Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
The YF-22 might have been closer to the production F-22. However, that still doesn't prove that the F-22 will be any better of a fighter then the F-23 would have been. The YF-15 was even closer to the F-15A Eagle than the YF-22 is to the F-22. However, I doubt that anyone here is going to say that the F-15 could clearly outclass the F-22 in air to air combat.


Often going radical can have big payoffs! Look how radical the B-2 and F-117 both were for their time. Did these two airplanes not have a big payoff? Imagine the 1991 Gulf War being faught with NO F-117's or stealth planes of any kind. How much different would that war have been?

I still Believe the Air Force took 2nd Best, and always will! We could have gotten a lot More for our money from the ATF, but the Air Force wasn't Intrested in having the BEST!

Tim




posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Tim: Dont worry, we all are learnig all our life. You learned something new from my post as I learned something new from very informative kilcoo´s post. This is a great advantage of internet forums. It needs only one condition - to operate with facts.

ShatteredSkies: Right questions, but because its sensitivity I cant give you answers. So you have only two opportunities - not to believe me or believe me. Its up to you.



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Speaking of the Sensitivity issue, I'm courious, Does the F-22 program still operate under the SAP Code Name: Senior Sky?

I know the F-22 started under that when it was first conceived. Is it still aSpecial Access Program like the F-117 and B-2 are?


Tim



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 06:21 AM
link   
here is my 2 cents:

F-22A - the aircraft looks like a fighter, the thrust vectering and layout.

YF-23 - To me this aircract looks better as a natural F/B than an A2A aircraft dog fighting.

FB-23- expanded and improved yf-23 the fast seek strike and skoot aircraft

FB-22 - a bloated fighter a dodo with bigger wings

lets hope they have some use for the f-23 or maybe they already have?!?!



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   
IMHO, they will two one of a few things.

Turn it into a fighter bomber
Turn it into a replacement for the aging nighthawks

OR IMHO the best idea
Turn it into a carrier based advanced electronic warfare platform or a stealthy escort for the JSF.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Will F-35's be that weak that they require escorts in the CAS role?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I think its more of an ATG aircraft, I dont know about maneuverability. I doubt its going to be launched for air to air sorties.

In fact, I dont know if there is a single carrier based air superiority fighter in the entire us navy inventory...the Super hornet is definately not a great dogfighter...



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   
The Growler is the new EAW plane for the Navy. Sad... I enlisted as an ATI with hopes of working on the F-14 .... I get here at NAS Pensacola right as the last F-14 squadron is decomissioned. Now only bug fighters will occupy the decks of carriers. Maybe a JSF eventually... but....

The F-23 beat the snott out of the F-22 - don't argue with me because then it'll just draw out the conversation longer, and you'll lose. But I can assume someone here is as bull-headed as I am, and I'll have to prove that they will lose.

The real power of the 23's airframe comes from its low drag, high lift, fuel capacity, stealth, and maneuverability. As it goes faster, it gets more maneuverable. The design of the engine intakes generates lift when air is ducted into the engines - this improves STOL capabilities.

A modified airframe would be capable of carrying a devastating payload, crusing at speeds that make it nearly immune to interception, and stealth that allow it to venture deep into enemy territory.

I believe it would be a prime naval based strike aircraft. It would give the Navy an increased range into hostile territory and better relflexes. Combined with JSOW weapons, a single carrier with a squadron of F/B-23s could obliterate nearly all major military installations in coastal countries - and more than clear the way for a beach landing in exceptional cases.

With supercruise - they could simply outrun anything diverted to intercept them (afterburners, required for supersonic flight in all but the ATFs, burn up a hell of a lot of fuel). The Low Observable nature of the aircraft would, obviously make it even more hard to catch.

Bing bang boom - time to go home.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
The F-23 beat the snott out of the F-22 - don't argue with me because then it'll just draw out the conversation longer, and you'll lose. But I can assume someone here is as bull-headed as I am, and I'll have to prove that they will lose.

The real power of the 23's airframe comes from its low drag, high lift, fuel capacity, stealth, and maneuverability. As it goes faster, it gets more maneuverable. The design of the engine intakes generates lift when air is ducted




So thats why the USAF chose the YF-22 then



As I've previously pointed out - the YF-23 has a design top speed of around 1.8. They are not going to make the wings cut through the Mach cone, no-one ever does, and unless the YF-23 somehow is ignored by the laws of aerodynamics unlike all other aircraft it will produce a helluva lot of drag above Mach 1.8ish.


That moving aerodynamic centre problem hasn't gone away either [unless some God decreed the YF-23 was to be immune to physics] - neither has the inertia effects due to size. I wonder what percentage of dogfights happen far above Mach 1?



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Hook, line, sinker.... and my fishing rod!

The F-22 was chosen because it was thought to be more servicable and that it would be delivered on time and on budget (irony is a bitch, ain't it?).

There were concerns about the way the Aim-120s were deployed on the F-23 and fear that a jam of a lower missile could prevent the upper missile from being fired. This would have been eliminated in the F-23 that was designed to have an extended weapons bay (and slightly elongated fuselage) - and that the missile could be rail-launched from the same mechanism regardless of the lower missile's position.

The point is to avoid mergers - or "dog fights". The F-23 wouldn't need to dogfight because it's within engagement range and fires, before the enemy even knows its there. Although you'd be amazed at how many dogfights can and do occour at supersonic speeds. The only reason more don't are two reasons - G forces and maneuverability - most aircraft are designed for high subsonic maneuvering - not supersonic.

Most of the drag assosciated with supersonic flight comes from the aircraft breaking through its own sound waves. This is countered by three methods. The first method is to make the wings incredibly thin and sharpen the edge of the wing. Another method is to sweep the wings back, decreasing the percieved velocity of the air, which allows the aircraft to move at mach 1.5 but the wing only experience mach 0.9. Another way to reduce the drag is to deepen the wing - extending it along the body of the aircraft. This reduces the effects of vortecies created by shallow surfaces that cause bending, twisting, and overall drag on the aircraft.

Another way I 'feel' is to sweep the trailing edge of a wing forward - what we see in the X-29, Su-47 FrogFoot (or whatever they decided to code name that thing - I've heard several), F-23, and limited extent, F-22. That is because the airflow is shifted back towards the body of the aircraft. I don't have any simulator data to back that one up - just 'feeling' how it would work.

Sure - the F-23 is heavier - but it has a hell of a lot more wing surface area and superior lifting body charactaristics. It's not how heavy your plane is - it's how effective your control surfaces are. As mentioned before - the F-23 was nimble because the plane was ready to dart off in any direction with the twitch of an aileron.

Want to argue stealth charactaristics next? That, the F-23 was clearly superior in - but we'll see.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Hook, line, sinker.... and my fishing rod!

The F-22 was chosen because it was thought to be more servicable and that it would be delivered on time and on budget (irony is a bitch, ain't it?).


Might have been if they didn't make changes to the original design spec


Originally posted by Aim64C
There were concerns about the way the Aim-120s were deployed on the F-23 and fear that a jam of a lower missile could prevent the upper missile from being fired. This would have been eliminated in the F-23 that was designed to have an extended weapons bay (and slightly elongated fuselage) - and that the missile could be rail-launched from the same mechanism regardless of the lower missile's position.


No big deal - unless they simply had no room to redesign - in which case how do you get a JDAM in there?


Originally posted by Aim64C
The point is to avoid mergers - or "dog fights". The F-23 wouldn't need to dogfight because it's within engagement range and fires, before the enemy even knows its there. Although you'd be amazed at how many dogfights can and do occour at supersonic speeds. The only reason more don't are two reasons - G forces and maneuverability - most aircraft are designed for high subsonic maneuvering - not supersonic.


So the lesson of Vietnam is going to be completely discarded and make the same mistake again then?

If I'm dogfighting you, and want to turn inside I'll do it quicker at a lower speed. Energy bleed will also reduce your speed pretty quickly.


Originally posted by Aim64C
Most of the drag assosciated with supersonic flight comes from the aircraft breaking through its own sound waves. This is countered by three methods. The first method is to make the wings incredibly thin and sharpen the edge of the wing. Another method is to sweep the wings back, decreasing the percieved velocity of the air, which allows the aircraft to move at mach 1.5 but the wing only experience mach 0.9. Another way to reduce the drag is to deepen the wing - extending it along the body of the aircraft. This reduces the effects of vortecies created by shallow surfaces that cause bending, twisting, and overall drag on the aircraft.

Another way I 'feel' is to sweep the trailing edge of a wing forward - what we see in the X-29, Su-47 FrogFoot (or whatever they decided to code name that thing - I've heard several), F-23, and limited extent, F-22. That is because the airflow is shifted back towards the body of the aircraft. I don't have any simulator data to back that one up - just 'feeling' how it would work.


Google mach cone.


Sweeping the trailing edge of the wing forward is an effective means of increasing the taper ratio - which improves lift distribution lowering lift dependant drag.

Sweeping the leading edge of the wing forward results in the spanwise component (you spoke of percieved velocity earlier - its the airflow along the LE as opposed to over the wing) being towards the aircraft centreline. This reduces spanwise boundary layer flow towards the wingtips, and general spanwise flow towards the wingtips. Result is better lift distribution - less lift dependant drag, and also the ailerons stall last, not first - meaning more recoverability at high AOA manouvering.



Originally posted by Aim64C
Sure - the F-23 is heavier - but it has a hell of a lot more wing surface area and superior lifting body charactaristics. It's not how heavy your plane is - it's how effective your control surfaces are. As mentioned before - the F-23 was nimble because the plane was ready to dart off in any direction with the twitch of an aileron.



Weight (or to be more precise, inertia) is bad for transient manouvering - read the post I made on the previous page.

An F-16 still destroys the F-22 in roll - why? Shorter span wings contribute less... (ahh, whats the technical term for it!) roll damping as they will not obstruct the movement as much. A lower moment of inertia (in roll) allows the aircraft to transiently move so much quicker.

Thus - F-16 [which is how old?] beats an F-22 in both roll acceleration and roll rates. By extrapolation, the YF-22 will also destroy the YF-23 because of the same reasons.

Alot has been said of the lifting body characteristics of the YF-23, and at subsonic speeds, thats true. Not too much has been mentioned about the big bad effect of those nacelles protruding above the wings at supersonic speeds. [Anyone that knows how supersonic lift is generated will know what I mean].


Originally posted by Aim64C
Want to argue stealth charactaristics next? That, the F-23 was clearly superior in - but we'll see.


Nope - its generally percieved the YF-23 has an advantage in that area - I'm not going to dispute that. Besides, its not my field - I know *** all squared about reducing a radar cross section.


[edit on 12/13/06 by FredT]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Eyewitness reports place the YF-23 at a faster cruise speed than the YF-22 (by a significant margin), and greater maneuverability. Interestingly enough - the more powerful YF-120 engines designed by General Electric were never tested in the YF-23.

Lift is a different issue than drag. Of course, when looking at the design of the F-23, the 'fuselage' (or whatever you want to call the forward pod-structure) and engine intakes provide for a nice area to generate supersonic lift.

I have endeavored to perform computer simulations of the aerodynamic properties of the YF-23, but I have not been able to acquire the necessary computer software. Once that changes - I can give you all kinds of technical readouts that will prove you wrong.

The F-23 was in very few ways a conventional aircraft. It used not just trailing flaps, but also leading edge flaps to maneuver, as well as its ruddervators. God only knows what the avionics programming looked like - but I'm sure it was some rather crazy stuff.

An F-23 could have carried heavier and larger munitions than the F-22, due to the deeper munitions bay of the F-23. Modifications to the bay could have easily supported JDAM and JSOW munitions. Although the eleged F/B-23 would be much more adept at carrying these heavy and extremely potent weapons. The ATF is supposed to be a fighter - not a multi-role aircraft. That's why I laugh at lockheed for taking their fighter and turning it into a bomb truck so they can attempt to generate a market for it. Truth is - the raptor will hardly be ordered once the JSF hits the 'store'.

I would also love to see you prove that the F-22 is more stealthy than the F-23.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
I would also love to see you prove that the F-22 is more stealthy than the F-23.


If I had the necessary clearance to see the actual numbers, I doubt I would be posting them here
Leavenworth is not my idea of Club med Kansas. As with most of the discussions here we all have to rely on conjecture and other literature out there that is not classified. Most of the evidence I have seen is that that each plane had advantages and disadvantages depending on what side, AofA etc with the F-23 being overall more stealthy than the Raptor. But prove it beyond a resonable doubt? I sure can't.

Just stealth alon would not have made the decison. According to ben Rich and other sources the Skunk Works version of the stealth bomber was far stealthier than the B-2 but they still lost.

It would be naive to think that politics did not play a role in the ATF selection despite one a/c being better than another

[edit on 12/13/06 by FredT]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
... Interestingly enough - the more powerful YF-120 engines designed by General Electric were never tested in the YF-23.


So if the second ship didn't have YF-120's, then what was pushing it?



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by crusader97

Originally posted by Aim64C
... Interestingly enough - the more powerful YF-120 engines designed by General Electric were never tested in the YF-23.


So if the second ship didn't have YF-120's, then what was pushing it?

Noone told you? PAV-2 was powered by carebear stares silly!

On a more serious note, every time I read up on the YF-23, it was powered by two different engines with two different prototype ships, PAV-1 and PAV-2. PAV-1 was powered by PW-119 and PAV-2 was powered by YF-120. Atleast that's what I've been gathering.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Eyewitness reports place the YF-23 at a faster cruise speed than the YF-22 (by a significant margin), and greater maneuverability. Interestingly enough - the more powerful YF-120 engines designed by General Electric were never tested in the YF-23.


From: Globalsecurity


The YF-23 was slightly more aerodynamic as it's cruising speed was Mach 1.25, Mach 0.08 faster than the YF-22 (roughly).


Says nothing of top speed.

But NASA says this:


The YF-23 prototypes are 67.4 feet in length and have wingspans of 43.6 ft. During the ATF program, one YF-23 was powered
by twin Pratt and Whitney YF119 turbofan engines, while two General Electric YF120 turbofan engines were installed in the other prototype. The aircraft achieved a speed of Mach 1.8 during the program.


Which is remarkably similar to my estimated top speed of... wait for it... around Mach 1.8. For comparison, the planform design top speed of the YF-22 is in excess of Mach 2.3.

So the YF-22 could deal with engine improvements allowing faster top speeds without a problem [above the 1.8 specified in the ATF requirements], but the YF-23 could not.



Originally posted by Aim64C
Lift is a different issue than drag. Of course, when looking at the design of the F-23, the 'fuselage' (or whatever you want to call the forward pod-structure) and engine intakes provide for a nice area to generate supersonic lift.


Did it never occur to you that the nacelle protrusions above the wing will be producing downforce, and will remove alot (if not all plus some more) of the lift generated by the intakes and any lift generated by the forward fuselage (if it makes any at all).

Oh, and if you would, could you point out the lift generating mechanism for a intake that curves upward.


Also lift is not a different issue to drag, not at all. Lift and drag are very much interdependant. I guess you've never encountered the drag polar eqn before? Subsonically its:

Cd = Cd0 + K *(CL^2)

Where K is the lift-dependant drag coefficient.


Originally posted by Aim64C
I have endeavored to perform computer simulations of the aerodynamic properties of the YF-23, but I have not been able to acquire the necessary computer software. Once that changes - I can give you all kinds of technical readouts that will prove you wrong.


Doesn't matter what software you have, unless you've a supercomputer handy your gonna make nothing of use. A decent CFD simulation of a supersonic aircraft is gonna need around 40 million+ cells... do you have access to a machine with that much capacity? [Far side of 40GB of RAM]


Originally posted by Aim64C
The F-23 was in very few ways a conventional aircraft. It used not just trailing flaps, but also leading edge flaps to maneuver, as well as its ruddervators. God only knows what the avionics programming looked like - but I'm sure it was some rather crazy stuff.


I have yet to see any sign of asymmetric use of the leading edge slats on the YF-23. Not one photo shows any indication of this.



Originally posted by Aim64C
An F-23 could have carried heavier and larger munitions than the F-22, due to the deeper munitions bay of the F-23. Modifications to the bay could have easily supported JDAM and JSOW munitions. Although the eleged F/B-23 would be much more adept at carrying these heavy and extremely potent weapons. The ATF is supposed to be a fighter - not a multi-role aircraft. That's why I laugh at lockheed for taking their fighter and turning it into a bomb truck so they can attempt to generate a market for it. Truth is - the raptor will hardly be ordered once the JSF hits the 'store'.


Your laugh at Lockheed for doing what their customer (here the USAF) asked/demanded?



The ATF was supposed to be a fighter - but that changed - which delayed the program, increasing the costs. Not Lockheed's fault, your blame is misplaced for both project change and cost overruns.


Originally posted by Aim64C
I would also love to see you prove that the F-22 is more stealthy than the F-23.


I've already said its generally percieved the YF-23 has lower radar returns than the YF-22. I'm not going to try and disprove something I agree with.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
On a more serious note, every time I read up on the YF-23, it was powered by two different engines with two different prototype ships, PAV-1 and PAV-2. PAV-1 was powered by PW-119 and PAV-2 was powered by YF-120.

Shattered OUT...


You're right on that! The USAF contrated for two prototyps of each ATF contender for that reason. The terms of the contract stated that the First Prototype of each Design was to be powered by Pratt & Whitney F-119 engines, and the second aircraft would fly with the General Electric F-120 engines.

Tim



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   
I have a question, lets say the USAF decided to give the F-32 a go as their new strategic bomber. Who will built the plane?

Just Northrop Grumman or will they have to share the contract with Boeing?

Is Boeing now half owner of the YF-23 design?



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Carch, do you mean F-32 as a production version of the X-32 or was it a typo for F-23?

If the former then the X-32 was entirely designed by Boeing so they wouldn't have to share it with anybody. Given the subject of the thread though I can't believe you meant that plane.

Other than that I can't imagine either the X-32 or the YF-23 being the basis for a strategic bomber, surely they are (both) far too small for that role?

If Boeing did keep any access to the YF-23 when they took over MDC then, given their partnership with Lockheed on the F-22, they can't lose, lucky buggers!



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 03:51 AM
link   
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!





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join