grumman are studying designs with no tails, which is the next step.

It's hard to discuss something when your arguments are just pointing out examples without explaining or understanding why the designs are the way they are.

[milosh]

there is fair reason for him not to believe that. The more official article didn't have these bits

I wouldn't say more official, but simply an earlier, less detailed report. Plus both sources confirmed that the exercise occurred in 07/08, long after F-15s transitioned to the 9X

So in that exercise they used 100% success rate for missiles?

[wooster]

None of this is because V-tail is somehow worse or not viable.

I'm talking about 5th gen or 6th gen projects that have been designed after the YF-23.

-JSF: The X-32 played with the idea of Pelican tails but abandoned it due to weight concerns
-J-31: Copied the F-22's tail section
-ATD-X: Copied the F-22's tail section
-TF-X: Conventional tail
-KF-X: Copied the F-35's tail in most iterations
-HAL AMCA: Conventional tail

If it was so good, why isn't anyone scrambling to make it. The only one we see is a concept art by Lockheed that may adopt the design.

Why do you keep using all these examples without understanding why V-tail isn't used? X-32 abandoned V-tail because of carrier landing, which requires maneuvering at very low landing speeds. Japan's ATD-X is a technology demonstrator for their F-3 program, and the configuration is not even final yet. Several design versions actually did consider v-tails, like 24DMU.

Conveniently you left out Dassault's NGF, which has v-tails. On the other hand, Boeing and Northrop Grumman are studying designs with no tails, which is the next step.

It's hard to discuss something when your arguments are just pointing out examples without explaining or understanding why the designs are the way they are.

Why is v-tails even a measuring stick in this discussion? The point of v-tails in the yf23 was it killed 2 birds with one stone: stealth and supercruise. It was flight pioneered on their tacit blue. Boeing was the first to propose it on their I think it was celled quiet bird.

Technically speaking it saw service on the f117.

V-tails merely offer dual benefits to stealth and supercruise. It is also less costly to tool up and less costly in piece price because of fewer parts. It is more challenging to write software.

V- tails to myself are just an unconventional platform, of which there are many unconventional platforms flying:
Gripen
Rafale
Typhoon
F117
B2
B21 will be flying
J20
Many drones
PCA/NGAD seems to be unconventional

You have one company in Lockheed who somehow captured all of the 5th gen fighter business in the USA who has hung onto conventional tails for their 5th gen offerings. The rest of the world can only copy the US and you see these American clones being drawn up.

Also it wasnt the drop of the v-tails that made the x-32 more palpable. I think dropping the large delta wing made it lighter. Heavy emphasis on "I think". And as mentioned above, it needed regular tails for carrier handling.

[eloise]

Can you show us a legitimate straight from Northrop Grumman and McDonnell Douglas paper about how the YF-23 or F-23 would have been better in this regard? Most if not all people (here and else where) will agree that the YF-23 is or at the very least would have been more stealthy. The F-35 which has been touted to be more stealthy than the F-22 uses many design elements from the F-22 (albeit more refined).
The F-22 is already considered VLO and pretty much set a very high standard to meet or overcome. So given that the F-35 is considered to be more stealthy than the F-22 and that the F-35 uses more refined design elements of the F-22, how much more stealthy is the YF-23 or hypothetical F-23 is to the F-35?]

There is no legitimate official paper from Lockheed Martin to show us F-22 or F-35 radar scattering charts so you are asking for something unreasonable.
We don't even have F-22 E-M diagram, nevermind a scattering chart.
The most we have is their comments and deduction
"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

[eloise]

by the way the RQ-4 has a V-Tail and Iran had no problems shooting it down. It isn't considered VLO anyway.

That is a bad argument, I can point out that F-18 uses a canted tail and Iraqi had no problem shooting it down too

I wouldn't say more official, but simply an earlier, less detailed report. Plus both sources confirmed that the exercise occurred in 07/08, long after F-15s transitioned to the 9X

https://www.af.mil/ is a more official source than fightersweep.com
Secondly, 1 vs 8?
There are exercises where HOBS missiles are forbidden as well
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=55858

I'm talking about 5th gen or 6th gen projects that have been designed after the YF-23.
-JSF: The X-32 played with the idea of Pelican tails but abandoned it due to weight concerns
-J-31: Copied the F-22's tail section
-ATD-X: Copied the F-22's tail section
-TF-X: Conventional tail
-KF-X: Copied the F-35's tail in most iterations
-HAL AMCA: Conventional tail
If it was so good, why isn't anyone scrambling to make it. The only one we see is a concept art by Lockheed that may adopt the design.

_ Lockheed and Skunk work's 6 gen concept use V-tail
_ Dassault's NGF use V-tail
_ Kratos XQ-58 Valkyrie uses V-tail
_ General Atomics Avenger uses V-tail
_ F-3 has 2 concept versions

[charlielima223]

There is no legitimate official paper from Lockheed Martin to show us F-22 or F-35 radar scattering charts so you are asking for something unreasonable.
We don't even have F-22 E-M diagram, nevermind a scattering chart.
The most we have is their comments and deduction
"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

Which brings us to the next point. Pretty much all public talk about how good the YF-23 was and how good it might have been is nothing more than our best guess and conjecture. The US military is keeping those shiney rocks about the F-22 and F-35 secret however at least they have solid numbers and known values to work with. The YF-23 and a hypothetical F-23 is nothing more than a SWAG.

How good was the YF-23 and how good would the F-23 could have been?



The end of my last comment was as abstract as this recent resurrection of this thread.

[zero-one]

Why do you keep using all these examples without understanding why V-tail isn't used? X-32 abandoned V-tail because of carrier landing, which requires maneuvering at very low landing speeds.

Because thats not why Boeing abandoned it. According to the link I gave, the concern with pelican tails was with weight not slow speed handling.

I'm not saying you're wrong, the YF-23 for the NATF was also designed without V tails but according to Boeing thats not the reason why they abandoned it. If you can give me a link where Boeing specifically stated that the concern was with carrier suitability then I will concede.

Japan's ATD-X is a technology demonstrator for their F-3 program, and the configuration is not even final yet. Several design versions actually did consider v-tails, like 24DMU.

Great then that means they also made a study on it but ultimately they decided that an F-22 like tail will be the best to move forward with. Its unreasonable to think that they concluded the pelican tail to be best but built a conventional tail in the prototype before transitioning back to the pelican tail for the production version. The production variant always largely resembles the prototype.

Conveniently you left out Dassault's NGF, which has v-tails.

Interesting, I admit I was not familiar with that, I didn't leave it out. It has a Raptor's intake tho, it would be interesting if it got done, possibly the closest we will get to an F-23 (compared to the Su-57 anyway)

Why is v-tails even a measuring stick in this discussion?

Because at least to me it is an indication that the perceived advantages are deemed too small to peruse.

[disconnectedradical]

Because thats not why Boeing abandoned it. According to the link I gave, the concern with pelican tails was with weight not slow speed handling.

I'm not saying you're wrong, the YF-23 for the NATF was also designed without V tails but according to Boeing thats not the reason why they abandoned it. If you can give me a link where Boeing specifically stated that the concern was with carrier suitability then I will concede.

Since your link was broken I had to go find it. It may be that specifically for X-32, four tails was chosen because of weight. The issue may be specific for X-32 though, since low speed handling requires big tails, and the proportional increase in span for v-tail can tip the favor since bending moment increase with about the square of span.

Great then that means they also made a study on it but ultimately they decided that an F-22 like tail will be the best to move forward with.

The F-3 final configuration is NOT even finalized yet, so how can you say it's the best way to move forward?

Because at least to me it is an indication that the perceived advantages are deemed too small to peruse.

A v-tail is not going to be the best solution for every design, just like how 4 tails isn't the best for every design. And sample size since fly-by-wire and stealth became requirements is so small that using it to dismiss v-tail is laughable. Dismissing v-tail as a whole as too small advantage is showing very poor understanding of engineering and history behind aircraft configuration.

[eloise]

Interesting, I admit I was not familiar with that, I didn't leave it out. It has a Raptor's intake tho, it would be interesting if it got done, possibly the closest we will get to an F-23 (compared to the Su-57 anyway)

Newest configuration got DSI inlet similar to F-23NGF and F-35

https://photos.dassault-aviation.com/ga ... /536874053