Yf-23 vs F-22: Did the Air Force take 2nd best?

Where in the argument is all of that proven?

This argument isn't really so much as "It proves this or that" it's really just a collaboration of opinions, I'll tell you that I still think that the YF-23 was the better plane despite having read this thread.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
I'll tell you that I still think that the YF-23 was the better plane despite having read this thread.

Shattered OUT...

Hey ShatteredSkies,

I'll agree with you on that! They can argue till the cows come home about specs, ect. However, I will always believe that the YF-23 was better and the Air Force took 2nd Best.

Tim

www.patricksaviation.com...

5 YF-23 videos for anyone that is interested

Very nice, thank you. When was this made exactly, do you know?

at the end of the day the YF 23 should be given life line to be
engineered into the FB 23 to finally replace the loss of F111 capability.
and yes i know the F15E replced it somewhat.

Having a formation of FB23s inbound going supercruise with F22s
flying above would be an awesome sight

Originally posted by jra
Very nice, thank you. When was this made exactly, do you know?

No idea, just a link I ran across elsewhere

Originally posted by Char2c35t
all this arguement proves is that the F-22 is the better fighter and the YF-23 is the perfect platform for building a fighter/bomber that the US has been missing for a long time.

Just think of a term of FB-23 and F-22As working together to take out targets and the F-22s taking out air targets be them missiles or ac while the fb-23s rain down hell from above. Very lethal mix i would say then add the F-35 taking everything else!

A force of F-22, FB-23 and F-35 aircraft, would be pretty formidable for sure. That would most certainly facilitate air dominance.

Speaking of the YF-23, has anyone noticed just how similar its appearnace is to TACIT BLUE? Very similar nose-on profile and outward canted vertical stabisers, you can see its Northrop heritage. Check out this comparison:

what is the reason "exactly" for that shape? because the SR-71 has it 2.

Originally posted by Canada_EH
what is the reason "exactly" for that shape? because the SR-71 has it 2.

You're referring to the chines? That link should explain it fairly well I think.

Well I finished watching all the clips. It was nice to see the video footage of that beautiful jet flying. One thing that bugs about documentaries like these that emphasize "declassified" information, tend not to have anything new at all and things, like the top speed (and other performance details) of the YF-23 are still classified. I'm really curious what that top speed is. Those guys were saying it was "a very fast airplane" and "it went much faster than the YF-22". So are we talking Mach 3 at full afterburner or what? Hopefully all that data will be truly declassified one day.

Originally posted by jra
I'm really curious what that top speed is. Those guys were saying it was "a very fast airplane" and "it went much faster than the YF-22". So are we talking Mach 3 at full afterburner or what? Hopefully all that data will be truly declassified one day.

Its about Mach 1.7/1.8 (in keeping with the ATF requirements).


The 'proof' of it is further up the thread.

Kilcoo, thats what it says in the video but the Northrop employees interviewed all say that it could go much faster than that. The video also says, that the official top speec is Mach 1.7 but any speed over that is classified.

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Originally posted by jra
Those guys were saying it was "a very fast airplane" and "it went much faster than the YF-22".

Its about Mach 1.7/1.8 (in keeping with the ATF requirements).

Well that's the official speed as mentioned in the video, but those quotes in my previous post are directly from the Northrop people in the video as well.

The chines article helped but it was more so on the unintended areodynamic benifits and not how the stealth is linked to it. If anyone can explain that it would be great. thanks by the way jra for the link "eh" it was quite good!

The 'guys at northrop' can say pretty much whatever they want (they'll not actually have to prove what the real top speed is anytime soon).


But for it to go above Mach 1.8ish, they'd be ignoring a pretty basic and fundamental aerodynamic design rule.


edit: For what it is worth, I believe the YF-23 was faster in supercruise than the YF-22, so perhaps that is what they are reffering to.

cruising speed was Mach 1.25, Mach 0.08 faster than the YF-22 (roughly).

globalsecurity.org

[edit on 25/1/07 by kilcoo316]

Originally posted by kilcoo316
But for it to go above Mach 1.8ish, they'd be ignoring a pretty basic and fundamental aerodynamic design rule.

Not that I dont believe you (you know more about these things than I do!) but which rule is that?

In the last video of those 5 they team are describing how they felt when they found out they had lost the contract, one says "we know the RCS figures, we know we were better" and another says that to this day he believes they picked the wrong plane.

I agree with GFAD,

No offence to anyone, but too many people seem to forget that the US Air Force and the Pentagon are both part of the government, and therefore are subject to corruption and greed like the rest of the government. ATF (in my oppinion) Proved that! They brought the F-22 for political, rather than strategic reasons, and they got 2nd Best!

B.T.W. I'm not claiming the F-23 was perfect, and certinally there are things in the design that can be improved on. However, all said and done, I believe the F-23 would have given us a greater edge in combat then the F-22 can, because Northrop took the state of the art farther then Lockheed felt was needed. Historically, radical ideas have payed off big for the US military. Here are a few examples:

Nuclear Bombs (A-Bomb in 1945)

Stealth Aircraft (B-2, F-117)

Laser Guided Bombs

GPS

Rebreathers (the bubbleless diving equipment used by SEALS and other Special Forces)

These things were all radical Ideas when they were first proposed, but they are critial to America's style of warfare today.

Tim

[edit on 25-1-2007 by Ghost01]

I'd agree with the statement that they picked what was at that time a clear 2nd place machine but I think that line blurred a bit with all the redesign that went into the 22 concept. Yes I realize that a good part of that redesign came due to northrup concepts. I just don't want some of the younger buffs on here to think that we are saying the current 22 design is crap compared to the 23. The reason its not is because of the 23 but that point can be argued.

Originally posted by Canada_EH
I'd agree with the statement that they picked what was at that time a clear 2nd place machine but I think that line blurred a bit with all the redesign that went into the 22 concept. Yes I realize that a good part of that redesign came due to northrup concepts. I just don't want some of the younger buffs on here to think that we are saying the current 22 design is crap compared to the 23. The reason its not is because of the 23 but that point can be argued.

although you do have a point the yf23 is still superior and would only loose to the f22 if they got into a dog fight because it was so much stealthier and incedibly faster and was probly capable of traveling faster than an sr71 (mach 3.5+)because its engines were capable of producing the same amount of thrust(about 70,000 pounds of thrust) and was about half the size. if the yf23 was chosen it would have undergone several modifications such as the possible adition of vectored thrust (which could have been done by encasing the top of the vents it had and linning the area with ceramic tiles making the plane even stealthier) making the plane incredibly more manuverable than the f22 because there wasnt a substantial diference in the two. also the f23 had a substancialy greater range for modification i was able to design atleast 4 in studyhall and in boring classes and im ust a kid so engineers could make at least ten. the government desided on the f22 only because it was cheaper and lockheed was keeping under budget and on time with its prodjects. _javascript:icon('')

[edit on 7-2-2007 by berzerker109]

Originally posted by gfad

Not that I dont believe you (you know more about these things than I do!) but which rule is that?

www.grc.nasa.gov...


Basically, you keep everything inside the Mach cone (or Mach wave as its called on that side).

Otherwise, you get massive drag increases as your speed increases - so while it would be possible for the YF-23 to go faster, it wouldn't go much faster as its drag figures would begin to skyrocket just over Mach 1.8. That would be very bad design practice, and I'm sure NG wouldn't do that.