It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who Really Should Be Winning Now?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Over the past 20...or so years or so...at least if not more, Lockheed has gone up against Northrop, Boeing, and McDonnell Douglas. Is this really fair though?

What have we gotten from Lockheed?

    F-22A Raptor
    F-117A Nighthawk
    F-35A, B, C


The question of the matter is, why wasn't Lockheed handed a proposal for aircraft like the F-15, F-18, and others? In fact, most of the conventional aircraft currently are by contractors without competition in the market. The F-14, and F-15's are examples of this. The F/A-18 from McDonnell at the time went up against Northrops YF-17 (Thus no F-17 Designations.)

Has Lockheed become a favorite in the airforce? Granted the Have Blue project was an aweful project, and a grave disappointment to the Stealth Fighter/Attacker Project. The matter is, what companies have been ripped so badly that they won't be back up again? I must admit I haven't heard a peep from Northrop or Aero recently.

Should the YF-23A been taken over the F-22?
Looking into both planes specifications, and areodynamic designs, amount of functionality, and cost, what can we find?

The YF-23 was a beautiful plane, yes. But, would it be cheaper? Well we don't know off of something without links do we?



www.voodoo.cz...



In 1981, the Air Force developed a requirement for an Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) as a new air superiority fighter. It would take advantage of the new technologies in fighter design on the horizon including composite materials, lightweight alloys, advanced flight control systems, higher power propulsion systems, and stealth technology. Air Force leaders believed these new technologies would make aircraft like the F-15 and F-16 obsolete by the early 21st century. In 1985, the Air Force sent out technical requests for proposals to a number of aircraft manufacturing teams (Boeing/General Dynamics and Northrop/McDonnell Douglas).


Pretty much we're reducing our armory to one plane covering for two, makes sense keeps budget down, keeps things easy.


We all know what this is right?


www.af.mil...



The Advanced Tactical Fighter entered the Demonstration and Validation phase in 1986. The prototype aircraft (YF-22 and YF-23) both completed their first flights in late 1990. Ultimately the YF-22 was selected as best of the two and the engineering and manufacturing development effort began in 1991 with development contracts to Lockheed/Boeing (airframe) and Pratt & Whitney (engines). EMD included extensive subsystem and system testing as well as flight testing with nine aircraft at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. The first EMD flight was in 1997 and at the completion of its flight test life this aircraft was used for live-fire testing.


We do know the specs but lets post them for comparison:

As quoted by the military:


Thrust (each engine): 35,000-pound class.
Length: 62 feet, 1 inch (18.9 meters).
Height: 16 feet, 8 inches (5.1 meters).
Wingspan: 44 feet, 6 inches (13.6 meters).
Speed: Mach 2 class.
Ceiling: Above 50,000 feet (approximately 15 kilometers).
Empty Weight: 40,000-pound class (approximately 18,000 kilograms).
Armament: One M61A2 20-millimeter cannon with 480 rounds; side weapon bays can carry two AIM-9 infrared (heat seeking) air-to-air missiles and main weapon bays can carry (air-to-air loadout) six AIM-120 radar-guided air-to-air missiles or (air-to-ground loadout) two 1,000-pound GBU-32 JDAMs and two AIM-120 radar-guided air-to-air missiles.
Crew: One
Initial Operational Capability:
Inventory: Unavailable.


And for the YF-23:


Weight: 54,000 lbs. (23,500 kg) takeoff (YF-23/ATF design spec).
Empty weight: 38,580 lbs (16,783 kg).
Internal fuel: 2190 lbs (952 kg)
Engines: Two Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100's (87-800) of approximately 35,000 lbs. thrust each with afterburner and two General Electric F120-GE-100 (87-801) turbofans. Engine competition won by Pratt & Whitney.
Crew: One
Maximum speed: approximately Mach 2.0
Speed without afterburner Mach 1.6
Service Ceiling: approximately 65,000 ft. (ATF design spec)
Range: 1200 km
Armament: (planned)
Internal gun 20 mm M61
Internal bay - 8x AIM-9 Sidewinder or 4x AIM-120 AMRAAM; A-G missiles "Have Dash 2", A-G missiles "Have Slick"


I'd like to point out approximations with the YF-23, which are not approximate on the F-22. Reasons for this are most likely for classification purposes, however, it's very well endoved that the F-23 would've had more stealth capabilities over the F-22. This can be found on various websites which I will attach to this post.

The reason I am bringing up the fact of the F-23's stealth abilities, and this is just my analysis on the matter, lets look at the general design of the F-23.

The F-23 uses radar absorbing paint...yes? As far as we know.

It also is much more smaller in dimentional height, relating to the Northrop B-2A, factored in as a Stealth Fighter rather. Most of the YF-23 is FLAT, far different from the F-22. The matter of the point is, will the F-23's really be scrapped?

As far as the F-35 goes, why are we looking into two joint strike fighter projects? What is the purpose of the 22, 23, 32, and 35 fighters? Northrop used a design that was almost 60 years old at the time, and implimented with their B-2A which was brought in, in the 1990's. What could have made the B-2A be sworn in, but the F-23 not? From date since Lockheed started with their projects it has always been there. It's very apparent that the answer does not lay with the matter of aerodynamic design with Northrop or Boeing is behind time, because we know with the X-47, 45, and B-2A thats not true.

Additionally with the F-117 Lockheed used the Daimon design which was originally set upon the F-23...not in the same context mind you.

Opinions on the matter?

Links to go with it:

Northop YF-23
www.fighter-planes.com...
Notice lack of information on the YF-23

Lockheed F-22A
www.globalsecurity.org...
aimpoints.hq.af.mil...
www.f-22raptor.com...




posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 03:14 AM
link   
I'm not realy sure what your question is.

If it is "why is L/M seemingly getting all of the USAF contracts" then I can give my opinion.

L/M has always been at the cutting edge. They designed the SR-71 Blackbird, still the worlds fastest aircraft. They designed the F-117, the worlds first stealth aircraft.

For the ATF program, they won - IMHO - because the Raptor was viewed as the better all around aircraft and because of a feeling that L/M could actually keep it's price within it's estimate, which was not done by N/G in the ATB program.

As for a F-22 vs F-23 comparison...

The F-23 was slightly faster and slightly more stealthy. The F-22 was slightly more agile and slightly cheaper.

Basically, the USAF takes a look at the cost, risk, technology, performance, and what not, and then make a decision from there.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I'm not realy sure what your question is.


I didn't make it too percise I guess, it's
1: Should the F-23 have been taken instead?
2: Why is Lockheed always taken?

So yes, you answered my question, but still up for debate.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 04:23 AM
link   
In any case, my personal opinion is that the Y/F-23 was better. I think it's greater degree of stealth, speed, and slightly better range translate a lot better to future warfare.

I made a thread very much like this that had several very good posts in it by various members.

Unfortunately, it seems it was put in the trash can as I can not find it.

It was called "The Y/F-23 Black Widdow II vs The F/A-22 Raptor: Speed and stealth vs cost and manueverability" or something along those lines. If you can find it, I'd suggest you read through it.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 06:35 AM
link   
It is also my view that the YF-23 was the better option, however your first is wide of the mark in oner or two areas.


The question of the matter is, why wasn't Lockheed handed a proposal for aircraft like the F-15, F-18, and others? In fact, most of the conventional aircraft currently are by contractors without competition in the market. The F-14, and F-15's are examples of this. The F/A-18 from McDonnell at the time went up against Northrops YF-17 (Thus no F-17 Designations.)


All these contracts are open to competiton, the F-14 and F-15 were simply the winning designs. Also The F/A-18 was not up against eh YF-17, Northrop and MDC developed the F-18 FROM the YF-17 during 1977-80 with MDC in overall control. The Northrop YF-17 itself was originally built in competition with the General Dynamics YF-16 in 1973/4.

The YF-16 went on to become the F-16A etc that we know today, thats why there is no F-17 designation. Nothing to do with the F-18.


Pretty much we're reducing our armory to one plane covering for two, makes sense keeps budget down, keeps things easy.


Not at all, if you were inferring that the F22 and F23 would both be deployed then that was never an option, it was always going to be a choice of one of them right from when the project began. The F-22 (or F-23 if it had gone the other way) replaces the F-15 and the F-35 replaces the F-16, in that respect no change, of course far fewer F-22's than F-15's are being bought but that is a different argument.

Also, are you sure you are comparing the YF-23 with the F-22A or the YF-22? Just as the F-22A is a very different machine from the prototype, so too would the F-23A have evolved, it is important then to compare like for like.


As far as the F-35 goes, why are we looking into two joint strike fighter projects? What is the purpose of the 22, 23, 32, and 35 fighters?


Its called competition, isn't the lack of competition what your post was about? well here it is; F-22 v F23 and X-32 v X35, the winner of each to go into service.


Northrop used a design that was almost 60 years old at the time, and implimented with their B-2A which was brought in,


No, absolutely and utterly NOT. The B-2 is the most advanced state of the art aircraft in military service, if you are thinking its design is 60 years old just because the YB-49 was loosely similar then I'm afraid thats a ridiculous thing to say. In matter of fact the B-2 is no more closely related to the YB-49 than it is to the P-61 Black Widow, ie designed and built by Northrop, don't get drawn in by the 'yes but its a flying wing so it is the same' rubbish. It is a COMPLETELY different design.

for instance the plan view - is different, the side view and wing cross section - is different, the control surface layout - is different, crew accomodation - is different. In fact there is not one material feature of the YB-49 that is carried over to the B-2.

However even all those errors I still would have preferred to see the F-23A, but I'm just a jet fighter fanboy and Lockheed at least made the F-22A look half decent, the YF-22 looked like it belonged in a cartoon



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   
It's funny how they speak of the F-22 with such despise as if it were pure rubbish. The YF-22 Lighting II won the competition because its an awesome probably far more advance than what me imagine. And to those who call it obsolete it was designed to penetrate Russian defences escorting the B2.

You always hear that it shouldn't have won, but it did. I once heard on the Discovery Channel that the YF-23 had a critical flaw regarding its stealth at some point. They didn't specify what it was. Supposedly it was one of the deal-breakers along with NorthGrum/MDC reputation for not being on time.

I think Boeing provided a lot of efficiency expertise to the YF-22 project brought from their commercial side and the fact that they have to be on time. Actually that was the main reason they made it to the JSF final, their plane was the cheapest and faster to build, maintain etc.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Are you sure you're reading this right? I don't see anything in this thread that says anyone despises the F-22 or thinks its rubbish, only that we prefer the YF-23, 'prefer' is a very mild and broad term.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Well this is what I know...

The YF-23 had some great advantages against the F-22, speed, stealth etc. etc. And then we ask, why did the F-22 win. Some of you think that USA can buy and build how much it likes. But the fact is till that they have a budget too. What is fact and prooven is that the YF-23 was far more expensive than the F-22. And still it wasn't a much better plane. I personally think that you ahve gotten this a bit wrong. The F-22 didn't win because it was better, it won becasue it was good enough. The planes were designed to protect America, not to be the best planes in statistic. It would be useless to spend a lot of money on a plane that could do the same thing, only go 0.1 mach faster...



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
All these contracts are open to competiton, the F-14 and F-15 were simply the winning designs. Also The F/A-18 was not up against eh YF-17, Northrop and MDC developed the F-18 FROM the YF-17 during 1977-80 with MDC in overall control. The Northrop YF-17 itself was originally built in competition with the General Dynamics YF-16 in 1973/4.

The YF-16 went on to become the F-16A etc that we know today, thats why there is no F-17 designation. Nothing to do with the F-18.


That's news to me...I had learned that the YF-17 was against the F/A-18. As far as the 17 designation...why would the F-16 have anything to do with it?



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Did I miss something or did anyone bother to mention thrust vectoring as a factor in the YF-22 vs. the YF-23 fly off competition? Also, the YF-17 was up against the YF-16 not the F-18.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   
There seems to be alot of misinformation going on around. Such as the YF-17 and YF-16 competitions. And yes, every single aircraft that we have today has been through some kind of compeitition to be put into production the way they have.

And I do not think that Lockmart is winning any form of ground or buisness with the government, because if Lockmart all of a sudden became the only competing buisness in America of it's nature, that would mean that it is a Monopoly, and Monopolys are illegal here in America.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I'm not realy sure what your question is.


Neither Am I.


If it is "why is L/M seemingly getting all of the USAF contracts" then I can give my opinion.


Really? What ATB program has LockMart won that puts it at the cutting edge of a USAF contract?

I mean, after all, neither the B-1, B-2, or B-52 are LockMart designs.


L/M has always been at the cutting edge. They designed the SR-71 Blackbird, still the worlds fastest aircraft. They designed the F-117, the worlds first stealth aircraft.


The SR-71 is not the fastest aircraft in the world, as projects such as the X-43a, and X-15 have proven. Nor was the F-117 the worlds Stealth Aircraft, I believe the Blackbird had stealth features and it predates the F-117. Now the F-117 was the world's first Stleath Project where the aircraft was designed SPECIFICALLY to be built for Stealth, due to it's RAS and RAM coating.


For the ATF program, they won - IMHO - because the Raptor was viewed as the better all around aircraft and because of a feeling that L/M could actually keep it's price within it's estimate, which was not done by N/G in the ATB program.


I would change one thing in this statement, atleast, in my opinion, the Lightning II was chosen for it's economy more so than it's Master of No trades aspects. The YF-23 was the better aircraft, in several aspects, but in some it was inferior indeed. Also, it was pricey, significantly more than the YF-22 from what I understand.


As for a F-22 vs F-23 comparison...

The F-23 was slightly faster and slightly more stealthy. The F-22 was slightly more agile and slightly cheaper.

Basically, the USAF takes a look at the cost, risk, technology, performance, and what not, and then make a decision from there.


Right, but more so a larger look at cost, and at one point, it will be it's downfall, you can't always go with the lesser just for the price. Now, overall, you're statements are correct, but I just wanted to touch up on some minor details
.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
The F/A 18 was born out of a competition in 1974 for a lightweight naval fighter 6 designs were put forward one was the mcdonnell douglas 263 but the comp was ended by the american defence department in August of the same year.

So the navy looked at the airforces projects the yf-16 and yf-17 ,neither of them were suitable for the navy at the time so Northrop joined up with mcdonnell douglas to take the best points of the 263 that they had submitted in the short lived competition and incorporate them with the yf-17 resulting in a total redesign to meet the navys specs.which led to the F/A-18.

The f-16 then the Yf-16 won its competiton for a light weight fighter in january of 1975.

Waynos was correct, Just to try and clarify things on this matter.



[edit on 8-2-2006 by buckaroo]

[edit on 8-2-2006 by buckaroo]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Heres a bit of historical reference for you Shugo.

The 1974 OBA at the top and the 1978 OBA beneath. Essential guides in my schooldays!
The relevant information is in the 'notes' section on each entry.





[edit on 8-2-2006 by waynos]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Thanks for that waynos...mindstrikingly similar of course. I think I'm getting the picture on the matter as far as the F-16/YF-17 course goes, was unaware of that.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Your welcome. Anyone else wnating an excerptt from those books I have every annual edition from the first in 1943 to the last published in 1992, just ask. I have mentioned it before but its worth posting a reminder.

I just noticed something else too, the 1978 one backs up my claim from a couple of weeks ago that the strike version was going to be called the A-18 before all that F/A nonsense started. Now, where is that thread?



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   
[quote]

Has Lockheed become a favorite in the airforce? Granted the Have Blue project was an aweful project, and a grave disappointment to the Stealth Fighter/Attacker Project.

Have Blue was the test bed that led DIRECTLY to the Stealth Fighter! How can that be called a failure? Sure they crashed But they need to prove the concept(s) some where some how.

Dead Steve



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 01:41 AM
link   
I prefer to say the YF-GE-120 should be winner competite with YF-PW-119. The YF120 is a veriable cycle bypass jet with less fan stage than YF119 so also is more light than latter one.

The engines are mounted close together on the fuselage centerline, between the two booms that carry the tail surfaces. Conventional fighter engines reach their compressor-exit temperature (CET) limits at speeds of about Mach 1, because of the rise in inlet temperature and pressure. At higher speeds, the engine must be throttled back to hold down the CET, and the extra thrust must come from the afterburner. The afterburner consumes fuel very rapidly, and supersonic flight must of necessity be brief. The ATF engines are designed to run at full throttle at speeds of up to Mach 1.5. Both the YF119 and the YF120 engines are counter-rotating dual-spool, low bypass turbofans with single turbine disks in both low and high compression stages. Both engines have improved blade aerodynamics and structures, reducing the number of stages as well as the number of parts, and making it easier to cool. Both engines also make use of advanced materials and techniques such as composites, ceramic seals, hollow fan blades, and new heat-resistant coatings. The General Electric YF120 engine is apparently the more advanced of the two. The YF120 is a double-bypass variable-cycle powerplant that operates as a turbofan at subsonic speeds and as a turbojet at supersonic speeds. The F120 engine has a low pressure rotor consisting of a two-stage fan and a single-stage high-pressure turbine with a triplex digital control unit mounted on the power plant itself. The YF119 is based around a conventional cycle with an advanced fuel control and management system. It is basically a low-bypass ratio (0.2 to 1) turbofan. The F119 incorporates a three-stage fan as the low-pressure rotor with a singe-stage high-pressure turbine stage and a six-stage high pressure compressor, also driven by a single-stage turbine. Exit guide vanes are cast as an integral part of the strutless diffusers, and a fully-modulating cooling diffuser is located ahead of the two-dimensional convergent-divergent nozzle.

The variable-cycle engines, allowing it to operate as turbofans at subsonic speeds for greater efficiency, but switching to a turbojet operation with no bypass air at supersonic speeds, again offering greater efficiency. Both have thrust-vectoring ability, as YF119.

[edit on 11-2-2006 by emile]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join