FB-23 concept confirmed

Originally posted by Seekerof
Furthermore, I do think that the FB-23 would make a fine replacement for the B-1's. Hell, we are not even taking into account UCAVs and thier rapid evolution....

Good points. From the information that I've been getting in my resent searchs about the B-1 the plane while a good one has some major flaws like having to fly with electronics it could be using off because of a lack of generator power, swing wing problems as well as stealth. Hmmm what about if you scaled up the 23 just even a bit more and had a medium range high speed bomber using 23 stealth.
Oh UCAV's just running this by other people i heard rumour from people about canada gettign large amount of UCAVs with A2A.

This is very interesting and has started me wondering.

I first heard of an attack version of the YF-23 being studied a few years ago in partnership with BAE as a potential replacement for the Tornado GR.4 for the RAF and once saw an impression of a clearly YF-23 based attack aircraft in 617 markings (which I made a slightly ham fisted model of). This was much closer in appearance to the YF-23 than the FB-23 impressions we are seeing now but I wrote on here a long time ago how I wondered if the USAF would be interested in it as a potential replacement for the F-15E, this clearly being the only possible way any such aircraft would ever find its way to the UK.

I now wonder if there might be any UK involvement in thE FB-23 as the FOAS study for a Tornado replacement was publicly withdrawn a couple of months before the revelation of the FB-23, which could of course be a coincidence, but I find the ideas of an RAF FB-23 variant replacing the Tornado very appealing.

Originally posted by TSR2005
But here's a question. The requirement called for using some unique systems, like the thrust vectoring. Why didn't the F-23 have that in it's design?

It didn't have thrust vectoring due to it's higher level of LO design based off of the B-2.

The exhausts of the two aircraft differed radically. Lockheed chose a layout aimed at maximising lower speed manoeuvrability via the use of thrust vectoring, even though this was not a mandatory USAF requirement. Two dimensional thrust vectoring nozzles provide vectoring to enhance response in pitch. Northrop on the other hand rated stealth and drag so important they employed a serrated planform beavertail with B-2-like submerged ventral exhaust troughs. This approach reduced both depressed tail aspect infrared emissions and tail aspect radar cross-section, but precludes any vectoring.

The YF-23 took a very radical departure from the conventional design of aircraft. By using a very unusual shape the aircraft became very maneuverable and had a high top speed. By using the same angle on all flying surfaces (i.e. the nose, wing fronts, wing backs, ruddervator [rudder/elevator] fronts, ruddervator backs, and engine exhausts), the stealthiness is increased. Another advantage of using such unusualy shaped flying surfaces, is that the uncontrolability of the aircraft is increased so that when fly-by-wire is used, the manueverablity of the aircraft is increased greatly.

The Northrop/MDC YF-23 employed planform shaping with extensive blending, the latter technique used to advantage with the large B-2A. Blending has the major strength of not compromising high speed aerodynamics, the blended airframe offering very low drag by avoiding vortices which may be produced by a faceted geometry. In addition to RCS reduction through shaping, the YF-23 also employed carefully shaped exhausts to conceal the engine hot end, yet another technique developed during the B-2A program. The unusual 'diamond' planform of the YF-23 is a 2 major lobe design, as all major edges fall into groups of two parallels. The result of the low observables techniques was a major reduction in aircraft detectability by radar, and in the YF-23, also detectability by Infra-Red Search & Track (IRS&T) systems. This will radically shrink the usable envelope of hostile radar guided weapons and in the instance of the YF-23, also heatseeking weapons.

Source

A move like that instantly kills any chance of being picked. A framed canopy. A big radar reflector and killer of stealth. Something the F-23 had. Another deal killer? And despite using a main landing gear based on the F-18, the cost was actually higher. So, why were they given the money? To compete? I highly doubt it.

I think you are a bit missinformed. The Black Widow II was actually MORE stealthy then the Raptor. It also enjoyed an advantege in top cruising speed because of it's more aerodynamic shape.

The difference in the planes was mostly due to the vision the designers went for. The Raptor was designed as "the best of all worlds" - a very versatile design based on proven concepts. The BWII was based on what designers felt would be the future of air warfare - high speed and low observability. In many ways, the BWII design was superior and better reflects growing trends in air warfare. However, many believe the contractors ability to deliver the airframes without going over budget was the REAL deciding factor.

F-23 had another purpose and it wasn't as a fighter. It uses compression lift to get an extra boost of high speed for it's thrust, something I have not happening to the F-22. It is a simple and effective demontrator aircraft for Aurora. If that doesn't sound plausible because of the time line between the two, well, if you worked with such a project, wouldn't YOU want to confuse people? And besides, anyone hear of Copper Canyon? All that money wasted for the cancelled X-30 NASP. Dead, right? Up pops X-43 HyperX. Just like the X-30, just smaller. So where did all that money go? I think Copper Canyon may have actually flown already, and sometime in the future we'll see it emerge as a 'New' design 'Based' on the X-43, instead of the other way around. I think Aurora/F-23 got the same treatment. The F-23 has too strange of history to simply rule it out as just a good, but not good enough design. Something else is going on with it. The story out of Boscome Down brings the Aurora and F-23 a lot closer together.

Interesting theory, but doubtfull at best. The BWII was only overtaken as the ATF competition winner relatively at the last minute when the Lockheed-martin ATF was nearly completely redisigned, and still then it gave up stealth and top speed for manueverability. As I said before, it probably came down to politics and money (doesn't it always?).

And besides, I don't think a stealth supercruising fighter using conventional engines would be a good investment for a stealth HYPERcruising PDE reconnaissance aircraft.

what if the FB-23 is farther along than they are willing to admit? How long has the YF-23 come up missing till they anounced that it was real?

How long would it take to gather the information to come up with the modifations to an exsisting plane then mock up to flying?


If they have been working on it since the yf-23 failed they should be passed the design phase or the DOD wouldnt be considering it for the contract the DOD must like the FB-23 for the role as the platform YF-23 is naturally more suited for being an FB than a the FA-22, the yf-23 should take less modifacations to fill the new role!

I cant wait see a good authentic painting or cg picture of the FB-23!

Originally posted by American Mad Man
The difference in the planes was mostly due to the vision the designers went for. The Raptor was designed as \"the best of all worlds\" - a very versatile design based on proven concepts. The BWII was based on what designers felt would be the future of air warfare - high speed and low observability. In many ways, the BWII design was superior and better reflects growing trends in air warfare. However, many believe the contractors ability to deliver the airframes without going over budget was the REAL deciding factor.

So, Cost over Quality? Figures, they never get it right. Also, I think that Lockheed get WAY TOO MUCH credit for the F-117. The reason it was so cheep, is because Everything on that plane was literly built from spare parts. In all honesty the F-117 didn't really bring ANY new technology to our forces. Anyone could have done that.

Here's some of the make up of the F-117 Nighthawk:

Landing Gear- A-10
Inferred Tageting System- F/A-18
Inertial Navagation- B-52
Seat- F-15
Fly-By-Wire system- F-16
RAM- A-12/SR-71 Blackbird
Weapons computers- F/A-18
HUD- A-7

See, all of the planes were literly built using "Off the Shelf" Spare Parts from other planes. The shape of the F-117 is the only thing the Lockheed really developed for the F-117. I'm surprized that the F-22 wasn't built with spare parts as well. (IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, READ THE BOOK SKUNK WORKS BY BEN RICH)

Now the US Air Force is going to have to Hide the F-23's secrets for decades, or anyone will be able to build a fighter that can Beat the F-22 Hands Down!

BTW: How was the F-22 the best of both worlds?

Tim

[edit on 3-10-2005 by ghost]

darn i hope we get some news about this a photot or picture would be sweet, let the fa-22 and fb-23 rule the skies!

Tim, does all that stuff really matter? It all seems to be pretty peripheral equipment and stuff like that is shared by quite a few different types of aircraft, to me it takes nothing away from what makes the F-117 what it is.

Originally posted by waynos
Tim, does all that stuff really matter? It all seems to be pretty peripheral equipment and stuff like that is shared by quite a few different types of aircraft, to me it takes nothing away from what makes the F-117 what it is.

My point was, The Only reason the F-117 was ahead of scedual and under budget is Lockheed really Didn't Do any Real R&D! How Much Money can you possibally spend on R&D if you aren't developing anything?

Lockheed just put peices together and flew it a few times to see if everything was assembled correctly. The Technology of the F-117 wasn't new. Why did Lockeed take 5 years to get a bunch of off the shelf hard-ware flying, and then get credited with doing something amazing?

Hell, Why wasn't the F-117 fight tested at Edwards AFB? I don't see anything about that plane that was really advanced enough to Give Lockheed all the Credit they got for it. The F-117 isn't much better at the strike mission then an A-7. Everything you can do with an F-117 can be done Just as well by at least one other US warplane for less money.

Tim

I agree that as a strike aircraft the F-117 is pretty limited but I think you may be forgetting just what a big deal its faceted low observable tech really was in those days. There was nothing else like it on the planet and it was completely revolutionary for an operational system. Maybe with the multitudes of similar and even better designs that exist today it is easy to forget this?

Well since were talking about the f-23

external image
external image

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 10/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]

Nice pics Roniii... Ya think you might be able to resize them?

I'm sorry but that pic of the engine sitting on the mattresses kills me. All this great technology, and all this money spent on specialized engine stands, and equipment, and they put it on a bed.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I'm sorry but that pic of the engine sitting on the mattresses kills me. All this great technology, and all this money spent on specialized engine stands, and equipment, and they put it on a bed.

The engine looks in bad shape, it looks like it's just sitting there rusting away, possibly scrap engine.

Shattered OUT...

Which begs the question, if its scrap, why pad it with mattresses, why not just drop it straight onto the trolley?

It is a great picture though, all that expensive tech juxtaposed with a pile of old mattresses. Its like "USAF tech in partnership with Soviet ground equipment"

Is it me or does the final f/a-22 look closer to the yf-23 than the yf-22

yf-22


yf-23
external image

F/A-22


ps: all of those pictures were taken by me

[edit on 9-10-2005 by roniii259]

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 10/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by ghost
So, Cost over Quality? Figures, they never get it right. Also, I think that Lockheed get WAY TOO MUCH credit for the F-117. The reason it was so cheep, is because Everything on that plane was literly built from spare parts. In all honesty the F-117 didn't really bring ANY new technology to our forces. Anyone could have done that...

Now the US Air Force is going to have to Hide the F-23's secrets for decades, or anyone will be able to build a fighter that can Beat the F-22 Hands Down!

BTW: How was the F-22 the best of both worlds?

I don't think it was so much a situation where the USAF said 'the F-22 is going to cost X and the F-23 is going to cost X+5 but is much better...let's take the cheaper one' as it was a very close compitition and the belief in Lockheed to deliver it within reason of budget put them over the edge.

The Black Widow (which happens to be my fav) would have a slightly higher top cruising speed and would be slightly more stealthy.

The Raptor would cost slightly less and be slightly more manueverable.

Keep in mind though that these factors are all very small. In the end, I think the USAF took a look at the B-2 bomber program and got scared of what might happen if they picked the F-23. That was Northropes last big high priced and highly technical program, and frankly they blew it. With the lack of percieved need by many for a brand new 100+ million dollar fighter, the USAF wanted to make sure that cost over runs didn't get their brand new love child canceled.

As far as the F/A-22 being the best of all worlds, it used a lot of new technology such as TVC and combined it with stealth (probablly the most overlooked aspect of technical achievement in the ATF program). The AF still got their stealth, supercruising wonderweapon, but the old guard felt more comfortable with it because it would be the better dogfighter and had a much less radical airframe design.

At least thats my take on the whole thing.

However, looking for a STRIKE platform, I think it becomes clear that the faster more stealthy YF-23 would be the best bet as a bombers basis.

roniii259 yeah looks like they might ahve improved the basic yf-22 with some things taken from the yf-23


the FB23 looks like a totally ripper, jack that is! Cant wait to see the FB-23 in flight!

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Keep in mind though that these factors are all very small. In the end, I think the USAF took a look at the B-2 bomber program and got scared of what might happen if they picked the F-23. That was Northropes last big high priced and highly technical program, and frankly they blew it. With the lack of percieved need by many for a brand new 100+ million dollar fighter, the USAF wanted to make sure that cost over runs didn't get their brand new love child canceled.

Northrop blew it? As the wild weasle pilots put it, You Got To Be #ting Me! Just for the records, are you aware the about 75% of the cost of the B-2 is the US Air Force's fault?

One of the biggest factors in the price of the B-2 is the Fact that the USAF made a major change in the mission profile ONE WEEK before production of Air Vehicle #1 was to begin. The ATB was concieved as a high altitude bomber. The original design only had one point in the back, with a W shaped trailing edge. Northrop was setting up the production equipment when the Air Force got worried that the high altitude bomber might become vunerable to a new Soviet Air Defense system. In the last minute, Northrop was told that the B-2 would need the ability to penetrate at low altitude as well. After a review of the program, engineers realized the B-2 wing structure would need to be redesign and tested again in the structures lab. This redesign pushed the schedual back by two years, and added over $400 million to the program costs.

So, now we blame Northrop because the Pentagon Goofed? Boy that sounds fair! ( Can I blame you next time I make a typo in a post? (JUST KIDDING!!:lol)

Tim

Originally posted by just_a_pilot
You need to understand how stealth works. Its not just exhaust. The F-117 is 25 years old. Lloyd Newton whom I know was the commander of the first 117 commander ( and the first black thunderbird ) will be the first to stand up and tell you that the radar return from the F22 is smaller than the 117. There is NO aircraft that compete with the Raptor right now. Fire and forget............

just like how your godly stealth plane the so called F-117 ( master of stealth ) which happend to be knocked out by a old soviet SA-3 right?.


F-22 will just be abother target to play with.

www.aeronautics.ru...

[edit on 18-10-2005 by NR]

[edit on 18-10-2005 by NR]

The F-117 has flown over some of the most heavily defended territory in the world and ONE has been shot down. And that was because of tactics that they should have learned were stupid in Vietnam. They flew the same planes, on the same routes, at the same times every day. You do that and sooner or later they're going to get lucky. Not to mention that from what I heard, they hit it with a gun which started a fire, and once the skin on the F-117 starts to burn it's NOT going to go out. Once you get a nice flaming target, it's hard to miss.