YF 23 - going to be used?

Originally posted by BillHicksRules

Now to bring this back, if anyone has a link to a reputable site about the use of YF-23 airframes for testing for some new role then please post them so we can move on with this.

There arent any links, everything is pure speculation based on the fact that BOTH existing development models are currently not where they should be (ones undergoing 'refurbishment' and the other is back at Northrop on an extended loan - why? Noone knows.).

This is a Conspiracy and Top Secret Government Projects website, you expect hard facts?!

My guess is that Northrop was awarded a consolation price! a top-secret, no glory project to turn the YF-23 in the interim bomber requirement.

Much of the basic airframe would be retained, but with certain modifications to make it more capable in a bomber role.

Would the YF-23 be a good bomber?
I don't think, so I think if anything they might just be keeping the design and prototypes because the AF will only have 2 types of aircraft the F/A-22 and the F-35 I think throwing a F-23 into the package would be nice but I doubt they would do that, but one can hope.

Shattered,

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Dear all,

There seems to be some growing confusion here. So lets clear some things up.

The YF-23 competed against the YF-22 for the ATF contract. It lost. The YF-22 won and became the F-22 in service.
If this is to confusing for you to grasp think of it like the current F-35. It was the YF-35 competing against the YF-32 for the JSF contract and when it won it became the F-35.
For those of an older generation, think of the A-10 beating the A-9 or the YAH-63 being beaten by the YAH-64, which became the AH-64 Apached we know and love today.

Now to bring this back, if anyone has a link to a reputable site about the use of YF-23 airframes for testing for some new role then please post them so we can move on with this.

Cheers

BHR

Ok, you talk to us like we are school children, you do not know more than us, just because you know how to do a search, doesn't make you smarter.

Anyone who doesn't know the background of the ATF story, is probably not even posting here, as for everyone else who does post in this thread, I think it's safe to say we do know.

Shattered OUT...

I think you are reading more into my post than is actually there.

I sensing a smidgeon of an inferiority complex.

I was simply trying to clarify the issue and impart some further information.

If you will notice I also asked if someone could help me with some information, hardly the act of someone out to lord it over all you morons.

Cheers

BHR

p.s. the morons crack is irony/sarcasm incase you missed it.

Ok, I may not have mentioned this, but we don't like to use sarcasm on the internet. For obvious reasons.

In the past, it led to a few flame wars and a few bannings.

Shattered OUT...

BHR, play nice, or don't play at all, a'ight? we all have our opinions.

The YF-23 was my first love in the aircraft field, it was the first plane I thoroughly loved and I was very sad the F-22 won...

I still don't know what I like better about the YF-23 compared to the YF-22...

Ground,

What did I say that was not nice?

As for sarcasm, come on. Is this the Humourless Society.

Lets not take life to seriously.

Yes we all have opinions but in the grand scheme of things we will all be dead in 50,000 years and none of this will matter, so lets enjoy it while we are here.

Cheers

BHR

The YF-23 was my first love in the aircraft field, it was the first plane I thoroughly loved and I was very sad the F-22 won...

I still don't know what I like better about the YF-23 compared to the YF-22...

Why do people like the Black Widow over the Raptor, I think the YF-23 is ugly and much rather prefer the Raptor. I know I’m going to get blasted about that statement but someone had to say it.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Why do people like the Black Widow over the Raptor, I think the YF-23 is ugly and much rather prefer the Raptor. I know I’m going to get blasted about that statement but someone had to say it.

I like it because it IS different looking, the F-22 just looks like any other aircraft, its got no 'uniqueness' about it, whereas the YF-23 is unique in every sense of the word - there is very little that went before it.

It's not that we are humorless, it's that we don't like to use sarcasm on the internet because it's hard to tell facial expressions.

Anyways, I love the YF-23, possibly one of the first aircraft I loved so(Right up there with the SR-71 BlackBird), even more so than the F/A-22 Raptor.

I think the reason I like it so much is because not only is it better than the Raptor, it is also different looking, the F/A-22 Raptor is a nice looking aircraft, yes, but it looks like standard stealth, it looks like the designers just designed it to the requirements for stealth, the BlackWidow is alot different, some thought and imagination was put into it, that's what it looks like to me.

Shattered OUT...

Hmm, looks OK.

If it gets out of line here, I'm going to start posting pics of the "toad" plane.

Just some friendly input.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Why do people like the Black Widow over the Raptor, I think the YF-23 is ugly and much rather prefer the Raptor. I know I’m going to get blasted about that statement but someone had to say it.

***Gets some rope and firewood***

"Burn him! Heretic!"

What was your exact words about the YF-23 westy?
Something about the wings...

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

How about they have some good engineers and scientists of their own and have been coming up with the answers similar to the ones others came up with because physics is the same for them as it is for us, hmmm?

To be clear I’m only comparing looks.
How about they have a track record for not being very original. You never know the Chinese could have done it all on their own, however judging form history I’m not so sure. The only part about the Widow that I like is the nose section of the aircraft, but the canopy should be all glass.





[edit on 8-4-2005 by WestPoint23]

At first I didn't really like the look of the Black Widow, but it grows on ya.

For the people who like, the reason is obvious...its different, looks great from the front, a part of the fusalage looks SR-71-ish, looks sleek from the side.

For the people who dis-like it, there reasons are: look strange, looks ugly from the back, the nose goes to a point at the front (yes, all planes do , but if you look at a pic you know what i mean), the cockpit and egines from an above view dont look nicely blended, they look pod-ish, the cockpit glass doesn't look right, its sticks out like a bubble.



There will be no F-23 fighter, however, It might be resurected to fill a bomber role, the USAF wants a quick bomber before 2020. The plane that has a chance to snag it is the F/B-22, it would be pretty ironicly wierd if in 10 years the F/B-22 and the F/B-23 face off for the new bomber position.

The fact that it is different from the F/A-22 Raptor is what makes it great.

Comparing it's dimensions to the Raptor is absurd.

Shattered OUT...

Both PAVs performed better in test than projected - a pleasant surprise to the contractor teams and gov management all. Attributed to the smoothness and contour fidelity of the VLO shapes. In reality, aero performance was very close for F22 and 23. And while politics play in about anything ppl do, the primary decider was the predicted ability of the Lockheed/Boeing/GD team to execute the proposal and do the big job, sensor and avionics integration.

Both PAVs showed a step increase in fighter performance. On the F23 first flight, a gear down transfer from Palmdale to Edwards, there were 2 phote/safety chase planes, both 2-holers to haul the camera guys. The F15 rolled first, alone, for a "hot rendezvous," and the F16 stayed on the F23 PAV's wing. The Iggull made a right racetrack right after liftoff and with 90 degrees of turn remaining, called the "go" for the jets on the runway. Timing was flawless. The 23 lifted off the runway as if it was on stinkin' rails!! Not a minor deal for an airframe, 2 engines, and a whole wad of flight control digits that had never flown b4!

The Igull chase driver's comment (didn't make it to the official realease for some reason) sed it all, "F****** PERFECT!!!" (Many thanx to B2 prog for developing (buying) the "tools" to make such a flawless first flight possible. With the gear DOWN remember, no burners cookin on the 23, the F15 needed A/B to stay with it. Post flight, Paul Metz, 23 driver, sed the plane was accelerating too fast and would overspeed the wheels. His climb angle was already muy steep and he didn't want to pull the nose up any higher - so he pulled off some power!!! And still, the hottest fighter in the world (until F14D) had to use reheat to stay on the wing.

Interested in any other tidbits?

Originally posted by Wraith Wryder
Both PAVs performed better in test than projected - a pleasant surprise to the contractor teams and gov management all. Attributed to the smoothness and contour fidelity of the VLO shapes. In reality, aero performance was very close for F22 and 23. And while politics play in about anything ppl do, the primary decider was the predicted ability of the Lockheed/Boeing/GD team to execute the proposal and do the big job, sensor and avionics integration.

Both PAVs showed a step increase in fighter performance. On the F23 first flight, a gear down transfer from Palmdale to Edwards, there were 2 phote/safety chase planes, both 2-holers to haul the camera guys. The F15 rolled first, alone, for a "hot rendezvous," and the F16 stayed on the F23 PAV's wing. The Iggull made a right racetrack right after liftoff and with 90 degrees of turn remaining, called the "go" for the jets on the runway. Timing was flawless. The 23 lifted off the runway as if it was on stinkin' rails!! Not a minor deal for an airframe, 2 engines, and a whole wad of flight control digits that had never flown b4!

The Igull chase driver's comment (didn't make it to the official realease for some reason) sed it all, "F****** PERFECT!!!" (Many thanx to B2 prog for developing (buying) the "tools" to make such a flawless first flight possible. With the gear DOWN remember, no burners cookin on the 23, the F15 needed A/B to stay with it. Post flight, Paul Metz, 23 driver, sed the plane was accelerating too fast and would overspeed the wheels. His climb angle was already muy steep and he didn't want to pull the nose up any higher - so he pulled off some power!!! And still, the hottest fighter in the world (until F14D) had to use reheat to stay on the wing.

Interested in any other tidbits?

They weren't PAV's, they were ATF's.

I'm suprised to see you didn't mention Northrop in there, also they picked the F-22 because the performance was very close between the two, however the projected cost of the YF-23 was much higher, so they went with the Raptor. However by this point, I think the Raptor costs more.

Shattered OUT...

Shattered,

I think PAV stands for Prototype Aerial Vehicle or somesuch.

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Would the YF-23 be a good bomber?
I don't think, so I think if anything they might just be keeping the design and prototypes because the AF will only have 2 types of aircraft the F/A-22 and the F-35 I think throwing a F-23 into the package would be nice but I doubt they would do that, but one can hope.

As a strike aircraft it would be perfect (with the proposed size/payload increase). A bit more stealthy and a tad faster then the Raptor, while giving up manueverability.

Correct, PAV is Prototype Air Vehicle. The term for the "real" jets was PSC, Preferred System Concept. No names were allowed. And, yes, it was ATF. The thinking was that a really good name could introduce some emotionalism in to the selection process. L/B/GD tried to sneak "Lightning II" in. N/MACAIR painted a little red hour glass on a PAV belly to imply their favored "Black Widow II." Air Force jumped on those right away and had the references and paint removed.

While cost certainly was a factor in the selection, just as with the Balanced Design philosophy, dollars were weighed with other aspects of the proposals. We all knew the risk of cost escalation (all too well established historically) due to program slides or changes in the total buy, but since neither the contractor teams nor the SPO (System Program Office) had much control over them, potential overruns weren't to be considered.

"Prototype" in PAV had a different meaning in ATF DEM/VAL (Demonstration/Validation). They were first meant to prove the contractor teams could build what they said they could, a very high performance VLO-shaped fighter. The teams predicted PAV performance, then test data was used to to calibrate the modeling. the dif between prediction and real. That delta was applied to the PSC predictions for the final selection process. The PAVs had only minimal avionics and, other than the external mold lines, no LO or VLO features. Full sized pole models were built for that.

Altho I didn't actively participate in final Source Selection that picked the F-22, I'm pretty sure Boeing's powerful avionics integration capability figured heavily. PAV performance was very close. Observables numbers were VERY ambitious and challenging to both teams. And, to my understanding, that spec is still Level IV (TS, Special Access). But to give one design more credit than the other on RCS (Radar Cross Section) would be pretty much like assigning relative virginity numbers to....umm, never mind. Both teams did a great job on observables.

Navy participation in the program and Source Selection was a mixed blessing and surely didn't help the F-23 team much. There are some excellent features in the Raptor that have direct roots in the Navy contribution and a chunk of the cost escallation was due to the sailors jumping ship in favor of the less capable, but strongly supported Big Hornet, "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory," so to speak. The L/B/GD NATF proposal was good enough as what I called a "Capital S Strikefighter" that, over after-hours beer in the B Gen's office, there were hushed, very unofficial remarks that the AF was keeping an eye on it as a tactical striker candidate. Politically, had the Navy stayed in and the AF liked NATF for that role, the program would have been on really solid ground, MUCH less likely to be hammered by opponents on the Hill.

For our Imperialist brothers (that's a JOKE, lighten up over there ;o). There were some real sticky legal issues trying to get the leading RAS (Radar Absorbent Structures) technology in to the program. Plessey (sp?) had it and and it was a "Royal" pain to create business alliances that met strict classification and biz rules - and still allow the Contr Teams access to the best stuff.

But, some good ideas didn't happen. Some great ones did, tho. Just the shift in acquisition style to Functional Specs away from Detailed Specs would have made the program worth while....but that's a subject for some other thread - maybe.

As for a further use for F-23, your new info is as good as mine, but keep in mind that development usually stops when money stops. Northrop's F-20 an exception. To make a full tactical system out of a Tech Demonstrator is a real stretch, no matter how cool it looks - and the F-23 gets VERY impressive when you stand on it and look around!!

Oh, yeah, for F-23 fans: The 23 PAVs had larger engine bays than the 22. They could take either engine candidate in either plane. (The motors had slightly dif cross sectional aspect ratios. One was a little wider, the other taller by a bit, forgot which was which tho). F22 PAVs were tailored to specific motor dimensions. There might have been a speed and Ps improvement with a tad less aircraft cross section, but hard to say. With such a slim margin between Thrust Available and Thrust Required curves in supercruise, a little edge might have made for strong bragging rights.

WW