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

That's definitely it, because when we refer to max speed, we're talking about Vno, the maximum structural cruising speed as specified in the Aircraft's manual.

Even though Vne is the never exceed speed, you don't want to exceed Vno because at that point the airframe becomes stressed and does not perform as designed.

Shattered OUT...

"Well, I would have to disagree with you there! I see No logical reason why the YF-23 can't do cobras. The cobra was demonstarted by the Russians on an SU-27 Flanker. I can't find Any source that states that the SU-27 has thrust vectoring. Why should US airframe technology be unable to copy the Russians on that?

Also, what is helicoptering? I know you aren't claiming the F-22 has VTOL capibility, because we all know that's not true!"

Tim

Actually Tim the Su-27M (Su-35) does have certain variants that use MAVT (multiple axis thrust vectoring), (source “Book of Modern Military Aircraft”).
the yf-22 and f/a-22 have many differances externally and stealth wise, such as the wing ending the tail fin the vectoring thrust nozzels and the nose design. they even differ more internally.
and about the speed of the yf-22 it realy depends on the prototype both the yf-22 and the yf-23 used two different types of engines on two different planes. the engines they tested were made by prat and whittney and general electric (the f-119 and the f-120).

... I must not be aware of some system in ATS.... how did this get on the front page when the last post I can see was in 2007?

Anyway, I think I've posted on this thread (or ones similar) since before I was an airdale (wow, that seems like it was forever-ago!). And after having many discussions with other airdales and pilots - we've all come to the conclusion that Northrop/McDonnald Douglas had the better design and would have been almost perfect for carrier use (we're Navy airdales) - especially considering the planned changes from the YF-23 to the F-23 (production model) and potential A-model revisions.

It was simply stealthier, had a better layout (as far as mechanics are concerned), longer range (certainly a plus for the Navy), and could facilitate a much more diverse weapons load than the raptor.

Plus, it still gets me that the geniuses at Lockheed looked at their poor bird, decided they needed lightweight access panels, took into account that they had a composite structure with high amounts of carbon..... and what do they decide to make those access panels out of? Magnesium. I reported this to our group of airdales in my unit.... and they just made a face that you couldn't describe... then just cupped their foreheads in their hands and looked down at the ground.

For those of you who don't know.... we in the aviation community (and ... well - the Navy in general - but the aviation guys have some rather unique instances to work with when it comes to the various housings and composites) undergo quite a bit of training when it comes to corrosion control. One of the primary forms of corrosion is "galvanic corrosion" - which takes place when you have two different metals (and some non-metals or metaloids) in contact with each other through an electrolyte (water, as it exists in nature). It's wonderful stuff, and is based on several properties of the two materials involved. Gold tends to be highly resistant to galvanic corrosion, Titanium is, as well. Magnesium, however, is known for being highly susceptible to galvanic corrosion. So is carbon, especially when in contact with highly reactive metals (like Magnesium).

So - we have Aircraft Engineers putting magnesium access panels on an airplane that has most of its structure made of carbon-based composites. Given the above tendencies of those materials to corrode very easily... I would think there would be some problems.

Sure enough.... most of the fleet was grounded because of corrosion forming around the access panels (which also corroded parts of the frame and made the aircraft less than airworthy - lucky the damned things didn't fall apart sitting on the ground). Billions of dollars of taxpayer money at work.... and having to go BACK to work to fix a problem that should have gotten the person who suggested it laughed out of the boardroom and not even made it on the drawing board.

Corrosion is an ongoing process and you can only manage it.... but there are times when you set yourself up for a hopeless battle against it..... the above is an example of that.

you shouldnt discuss the happenings of the YF-23, its classified

Originally posted by Aim64C
we've all come to the conclusion that Northrop/McDonnald Douglas had the better design and would have been almost perfect for carrier use (we're Navy airdales) - especially considering the planned changes from the YF-23 to the F-23 (production model) and potential A-model revisions.

I assume there was some major changes in the pipeline to either length or move aft the main undercarriage for rotation angle on take-off and AoA on landing, as well as a significant increase in the tailplane size to be able to rotate the nose on take-off?

reply to post by kilcoo316


As I understood them, the "neck" of the aircraft would have been extended and used to increase the length of the munitions bay. The design proposition was mostly geared towards the Air Force at the time, as there was still the ill-placed belief that the Air Force would be using their fighters in the future (we all know that the real work is done by the Navy, anymore ).

That aside, the production model was still on the drawing board and in computer models at the time of the decision to award Lockheed the contract. The Navy decided to pass the ATF by (much like they passed by the ULF competition - but later returned to the YF-17 proposition from Northrop and McDonnell-Douglass - which later became the F/A-18). Though the F-23 favors the Navy with a sizable range advantage over the F-22, as well as the potential for a more diverse operational load-out. Structural modifications would have been rather minor - though the tail of the aircraft would have been shortened (the original ATF requirements called for STOL, which convinced the Northrop team to use reverse-thrusting on their design; that requirement was later dropped and the reverse-thrusting removed from the YF-23, but by that time, it was not possible to change the airframe design accordingly).

Northrop and Grumman pretty much have the corner market for the Navy and are very experienced in designing Navy aircraft. You can bet they were envisioning the F-23 taking off of a carrier. Interestingly enough, most of the surfaces could have been folded up quite nicely and taken up less overall area than a Hornet Echo/Foxtrot (or come very close to it - I'm "eyeballing" it).

Essentially, it would become an F-14 with supercruise, greatly reduced RCS, and enhanced multirole capability - not to mention a greatly improved range.

The extended munitions bay would easily have been capable of holding a couple Harpoon anti-ship missiles, TLAM, TSAM, higher-yield JDAM and JSOW munitions, as well as a host of shorter-ranged anti-armor munitions.

Remember, while it may only be able to mount one or two of some of the larger weapons, its role would not be prolonged activity in a combat zone. It would be used to "kick down the door" for the F/A 18 Echo, Foxtrot, and Golf models - allowing them to bring their larger payloads to bear.

Of course... instead we have to go with this laughable, pudgy, penguin-looking thing that is the "Joint Strike Fighter".

While that aircraft has grown on me slightly - it's not got much use outside of Amphibious operations and the Marines. The Chair Force doesn't do anything but fly bombers, anymore; so it's not like they need it. The F-16 is better for running interference than the JSF is. And if they need the JSF to patrol our skies, then I'd sure like to know what that shiny golden bird of prey they just blew half the DoD budget (for the next 10 years) on is for.

I think that the YF-23 was superior in every way one can think of, but you all know it comes down to a few key, political and military opinions.

Who gets greased, which state is it going to be built, where will the first squadron be based and on and on.

On the brighter side, maybe the YF-23 is really the f-23 now in a super black program.

Would you really put it past the military to not have them both?

reply to post by intelgurl


hit the nail on the head...and i work for northrop, just for reference

Originally posted by kilcoo316
So thats why the USAF chose the YF-22 then

And since when does the USAF choose which aircraft it gets? Sure they may indicate what they would like but other than that i'm not sure they are luckier than the rest of the US armed forces in terms of getting what they like or asked for. If anything i probably could and would argue that the F-22 program was just another subsidy to keep Boeing from going under.

seattlepi.nwsource.com...

Without the American taxpayer you have to wonder where Boeing would/wouldn't be today. Since you are are the more serious aviation enthusiast why not find yourself a list of all the planes that have over the last fifty years 'lost' the race to being selected for serial production/USAF service? Would be a 'fun' project and from my little bit of reading i think you might be surprised by what you find and start realising why the various services of the US armed forces have such a troublesome time of winning wars against third world nations.

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.

And yet it's quoted max/cruise speeds are quite similar with a significant thrust to weight advantage/lower wing loading despite the fact that it didn't go trough another decade of enhancements and refinements? If stealth is what makes the F-22 superior why not go with the apparently more all-aspect stealthy YF-23?

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?

Does that matter much when the ONLY thing that makes the F-22 clearly superior to a evolutionary development of the F-15 ( en.wikipedia.org... + all the more well known versions ) is it's massively reduced frontal RCS? If that is what makes the F-22 clearly superior why not go with the more stealthy yet YF-23?

Either way i enjoy reading your posts so address whichever parts of my objections you think worth the discussion.

Stellar

reply to post by Ghost01


We didn't deploy a jet bomber until the Vietnam War?

Apparently, we did not deploy the B-52, the B-47, or the B-58... or these planes just looked like jets, and they had propellers. = P

Yes, the military is conservative by nature, because newer, unproven technology tends to fail in battle and get our soldiers killed. Look how long it took the U.S. military to adopt a semi-automatic rifle before World War II. Look what happened when they rushed in and adopted the M-16.

The B-47 was a radical at the time, but not as radical as the YB-49. Should the USAF have gone with the more radical design? No, the technology wasn't there to make the design practical.

I don't think the USAF went on a handful of simple reasons for choosing the F-22 over the YF-23. In addition to the reasons already mentioned, no one even brought up the better sales pitch that Lockheed Martin did, by showing that the weapon systems do work in actuallity, not just in simulation or static model mock up. Thrust vectoring was icing on the cake.

Radical design didn't help Boeing /McDonnell with the Joint Strike Fighter. To be fair, they were conservative with the power plant layout, which was similar to the current Harrier's... and with it came it's inherent problems.

To be fair, I heard similar claims applied to the YF-23 also applied to the F-22... and to be honest, if it boils down to sheer economics and politics, that's that. As long as our boys get something that is better than the bad guy's fighter, and our boys are happy with it, then it's all good.

I get the feeling that there might be something wrong going on within the halls of Boeing. They've been having problems securing military contracts for the past decade, starting from the YF-23, the JSF, and now the new refuelling plane fiasco.

I'd like to hear if other people know anything about this. Please sound off. = )

- CrayZee Asian Dude

if it looks good, it flies good... that's the rule.
The YF 23 is as ugly as the X 32, i mean come on... what were they thinking???

Originally posted by StellarX
And since when does the USAF choose which aircraft it gets?

When the GAO or Pentagon have to do it for them


If the USAF didn't decide, then why has the tanker decision being taken out of their hands for the 3rd go at it?

Originally posted by StellarX
And yet it's quoted max/cruise speeds are quite similar with a significant thrust to weight advantage/lower wing loading despite the fact that it didn't go trough another decade of enhancements and refinements?

T:W and wing loadings are largely irrelevant to supersonic Vmax.

Even subsonic lift-dependant drag (which is influenced by wing loading) is mostly irrelevant. The lift production mechanism for supersonic aerodynamics is COMPLETELY different.


Drag is the big factor*. When your wings are in the Mach cone - your drag will shoot up - and ultimately that will limit your top speed.


*since the YF-23 and YF-22 used common engines, its not a factor here.

Originally posted by StellarX
If stealth is what makes the F-22 superior why not go with the apparently more all-aspect stealthy YF-23?

Makes the F-22 superior to what? The real world usefulness of the VLO features of the F-22 are debatable. If it turns out that the VLO features are rendered irrelevant through improved radars, the F-22 can fall back on excellent kinematic performance throughout the flight envelope. The YF-23 has no such fallback.

Originally posted by StellarX
Does that matter much when the ONLY thing that makes the F-22 clearly superior to a evolutionary development of the F-15 is it's massively reduced frontal RCS?

The F-15 ACTIVE falls some way short of the F-22's aerodynamic capabilities. For instance, the F-22 is capable of recovering from high alpha without use of TVC - the F-15 is not.



edit: quote tags

[edit on 21/8/08 by kilcoo316]

Originally posted by kilcoo316
When the GAO or Pentagon have to do it for them

If the USAF didn't decide, then why has the tanker decision being taken out of their hands for the 3rd go at it?

I should have worded it differently. IF the USAF can not be encouraged to make choices in line with pentagon fund raising ( by 'encouraging' senators to support this that or what not) their input will be reduced accordingly......

Originally posted by StellarX
T:W and wing loadings are largely irrelevant to supersonic Vmax.

Trust to weight is largely irrelevant to maximum velocities you can achieve?

Even subsonic lift-dependant drag (which is influenced by wing loading) is mostly irrelevant. The lift production mechanism for supersonic aerodynamics is COMPLETELY different.
Drag is the big factor*. When your wings are in the Mach cone - your drag will shoot up - and ultimately that will limit your top speed.
*since the YF-23 and YF-22 used common engines, its not a factor here.

I suppose that's what my ignorance on this issue gets me. That being said as per the flight testing that led to the selection of the F-22 the YF-23 did achieve slightly faster speeds with the maximums still being , as far as i know, a well kept secret. The YF-23 were stealthier, faster and had more range and why the F-22 would be selected for maneuverability and cost when the Pentagon are well known to care little about such issues can only lead me to believe that this was a political decision.

Originally posted by StellarX
Makes the F-22 superior to what? The real world usefulness of the VLO features of the F-22 are debatable.

Agreed.

If it turns out that the VLO features are rendered irrelevant through improved radars, the F-22 can fall back on excellent kinematic performance throughout the flight envelope. The YF-23 has no such fallback.

When you fall back on secondary advantages you end up with a plane that can't do anything well enough to set it apart from anything else. The whole point of a specialized aircraft is to consistently play to it's strengths which is why the apparently more all aspect stealthy, longer ranging , and possibly faster, YF-23 should have gotten the nod. If your not going to fight BVR combat as enabled trough stealth and specialized munitions/radar ,and flee when you fail ( high speed), you can just as well keep making F-15's and overpower the enemy with the numbers you can then easily afford.

I have a great deal of a sympathy with compromising to enable more abilities but in this case i wonder why the specialization were sacrificed to do the duties that teen series fighters could easily fullfill at fractions of the price.

Originally posted by StellarX
The F-15 ACTIVE falls some way short of the F-22's aerodynamic capabilities. For instance, the F-22 is capable of recovering from high alpha without use of TVC - the F-15 is not.

Not to sound too rude but so what? To fight the type of fight your suggesting with such a expensive aircraft is contrary to all logic and nullifies the design intent. Why settle for less specialization that might in a decade lead to F-22's that can not win at BVR ranges thus being forged to merge with planes that can be deployed in two or three times their number? Why cant teen series fighters be deployed in support of F-22's to conclude aerial engagements when YF-23's have played to their strengths and withdrew to provide a reserve?

Either way i appreciate your comments and i really am mystified by the choice of the F-22 if the data about the YF-23 is accurate as portrayed in the sources i can inspect. As to the speed question i don't believe that the F-22 will be any more of a Mach 2 fighter than the F-15 ever was and especially not with it's stated pedestrian combat/interdiction un-refueled range.

Stellar

[edit on 22-8-2008 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX

I have a great deal of a sympathy with compromising to enable more abilities but in this case i wonder why the specialization were sacrificed to do the duties that teen series fighters could easily fullfill at fractions of the price.....

Either way i appreciate your comments and i really am mystified by the choice of the F-22 if the date about the YF-23 is accurate as portrayed in the sources i can inspect.

Stellar

Could you clarify Stellar the point of what roles you think it is that the F-22 is supposed to fill? I'm just trying to understand the first point I quoted in the correct context. My understanding is when you buy a new fighter you shouldn't be relying on the older planes to still be around. It would be like going back 30 to 40 years and telling the air force to keep the Voodoo when the F-15 was being built as it replacement. With the issues of airframe life cycles we have had as of late I'd think it would be clear that the time these planes have can't be planed for in anyway.

Also what is your reference to date about the YF-23 in your sources? I don't see how the date of what ever it is that your referring to comes into play.

Originally posted by Canada_EH
Could you clarify Stellar the point of what roles you think it is that the F-22 is supposed to fill?

It's original role or what 'roles' has since been assigned it? Wasn't the F-22 and YF always supposed to be interdictor meaning air superiority over enemy airspace?

I'm just trying to understand the first point I quoted in the correct context. My understanding is when you buy a new fighter you shouldn't be relying on the older planes to still be around.

Absolutely and that's why the JSF is being built at equally tremendous cost. My point is that at least in theory you can continue serialized production ( Like their not giving these companies new deals just to keep them in business) of the modernized versions of the F-15 to enable you to play to your strengths instead of compromising both designs with additions that make them 'rounded' fighters. I am not saying 'take the guns out' but the YF-23 had the range, speed and greatly added stealthiness that would have best fulfilled the old role.

It would be like going back 30 to 40 years and telling the air force to keep the Voodoo when the F-15 was being built as it replacement.

So the Su-27's are superior by such a margin that a evolutionary design of the F-15 simply wouldn't and couldn't have kept in service to do the grunt work the F-22's never will allow for? I think this rests on the presumption that a fighter must be clearly 'superior' to ever get into action and i think that's the root of the misunderstanding that has enabled the USSR to gain such a massive superiority in means by the 80's. Having technologically 'superior' aircraft is no more of a guarantee of victory than is numbers but at least with numbers you gain operational options a couple hundred F-22's wont ever give you; it's Mark VI's all over again.

With the issues of airframe life cycles we have had as of late I'd think it would be clear that the time these planes have can't be planed for in anyway.

I am not suggesting that thirty year old F-15's should be kept in service; it will still be a very cheap to reopen production lines as compared to degrading a new front line interdictor capabilities by compromise.

Also what is your reference to date about the YF-23 in your sources? I don't see how the date of what ever it is that your referring to comes into play.

Well if you don't know what i am referring to please make sure before questioning it's relevance to the discussion? I think i mentioned the date of the fly off between the two ATF's and all the evolutionary development that actually led to the F-22 we see today. I believe icommented on just what sort of plane the YF-23 could have turned into giving it's already superior general capabilities back in 1991.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Trust to weight is largely irrelevant to maximum velocities you can achieve?

With regards supersonics, yes.

Originally posted by StellarX
That being said as per the flight testing that led to the selection of the F-22 the YF-23 did achieve slightly faster speeds with the maximums still being , as far as i know, a well kept secret.

0.08 Mach faster.

Originally posted by StellarX
The YF-23 were stealthier, faster and had more range and why the F-22 would be selected for maneuverability and cost when the Pentagon are well known to care little about such issues can only lead me to believe that this was a political decision.

I suggest you read over the reasons for the decision again, as the maneuverability was specifically cited.

The lower risk of the F-22 was also cited - which is another way of saying minimising cost growth.

Originally posted by StellarX
When you fall back on secondary advantages you end up with a plane that can't do anything well enough to set it apart from anything else.

The F-22 is far and away the most manouverable aircraft in service right now.

It has by far the most complete electronic sensor suite (although not visual).


It is still the best aircraft out there even without its VLO technology.


The YF-23 in comparison is a sitting duck without its VLO technology.

Originally posted by StellarX
Not to sound too rude but so what?

That is just an example.


The F-22 has better dynamic properties as well, such as roll rate and roll acceleration.

Originally posted by StellarX
Why settle for less specialization that might in a decade lead to F-22's that can not win at BVR ranges thus being forged to merge with planes that can be deployed in two or three times their number?

Because, unlike the YF-23, the YF-22/F-22 would still be effective at this.

The YF-23 is just as vulnerable to radar improvements as the F-22 - but the F-22 is better equipped to compensate for it.

Originally posted by StellarX
That being said as per the flight testing that led to the selection of the F-22 the YF-23 did achieve slightly faster speeds with the maximums still being , as far as i know, a well kept secret.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
0.08 Mach faster.......

The YF-23 in comparison is a sitting duck without its VLO technology.

So its faster but that doesn't mean it has a advantage over the 22 in that category. Also I can take your word that it was 0.08 faster but there is no link or mention on how you know this. Yes 0.08 is much but the improvements and time spent to create the F-22 That would of instead been used on the 23 I'm sure would of created many improvements there too. Never mind the fact that the F-22 is much more like the 23 now after that process.




[edit on 22-8-2008 by Canada_EH]

Originally posted by kilcoo316
With regards supersonics, yes.

I just looked at the rates for some known mach two planes and it seems the two things really does not have much to do with each other.

0.08 Mach faster.

That's what i read, the difference being in maximum cruise speed at military power yes but supposedly the Yf-23's were faster by a significant margin with afterburner

I suggest you read over the reasons for the decision again, as the maneuverability was specifically cited.

Yes it was and it's in my opinion clearly bogus with respect to the other margins the YF-23 held over the F-22.

Both airframes offer 1.4:1 class combat thrust/weight ratio performance and combat wing loadings well below 60 lb/sqft, therefore the energy manoeuvrability performance will equal if not exceed that of the F-15. Controllability at high AoA has been reported as excellent for both types, in the absence of hard data it is therefore difficult to estimate whether Lockheed/B/GD's claimed advantage in manoeuvrability will be decisive.

Tactical radius and cruise speed are also critical parameters for the mission, in both areas the ATF is well ahead of the teen series fighters. Again in the absence of hard figures it is difficult to establish whether Northrop/MDC's greater speed and radius performance are a decisive advantage. Certainly the ATF's 25,000 lb class fuel capacity must offer a major gain in radius in comparison with the 13,000 lb class F-15, how much more will depend on the flight profile. Reports suggest the YF-22 consumes 30% less fuel in supercruise than an F-15 in afterburner, suggesting an SFC of about 1.5 lb/lbt/hr which is about twice the dry SFC of an F100-PW-100. Therefore on a purely supercruise mission profile the additional fuel may not offer a gain in radius, however a mixed subsonic/supercruise profile almost certainly would, the gain inversely proportional to the ratio of time spent in supercruise vs subsonic cruise. Both airframes are designed for boom refuelling.

www.ausairpower.net...

The YF-23 met maneuverability requirements WITHOUT using thrust vectoring like the F-22 had to do. Not surprising perhaps with the rather more aerodynamically unstable design of the YF-23.

As per Riccioni's comments there is no physical principles in existence that allows the F-22 to be more maneuverable by any significant margin.

The lower risk of the F-22 was also cited - which is another way of saying minimising cost growth.

If we are going to involve politics and speculation then i would point out that LM/PW needed contracts to stay in business. If a decision were about 'economics' then it's clear that the Pentagon opted to settle for less to keep it's industrial base intact and operational. As can be seen with the development of the F-22 it wasn't simple to try to do unconventional things with a very conventional design thus resulting in massive cost escalations that may very well have been easier to implement in a radically different design. Sometimes i just pays to go in a new route but since the choice probably came down to the political decision to feed LM as much taxpayer money as possible it may or may not have been relevant at all.

The F-22 is far and away the most manouverable aircraft in service right now.

That is claimed but not backed by any known physics principles. Thrust vectoring is by no means unknown and there is not in my reading any reason to suspect that the F-15 active or S/MTD ( 2D and 3d thrust vectoring ) could not have out performed the F-22 by a generous margin given it's rather smaller stature.

While i don't really have the background to understand this physics as well as you might others seem to and are not impressed with the F-22. Riccioni :

The 4 major characteristics were not met. The soaring weight increase ruined two of the requirements.
The 26 percent increase in gross weight led to a wing loading and thrust-to-weight ratio that are totally
comparable to those of the F-15C. That means there was no increase in performance or
maneuverability for reasons of physics. The weight increase caused a decrease in fuel fraction from a
very proper 36 percent to 29 percent—a little low even for a subcruising fighter. The highly touted
Supercruise characteristic was failed. The USAF hides it behind an aspect of supercruise rather than
stating its supersonic radius with combat allowance and landing reserves. The 50-year-old F–104A-19
can match the F-22’s supersonic cruise radius! Stealth was not fully achieved because in being the
largest fighter in the sky it is the most visible. It is “visible” to infrared sensors and identifiable by its
sound. Its radar can be sensed by high-tech Russian sensors. Its radar signature is admittedly small in the
forward quarter but only to airborne radars. The aircraft is detectable by high-power, low-frequency
ground based radars. The avionics system is a semi-success, but it was improperly integrated and uses
old state of the art chips. It will require complete replacement and redesign into a federated system using
modern chips.

I will have to find the source for you if you have doubts as to it's authenticity.

It has by far the most complete electronic sensor suite (although not visual).

I am not sure that it makes much sense to argue about what the YF-23 could or would have had at the end of ten years....

It is still the best aircraft out there even without its VLO technology.

Sure it might be but at that cost it's not all that that surprising. Shouldn't the argument be what the USAF and American people could have had if it spent the money on some other aircraft design or on the evolutionary design of say the F-15? What would 62 Billion dollars have bought What could the US have done with 3-5 thousand ( rather 7- 10 thousands but your going to have to train pilots and build airfields like there is no tomorrow) additional F-15's with LPI's and thrust vectoring? Could anyone produce that many Sam's? That's my point but it's not something that is apparently widely understood.

The YF-23 in comparison is a sitting duck without its VLO technology.

And you know that's not true so i must wonder why you felt the need to claim it? The YF-23 would not have been any or much less manoeuvrable ( conservatively) than the F-15C and that should in most respect be sufficient given a focus on BVR combat. The point i am trying to make is that you don't have to maneuver much for victory when you so badly outnumber the enemy that they have absolutely no freedom of action or stores/weapons enough to prevent your air dominance.

That is just an example.
The F-22 has better dynamic properties as well, such as roll rate and roll acceleration.

I think the YF-23 in fact has the superiority in roll rates? If you have some opinionated material i can read that can only help.

Because, unlike the YF-23, the YF-22/F-22 would still be effective at this.The YF-23 is just as vulnerable to radar improvements as the F-22 - but the F-22 is better equipped to compensate for it.

What makes the F-22 better equipped to deal with radar improvements? The Yf-23 diamond shape supposedly provides much rather RCS reductions in all aspects and coupled with the unique IR reduction technique that they spent so much time developing it is widely claimed/suggested that the YF-23 were more stealthy. I suppose we can't just blame the pentagon ( they wanted 800 of them) or LM/Boeing as in that numbers the F-22 could have dominated the skies in a mutually supporting way with room for the attrition that occasional VWR fighting might have resulted in. As it stands the compromise was a very bad idea that have resulted in a force that can no more handle attrition than it can dominate the skies by enforcing BVR scenarios. In the long term the future deployment of the JSF will compensate so the US will very likely retain it's dominance over third world air forces.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
The YF-23 met maneuverability requirements WITHOUT using thrust vectoring like the F-22 had to do. Not surprising perhaps with the rather more aerodynamically unstable design of the YF-23.

The YF-23 was never flown above 25 deg AoA.

Originally posted by StellarX
As per Riccioni's comments there is no physical principles in existence that allows the F-22 to be more maneuverable by any significant margin.

Well, perhaps Ricconi could do with looking at the laws of physics.


For two equivalent machines, bigger wingspan invariably leads to slower roll responses and rates. I've see the graphs, the F-22 is some way ahead of the F-15, but behind the F-16 in roll performance.

Originally posted by StellarX
That is claimed but not backed by any known physics principles. Thrust vectoring is by no means unknown and there is not in my reading any reason to suspect that the F-15 active or S/MTD ( 2D and 3d thrust vectoring ) could not have out performed the F-22 by a generous margin given it's rather smaller stature.

But they aren't in service are they?

Originally posted by StellarX
And you know that's not true so i must wonder why you felt the need to claim it? The YF-23 would not have been any or much less manoeuvrable ( conservatively) than the F-15C and that should in most respect be sufficient given a focus on BVR combat.

The F-22 is a substantial step over the F-15C!

Originally posted by StellarX
I think the YF-23 in fact has the superiority in roll rates? If you have some opinionated material i can read that can only help.

Can it beat 200deg/sec? (@ 0deg AoA)

Can it beat 100 deg/sec (@ 20deg AoA - which is more than double F-15)

Can it beat 70 deg/sec (@ 30deg AoA)

The first maybe, the last two not a chance.


At M1.5, the YF-22 responded like an F-15 at M0.8

Originally posted by StellarX
What makes the F-22 better equipped to deal with radar improvements? The Yf-23 diamond shape supposedly provides much rather RCS reductions in all aspects and coupled with the unique IR reduction technique that they spent so much time developing it is widely claimed/suggested that the YF-23 were more stealthy.

Yes, the YF-23 has lower signatures in both radar and IR - but what I'm saying is the YF-23 is the equivalent of a stealthy F-15.

The YF-22 was a kinematic step above the F-15 as well as having lower signatures (but not as low as the YF-23).

[edit on 23/8/08 by kilcoo316]

Pogo report was rather outdated / since mostly proven wrong.

Everest E. Riccioni
Col. USAF, Ret.
Revised August 10, 2000

www.pogo.org...

Perhaps they bought the expensive F-22 because it's cheaper yet more capable than 62 billion dollars worth of updated F-15s? Operating costs are lower, logistics costs are lower, training costs are lower, less people in harms way... et cetera... The only tactics I've seen devised to conquer the F-22 are, 4 vs 1, with updated Flankers. No such force even comes close to that. The F-22 does however, act as force multiplyer for existing aircraft / can suppress double digit SAMS. No F-15 could even match this capability, unless of course, you want to sacrifice hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment, countless lives, --- NOT acceptable in this day and age.

Even if we took that path, and even if there was an enemy that great, I see no reason they couldn't make that many SAMS? F-15 has a huuuge RCS, why have LPI when they can datalink / SAM you? TVC is primarily used for airshow tricks, impressive supersonic pitch rates, low supersonic trim drag... I'd like to see a F-15 go supersonic with stores + dry thrust... not even the -229 can it do that.

What I'm trying to get at is all these upgrades are likely to dramatically increase cost without adding capability - removing them we eventually we get back to the stock standard F-15 which we have now.... in massive numbers..... which increases long-term cost.... while enemies find a way to defeat the outdated aircraft....

Why not have F-22 / F-35 which can realistically dominate all threats, while being cheaper, with less logistics, with less support, while putting less people in harms way? This is one of the prime reasons we JUMP generation rather than continually update old aircraft. Imagine what would of happened in Korea if we brought massive numbers of Reno Air Racing P-51s.... or the first Gulf War with.... 5000 Super Sabres with canards, TVC, AMRAAM, AESA..... Even if we won, I'm sure people would be ranting on about how outdated our aircraft were.

Btw, sorry for the 500 edits I did.

[edit on 23/8/2008 by C0bzz]