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

Here go to this link and read Kirk's comment. Any how, I blab about the detail, airframe, and theory all I want all day. I'm just a computer engineer but with aviation passion. Blah! .. So here's the truth.

www.aviastar.org...

Originally posted by intelgurl
While the YF-23 was faster and stealthier (Lockheed even admitted to that) the USAF opted for the more maneuverable YF-22.
The reasoning behind this was that although the ATF was intended to be a BVR killer, they didn't want to be caught with their pants down like they were with the F-4 without a gun, just in case the ATF wound up in a dogfight. Hence, vectored thrust won out against a more stealthy and faster design.

I know you can dig up any number of web page links that say that the instability of the YF-23 airframe made it just as maneuverable as the F-22 with vectored thrust but no one saying that is actually qualified with the in flight data.

I actually liked the YF-23 better than the YF-22 if for no other reason, then it was a truly exotic airframe, but I can't see the YF-23 doing cobras or helicoptering like the 22... not without vectored thrust.

Chances are without vectored thrust it would have been cheaper too. I do wish it would make it in the intermediate bomber competition though.

China has acquired the YF-23 plans/patents and is working on a copy. In my opinion the YF-23 also suffers issues like engine stall/surge during hard aerobatics. It also has a more pendulous after body and thus has less natural stability.

The disproportionate size of intakes in relation to engine diameters offers a clue to some of the air intake engine surge issues.

Specifications (unfortunately some are classified and are missing in the comparison)

1) maximum speed

F-15C Eagle 2698 km/h
F-15E Strike Eagle 2698 km/h
YF-23 Black Widow II 2655 km/h
F-22 Raptor 2410 km/h


2) climb rate

F-15C Eagle 17500 m/min
F-15E Strike Eagle 16000 m/min


3) ceiling

F-15C Eagle 20000 m
F-22 Raptor 19812 m
YF-23 Black Widow II 19800 m


4) engine thrust

F-22 Raptor 312 kN
YF-23 Black Widow II 312 kN
F-15C Eagle 258 kN
F-15E Strike Eagle 258 kN


5A) weapons payload

F-15E Strike Eagle 11000 kg
F-15C Eagle 7300 kg


5B) cannon rounds

F-15C Eagle 940 (20 mm)
F-15E Strike Eagle 940 (20 mm)
F-22A Raptor 480 (20 mm)


6) maximum range

F-15C Eagle 5745 km
F-22 Raptor 5000 km
YF-23 Black Widow II 4500 km
F-15E Strike Eagle 3900 km


7) price

F-22 Raptor 150 mil USD
F-15K Strike Eagle 100 mil USD
F-15E Strike Eagle 31.1 mil USD
F-15C Eagle 29.9 mil USD


8) production

F-15 Eagle 1198
F-15 Strike Eagle 334
F-22 Raptor 166
YF-23 Black Widow II 2

Kondor, I'm glad you're here. You've brought a bit of life back to this board. But I think it would be better if you could write something yourself, giving your viewpoint and perception rather than endless dry data tables. discussion is fun, numbers don't prove everything.

Well, I like all of them. Like the Air Force choosed F-16 over YF-17, then the Navy selected the second one that was resurected in the F/A-18, which proved to be a good airplane also, would be nice if the Navy would use YF-23 modified for carrier use. The Air Force will replace F-15 with F-22 and the F-16 with F-35; the Navy will replace only the F/A-18 with F-35. They won't have a stealth long range fighter. F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is better than the Tomcat for air to ground role, but it can't be as effective as F-14 in the air to air role: high speed, long range radar, full spectrum weapons from the AIM-54 to M61, better turn rate.

There is now alot more information about the YF-23 available from a new dedicated site called YF-23.net

Its here:

www.yf-23.net...

Hasn't the F-22 also been grounded until 2012 for some issues with it's oxygen delivery system?

Originally posted by intelgurl
No to the VTOL, I'm talking about the ability to do a straight up climb, and slow down to 0 movement forward or falling back to earth. I don't know the term but one of the air force guys in here (ATS) referred to it as "helicoptering", I'm sure there is a more acurate term.
The video link provided should help explain.

Does helicoptering (or whatever it's actually called) have any real world application on the battlefield? It's very neat and I remember seeing the amazing videos of the SU-27 doing these sorts of maneuvers, pirouettes and such in testing, but I also remember hearing that while very nice, nobody could see what use it could have in combat. That was many years ago, so maybe someone has figured out some uses for that stuff now?

Interesting question, given our new prized fighter is having more then the decent amount of “down time”. But I think the original decision to go with the f-22 was the most logical. From what I got from reading the open reports on the subject, the F-23 was a tiny bit better in the area of stealth, but that is a formula that will always change. After all, the key to any arial weapon is aerodynamics and the f-22 was a bit better in total performance. I have no doubt the technology of concealment and evasion will change, that is the lesson of history. But when the “wing hits the air” if indeed you’r dealing with classic aerodynamic theory (and practice) thats where the rubber hits the sky, so to speak. New technology, electronics and meta-materials will make it easier to conceal a flying brick. But if movement is based on aerodynamics, aka; airflow over and under a surface, then theres only so much you can do to make a brick fly. Anyway, oh I can make it fly (even a brick) but it wont be pretty. Thats the key. If its not elegant, if it does not blend in with nature, I can see it. And “it” is “you” your dead.

I remember watching some sort of documentary on the YF-23 vs YF-22 as well as the JSF competition. Towards the end of the competition where the winner was going to be announced, I was certain the YF-23 was going to be chosen, but was quite surprised when they went with the YF-22. I think the F-22 has turned out to be quite a failure actually.

In April 1992, the first YF-22 crashed while landing at Edwards Air Force Base, California. Crash blamed on the on a control software error.

The first crash of a production F-22 occurred during takeoff at Nellis Air Force Base on 20 December 2004, in which the pilot ejected safely before impact. The crash investigation revealed that a brief interruption in power during an engine shutdown prior to flight caused a malfunction in the flight-control system; consequently the aircraft design was corrected to avoid the problem. All F-22s were grounded after the crash, operations resumed following a review.

On 25 March 2009, an F-22 crashed 35 miles northeast of Edwards Air Force Base during a test flight resulting in the death of Lockheed test pilot David P. Cooley.

On 16 November 2010, an F-22 flown by Captain Jeffrey Haney, based at Elmendorf, Alaska, lost contact with ATC around 19:40 Alaska time. The crashed aircraft was located, the pilot did not survive. A fault with the aircraft's oxygen systems was suspected in the crash; the F-22 fleet was restricted to flying below 25,000 feet and then grounded completely while the cause was investigated.

This aircraft has already lost 3 production models and it has yet to see combat lol

reply to post by deadmessiah


A problem with the flight control systems is not the same as the programing or code that controls those systems. At the end of the day the need to maneuver can overcome the need to hide what is maneuvering. If you use wing surfaces to control what a vehicle does, then you are left with certain parameters. If on the other hand you use other forces to move a vehicle through the air, or water, any fluid actually, then other factors are involved. Hiding from what is happing, starts with what the other guys technology is designed to detect in the fist place. Thats where the games begin.

The YF-22 and YF-23 debate is bubbling up again.

Now, 20 years later, with view to the major interest and eventual deployment of serious UCAV's, which is the better option for the manned fighter?

To me, naively, it seems that the -22 is the right choice (maximizing maneuverability for human-directed combat flight) vs -23, as the strengths of the -23 mission appear to overlap more with UCAVs.

I think the age of the manned air superiority fighter is over, or very near its end. I think small groups of stealth UAV's that are not limited to the 9.0 g's a pilot can withstand are going to rule the skies. Why send out one 360 million dollar F-22 when you can send out sixteen 20 million dollar UAV's? Pilots sitting behind a computer screen are going to push their aircraft harder than if they were sitting in them.

reply to post by deadmessiah


I was thinking that the air superiority mission would be one of the ones which would still demand manned craft--it is cognitively complex, and requires extraordinary situational awareness and judgement.

The first strike and anti-SAM missions (for which stealth is a huge asset) will be done with UCAVs.

Air superiority will be done with F-22, maybe controlling a swarm of UCAVs (missile & radar sleds?), but a balance of maneuverability and stealth is called for.

So, perhaps the choice of -22 over -23 turned out to be the right one. The -23 would overlap more with UCAV's than the 22.

I'm thinking along the lines of several smaller very stealthy UAVs with small air to air payloads. I imagine these UAV's, such as the Phantom Ray are virtually non detectable due to their small size and stealth attributes. For example, say the Russians send their stealth jet, the PAK FA to attack us. We respond with four 20 million dollar UAV's with air to air missiles. Lets say they don't detect each other until within visual range. A dogfight ensues. The pilot of the PAK FA is limited to around 9.0 - 9.3 G's, and only for a few seconds a time. The UAV's meanwhile have no trouble conducting 20+ G's for lengthy periods of time. On top of that, there are 4 UAV's against one PAK FA. Who do you think would win?

Having a person in the cockpit at all is a pain in the ass to designers of technology that can pull more “g’s" then a rifle round. If events can happen in less then a few seconds, when human introspection will sit and ponder, then why have humans in a “cockpit”. The same reason today as 30 plus years ago. Living things, like human pilots think. Machines just do based on their primitive binary programing. We react, and evolve But in a combat situation, I just want to win. Not a debating contest but the battle. The key perhaps is before we “let loose” the machines that would turn a body to goo, what do we do a full four or five seconds after it’s all over? We better have more then the be-for-mentioned plan.

I know there has to be a psychological barrier to pass for our air force and fighter pilots. A generation of armchair fighter pilots would dominate the skies and the current fighter pilots would have to step out of the cockpit and into a computer chair. Personally, I'd be a lot more nervous going up against of jet that has nothing to loose - nothing to loose in the fact that the pilot won't die if he smacks into the ground, rams the other jet, pulls a bazillion g's, etc.

reply to post by deadmessiah


Your point is well taken. But a target is not destroyed by passion, or introspection, but by the technology brought to bear. The questions, the “how, when, what, when" need to be asked by people, long before the shooting starts. Or its all mute.

reply to post by deadmessiah


There solutions for the g limit of the human body already in use: thrust vectoring (the nose of the jet can turn in the direction of the target with not so much g load) and high off boresight missiles (check Python 5 claims of 360 degrees launch angle) plus the fact that these missiles can pull a lot of g

www.youtube.com...

I have a pretty good source that says that it all came down to looks. The Air Force chose pretty over functionality.