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.

 

F-22 vs YF-23: maneuverability vs speed and stealth

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 02:48 AM
link   
OK, I was reading about these two aircraft wondering why the 22 was the choice. After a few reads on the 23, I actually now doubt our choice as the new front line fighter. The reason - air war today is not "dogfighting" anymore. BVR combat dominates current tactics.

the reasons stated were:



According to the Air Force, factors in the selection for production of the F-22 were a better designed for maintainability, greater potential for future development, and slightly lower cost. Secretary of the Air Force Donald B. Rice stated that the choice was based on confidence in the ability of the Lockheed team and Pratt & Whitney to produce the aircraft and its engine at projected costs. Emphasizing the importance of the Lockheed team's management and production plans, he denied that either prototype was significantly more maneuverable or stealthy. A popular view is that the decision reflected a preference for maneuverability over stealth


link

The F-22 is said to have "first look, first shot, first kill." If this were the tactic however, wouldn't the YF-23 been the better choice? At Mach 1.25 it was .08 Mach faster then the YF-22. It also was a bit more stealthy then the 22. So, if the USAF wants a plane that is going to go out, find it's targets, destroy them, then return to base, wouldn't the faster more stealthy aircraft have fit the bill?

My opinion is that the cheaper plane was the easy sell to congress, and since both aircraft are of magnificant quallity, it became a game of dollars. This kind of ticks me off if it is true, because that means we could have a slightly better plane for our pilots.

The idea that lockheed could produce the planes within the cost limit was highlited, but I have doubts as to how much better they would have been then Northrop.

Anyways here are some pics, and links:

the YF-23 Black Widow II







Widow II Link
Another
1 more

and now some raptor stuff







Raptor Link
another
and one from the USAF




posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 02:56 AM
link   
sorry - can a mod put this under aircrafts please?



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 05:14 AM
link   
Your wish is my command

DONE


[Edited on 4-3-2004 by DJDOHBOY]



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Both the Lockheed F-22 & Northrop/McDonnell Douglas' F-23 met most of the U.S. Air Force requirements, but the way I understand it, it was industrial performance that mattered.
The two main partners involved in the F-23 development had a not-so-good manufacturing performance record.

At the same time the F-22/F-23 decision was made, Northrop's B-2 bomber was delayed and suffering extreme cost over-runs, and McDonnell Douglas was having even greater problems with the eventually canceled A-12 naval bomber, (eventually getting sued by the DoD over the A-12 affair).

Lockheed, by contrast, had developed the F-117 Stealth Fighter on time and under budget, which I understand proved decisive in the Pentagon's choice.

Of course I was like 14 when that went down, but this seems to be the opinion of those in the industry.
Personally I think the F-23 is way more sexy than the more conventional looking F-22...



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 06:11 AM
link   
The 22 is also a lot more manueverable than the 23. If you looked at the tail end of the 23, you could see that it could only use thrust vectoring to make positve-G turns. The 22 can make both positive and negative-G turns with thrust vectoring.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 07:11 AM
link   
I cannot argue whether the delivery record of the companies played into this selection or not. I would hope that it does. Reward those who produce and punish through loss opportunities those who don't.

BUT, I believe one of the factors in the 22 winning out over the 23 was the air-to-ground mission that was added to this endeavor back in 1976. The F-22 is much more maneuverable at lower speeds.

I believe it was a bad decision to incorporate the air-to-ground mission objectives into the ATF program. It is yet another example that history repeats itself even when it didn't go right the first time - and this is especially true when the Pentagon is involved; and even more so when the Air Force is involved.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Think about it this way...

You are trying to get a portrait of your brother commissioned for his birthday, and you have a budget of $300

Artist A is more reknowned, and says he'll do it for $300...however, in the past, he's often ended up charging you about $50 more than his quote, and usually is about a week later than initially promised...if so, then this would be after the birthday...

Artist B is only slightly less reknowned, and says he'll do it for $250...however in the past, he's often ended up charging you about $50 less, and having it ready earlier than promised, or at least on time....

Both works promise to be something he'll cherish for a lifetime... Which artist do you choose? The choice is pretty easy huh?



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
It is yet another example that history repeats itself even when it didn't go right the first time - and this is especially true when the Pentagon is involved; and even more so when the Air Force is involved.

Someone I work with told me that one of the definitions of "crazy" is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time.
I don't know whether he is correct as far as what the dictionary says, but it does have a ring of truth when talking about the pentagon's expendature planning.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 08:00 AM
link   
The Word insaine , means to do over and over expecting a diffrent result.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 03:45 PM
link   


Both the Lockheed F-22 & Northrop/McDonnell Douglas' F-23 met most of the U.S. Air Force requirements, but the way I understand it, it was industrial performance that mattered.

So it was based on the reliabillity of the manufacturer to build the aircraft within the budget restraints and not the individual performances of the prototypes?




The 22 is also a lot more manueverable than the 23. If you looked at the tail end of the 23, you could see that it could only use thrust vectoring to make positve-G turns. The 22 can make both positive and negative-G turns with thrust vectoring.


From my understanding, it was just a little more manueverable. But my main point was that manueverability, while not obsolete, is not as important a factor in the strategy that will be employed on this aircraft as stealth, range and speed are. It is intended, again from my understanding, to quickly identify it's target and destroy it, without ever making it's presance known untill the last possable moment. It seems that range, speed, and stealth - all of which the YF-23 was greater at - would have been more important characteristics then maneuverability......... Plus, as Intelgurl said, it is a much better looking aircraft.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 04:00 PM
link   
From my understanding, it was just a little more manueverable. But my main point was that manueverability, while not obsolete, is not as important a factor in the strategy that will be employed on this aircraft as stealth, range and speed are. It is intended, again from my understanding, to quickly identify it's target and destroy it, without ever making it's presance known untill the last possable moment. It seems that range, speed, and stealth - all of which the YF-23 was greater at - would have been more important characteristics then maneuverability......... Plus, as Intelgurl said, it is a much better looking aircraft.

It is an apprciable difference in the A2A department. However I would rather have had the smaller RCS and better computers in the 23.

Plus, it did look pretty darn cool.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 04:23 PM
link   


It is an apprciable difference in the A2A department.

- But you see, my contention is that it really won't matter all that much, because the planes will most likely see very little, if any, dog fighting, which is where the agility comes into play



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   
- But you see, my contention is that it really won't matter all that much, because the planes will most likely see very little, if any, dog fighting, which is where the agility comes into play

Then why did they design super-manueverablilty into the F-22 and YF-23? Dogfighting will never go away so long as there are aircraft out there.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 04:34 PM
link   
because as you said, it will never go away. My whole point is that they were basically both equal, one having slightly better maneuverability, one having greater range, speed, and stealth. And as it is known, the ATF was designed to be great at everything, but it's MAIN tactic is BVR combat, which IMHO, the widow was slightly better equiped to deal with

HOLY #!!!!! 666 SIGN OF THE DEVIL!!!!

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by American Mad Man]



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
because as you said, it will never go away. My whole point is that they were basically both equal, one having slightly better maneuverability, one having greater range, speed, and stealth. And as it is known, the ATF was designed to be great at everything, but it's MAIN tactic is BVR combat, which IMHO, the widow was slightly better equiped to deal with

Okay, if you are arguing BVR stuff I have an issue. They were both equipped with the same radar (same range, same tracking, etc). So now they are equal at the BVR stuff, and it comes down to the other factors, dogfighting, A2G, etc.

As far as BVR they were exactly evenly matched (with the exception of RCS).


dz

posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
Of course I was like 14 when that went down, but this seems to be the opinion of those in the industry.
Personally I think the F-23 is way more sexy than the more conventional looking F-22...


oh i beg to differ.. the f22 is a much, much more beautiful plane than the bulky yf23



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 01:03 AM
link   


Okay, if you are arguing BVR stuff I have an issue. They were both equipped with the same radar (same range, same tracking, etc). So now they are equal at the BVR stuff, and it comes down to the other factors, dogfighting, A2G, etc.


point taken, but that "ect" includes things like RCS, Speed, and range - all of which the 23 was supperior at. As far as A2G, I realize that it is now th "F/A"-22 for a reason, but make no mistake about it, this is an air to air fighter. The A2G role will be filled by the JSF. This point is made quite well in the JSF thread




oh i beg to differ.. the f22 is a much, much more beautiful plane than the bulky yf23

-Are you kidding me?



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
OK, I was reading about these two aircraft wondering why the 22 was the choice. After a few reads on the 23, I actually now doubt our choice as the new front line fighter. The reason - air war today is not "dogfighting" anymore. BVR combat dominates current tactics.

the reasons stated were:



According to the Air Force, factors in the selection for production of the F-22 were a better designed for maintainability, greater potential for future development, and slightly lower cost. Secretary of the Air Force Donald B. Rice stated that the choice was based on confidence in the ability of the Lockheed team and Pratt & Whitney to produce the aircraft and its engine at projected costs. Emphasizing the importance of the Lockheed team's management and production plans, he denied that either prototype was significantly more maneuverable or stealthy. A popular view is that the decision reflected a preference for maneuverability over stealth


link

The F-22 is said to have "first look, first shot, first kill." If this were the tactic however, wouldn't the YF-23 been the better choice? At Mach 1.25 it was .08 Mach faster then the YF-22. It also was a bit more stealthy then the 22. So, if the USAF wants a plane that is going to go out, find it's targets, destroy them, then return to base, wouldn't the faster more stealthy aircraft have fit the bill?

My opinion is that the cheaper plane was the easy sell to congress, and since both aircraft are of magnificant quallity, it became a game of dollars. This kind of ticks me off if it is true, because that means we could have a slightly better plane for our pilots.

The idea that lockheed could produce the planes within the cost limit was highlited, but I have doubts as to how much better they would have been then Northrop.

Anyways here are some pics, and links:

the YF-23 Black Widow II







Widow II Link
Another
1 more

and now some raptor stuff







Raptor Link
another
and one from the USAF


Thank you for this thread, you said everything I been trying to argue for years. I think the F-23 was clearly the better deal in the long run and that the US tax payer got stuck with 2nd best. the combination of better stealth and higher top speed made the F-23
better for the air superiority mission as defined by the First Look, First Shot, First Kill. In BVR combat the F-23 was better because it was stealthier and faster. Yes I will admit that the F-22 had an advanage in flat turning, however in the US fighter pilots are trained to fight vertically. If you've ever studied fighter tactics from Top Gun, you'd see pilots pulling vertially and using speed and altitude to gain advantage over enemies in air to air combat. In vertical combat the F-23 was significantly better.

Tim



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 07:40 AM
link   
however in the US fighter pilots are trained to fight vertically. If you've ever studied fighter tactics from Top Gun, you'd see pilots pulling vertially and using speed and altitude to gain advantage over enemies in air to air combat.
Tim

Sorry, but that is not true. US pilots are trained to exploit the weakness of the enemy A/C and use the strength's of theirs. Sometimes this does result in a vertical dogfight, for the most part it does not.

If we strove to only fight in a vertical dogfight, you would see some high thrust-to-weight ratios in our aircraft.

What actually led you to believe that we focus on the vertical engagement only?



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Like vertical rolling scissors, a la Colonel Toon vs. the Black Knight? Historically, in wartime dogfights, American fighters have never been that good at close-in maneuvrability as compared to their counterparts. Although there some exceptions - the prop driven A-1s that nailed a couple of Migs in Vietnam.

Anyway, 80% of kills are made on the first pass. With the F-22, that'll go up to 95%.

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by Lampyridae]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join