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.

 

YF-23 Black Widow ( Western Museum of Flight )

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Hi, I can give at least one good reason it was not chosen

The missile launching system.

The Missiles in the internal bays of the YF-23 were stacked one on top of another and they came down in "racks" when being fired. This posed a problem because if a missile jammed, the missiles above it would not fire. If you were flying a sortie and a missile jams, you immediately lose half your combat load.




posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
Hi, I can give at least one good reason it was not chosen

The missile launching system.

The Missiles in the internal bays of the YF-23 were stacked one on top of another and they came down in "racks" when being fired. This posed a problem because if a missile jammed, the missiles above it would not fire. If you were flying a sortie and a missile jams, you immediately lose half your combat load.


I always thought that was just a rumor - is there actually some truth to it?



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I think so. I dont think the weapons on the YF-23 were ever officially tested, but the concept of the "racks" still posed a problem.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 06:44 AM
link   
First time I ever heard of this, I can't imagine the complicatiosn of a rack, how did it descend, laterally or vertically?

It just doesn't make sense to put racks on such a straight and narrow airframe.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   
I believe they were horizontal inside the aircraft and when a missile was armed they moved to the vertical position inside the aircraft. Than when a launch was ordered they popped out and fired, than moved back to vertical or back to horizontal, depending on if it detected other hostiles. Dont quote me on that though.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I still can't imagine the space required inside the hull of the aircraft for such a contraption, I just think that the added wait and machinery is completely pointless. Above the weapons bays are the air intakes, engines, fuel tanks, and other vital systems. I just can't picture a rack, does anyone have any pictures or layouts of what the weapon's bay might look like?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Here is a quote from Wikipedia

"Others point out the YF-23's comparatively flawed weapons release mechanism wherein missiles are stacked on racks, and a weapons jam of a lower-positioned missile could prevent the firing of the missile above it. "



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I think the missiles were stacked like this.

O O O
O O O

So if one of the lower missiles jammed the other could not be released because there was no clearance.

[edit on 30-11-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Sounds to me that is a big flaw, but it's not like it's something that couldn't be fixed by shifting some components around or making some minor changes to the airframe.

It still seems like unnecessary weight added, maybe they were just trying to make something flashy?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   
This will help your imagination.




posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   
It looks more to me as if it's a rack than anything else, when the word "Rack" was used, I imagined missiles stacked with mechanical arms that deploy them. It looks to me as if each missile is simply moved down a slot.

I guess that helps get rid of alot of the possibility for jam.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


An old thread, but I just noticed it. (I'm old too, but have known it for a while.)

None of the 4 PAVs (ATF Prototype Air Vehicles) had rf observables treatment, just the shape. They were to demonstrate that high performance can be obtained in a VLO machine - or vicely versa. They were also tested and compared to their engineering predictions so that an appropriate "fudge factor" could be applied to predictions of the PSC (Preferred System Concept) designs.

Observables were measured on non-flying, full-size pole models. Don't know where those went.

Sorry, no RAM to swipe.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Hate to bring back an old thread (I dont know why? :@@
But I want to see a F-23 on DISPLAY!!!!! It was taken from the Western MOF forever ago and I tried to visit them at least one year ago after they moved to Torrance and I just emailed them and they said they have no plans of getting it back from "a secure place at northrop" and they do not know why they took the plane back....



Sounds like BS to me



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 07:49 PM
link   
...it is very sad to see that the F22 won the competition based on the United States being "Scared" to try a "New" approach to the future fighter. I am not saying that the F22 is not a good fighter as a result but the way the Fighter won was totally unfair due to other reasons as well ( lower cost of the F22, thrust vectoring which the F23 could have also adapted, and many more other reasons which we may never know but the truth lies with a few which we may never find out)...all in all the F22 won and we can only have hope for the F23 on the bomber version on a permanent basis in which the temporary bomber was already cancelled...sounds fuunny doesn't it ?....cannot win air superiority on cost but on the best results....the F23 !.....the future....



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I doubt the F-23 has gone to waste. There are more than a few airplanes that were passed up for political reasons or what-not and have come back to the scene later.

Back when the ATF competition was decided, the old stones of the Soviet Union were still crumbling to the ground - the need of the ATF was even brought into question (and in deed, it seems the F-22 will likely never see much combat action - the F-15s and 18s are far more suited to the diversified loads and missions demanded of today's squadrons). By the time a need arises for an aircraft filling the mission of the F-22 - it will already be obsolete (even the B-2 is living on borrowed time - China is closing the technology gap pretty fast and even showing the Soviet and Russian designs a thing or two).

Low Observable ("Stealth") technologies are extremely maintenance intensive. Their advantages are priceless - but they require constant updates and upgrades to stay ahead of enemy detection and counter technologies. Upgrades can do wonders for a design, but eventually the entire design becomes obsolete. The F-22 reflects this - in the 12+ years it took to put the plane into production and fill the first of the orders - the design had to be continually updated. Some of it was necessary - and other parts of it were to make it more appealing as a multi-role aircraft (which, ironically failed and prompted the design of the F-35 JSF... which, last I heard, was being passed up by every branch except the Marines who can appreciate the VTOL version).

At present, our electronic warfare systems, strategies, and aircraft are more than capable of completely dominating any force out there. Our branches will invest in the continued development of various technologies, but actually bring very few to the field until there becomes a need to field the expensive advantages of Low-Observable designs.

As much as I love the F-23, and as much as I could see it being adapted as a replacement for the F-14.... it, too, was a thoroughbred fighter - not a bomb truck. It could have been a damned quick and effective bomb truck... but with a limited payload (perhaps not as limited as the 22s, but limited, none the less). Furthermore, even its design advantages would have begun waning.

The Navy is quite content with the F-18s, and the Chair Force doesn't do much more than fly circles in bombers these days......

Isn't there still one of the two PAVs on display somewhere? I'm not sure if they would let me take measurements (they probably wouldn't care unless I asked them, like most things...) - but I've wanted to build a flying scale model based off of the YF-23 (and concept designs available for the F-23).

I don't have the money for it, now... but one of these days..... and being an avionics technician - I have all kinds of plans on the electronics suite this thing is going to have...

I've actually wanted to build a UAV version of it (completely automated) that could be used for weather research using a network of small facilities across a region that could provide rapid response to various weather conditions and deliver monitoring equipment just about anywhere (and it, itself, being a piece of monitoring equipment).

But forget funding for that.... I don't even have the facilities to handle prototyping such a thing.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Hey Aim64C
The only place you could actually go up and measure a yf-23 is in Dayton at the museum in the restoration section of their one hanger. They are wrapping up work on the PAV-1 right now and may be on display by end of year or early next. PAV-2 is at Northrop and is in a fence off area and you would need their permission to get at it.

if interested in help moving forward on getting info you need why not post here
www.abovetopsecret.com...




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join