F-22 vs YF-23: maneuverability vs speed and stealth, page 3

posted on May, 30 2004 @ 02:28 PM

link

A small point I'd like to make about these planes, if you're going to go down the BVR route and focus on stealth and speed, then stick to it, especially given the unit costs incurred due to that. You would never want to take either of these planes into a dogfight, not only are they not particularily good at it but they cost 3 times more then the counter-part. You don't build this type of plane at that expense to send it into a situation where it's second best. This isn't to say that manuverability is a waste of money on planes, it just is for these planes, it will only tempt pilots to use them for roles they're not meant for. I don't think I'd want to take any fighter more expensive then 60 million into a dogfight if it focuses on stealth and speed features, it's just a waste.

Lampyridae

posted on May, 30 2004 @ 03:19 PM

link

First sensible thing I've heard all day.

Also, by building in additional dogfighting cpability, you're adding on a whole nightmare of technical complexities, which will further increase the cost of your airplane. This "jack of all trades" kind of aircraft simply does not exist - it's nice to have in betweens, but it's more cost effective to have specialists as well.

[Edited on 30-5-2004 by Lampyridae]

longbow

posted on May, 30 2004 @ 03:21 PM

link

Originally posted by Amur_Tiger
A small point I'd like to make about these planes, if you're going to go down the BVR route and focus on stealth and speed, then stick to it, especially given the unit costs incurred due to that. You would never want to take either of these planes into a dogfight, not only are they not particularily good at it but they cost 3 times more then the counter-part. You don't build this type of plane at that expense to send it into a situation where it's second best. This isn't to say that manuverability is a waste of money on planes, it just is for these planes, it will only tempt pilots to use them for roles they're not meant for. I don't think I'd want to take any fighter more expensive then 60 million into a dogfight if it focuses on stealth and speed features, it's just a waste.

What planes do you mean are not capable for dogfight? If you mean F-22 it is very capable dogfighter, the best which will be in service excluding Su-37 or (maybe) Berkut (both probably never produced). It has excelent thrust/weight ratio (for example Su-27S has 170KN by 23 250kg, while F-22 has 285kN by 24900 kg) and also thrust-vectoring. Also F-22 has "cleaner" aerodynamic configuration(wepons in the internal bays), while regular aircraf performances are liited by external wepon carriage.
Plus so unconfirmed rumors : F-22 should have so low IR signature by subsonic speeds that it is almost imposible to guide IR rocket from most angles (probably true) the only way to lock it is to fire directly from behind, and that it should have also some kind of optical invisibility (don't know if true, should be invisble for human eye from more than 1-1.5 km distance, only visible by peripheral vision).

Lampyridae

posted on May, 30 2004 @ 03:24 PM

link

In a cost for cost situation, a superior aircraft would still be mobbed and taken out by many cheaper aircraft. 10 to 1 exchange? Some countries wouldn't made that. Hence not wanting to take the F-22 into an expensive furball.

devilwasp

posted on May, 31 2004 @ 05:11 AM

link

thats if u can find the craft though
the f22 is desgined to evade the enemys attention and take out the targets when it aint looking.

Lampyridae

posted on May, 31 2004 @ 11:28 AM

link

This is assuming you're fighting a technologically inferior enemy who can't, for example, detect aircraft by the turbulence of their engines.

If the F-22 can evade THAT kind of detection, I'll be very impressed.

Also... do you know that shiny section of the skin underneath the F-22's engines? That is most likely monel or steel alloy, with no RAM applied because it would flake off the from the engine's high temps. Unless they've fixed that, it's still a giveaway. Stealthier than a mosquito?

devilwasp

posted on May, 31 2004 @ 06:50 PM

link

frankly its still pretty hard to see the engines are pretty well covered from most angles of view
but uv got a point
still like the YF23 better ma sell like

Laxpla

posted on May, 31 2004 @ 10:14 PM

link

"The turbulence of a plane is caused by the movement of the craft disrupting the air around it. The shape of any stealth plane is made so that is EXTREMELY aerodynamic, having the least amount of air resistance. This minimizes the turbulence, and the fuel costs, since the plane is not creating so much drag. The less turbulence, the less likely it is that the enemy's sensitive laser detection equipment will pick up on the plane."

"Engine nozzles
Reduction of radar cross section of nozzles Is also very important, and is complicated by high material temperatures. The approach taken at Lockheed is to use ceramic materials. The ceramics may be either lightweight, parasitic sheets mounted on conventional nozzle structures or heavier structural materials forming saw-toothed edges"

-f22fighter.com

" Engine nozzles
Reduction of radar cross section of nozzles is also very important, and is complicated by high material temperatures.

The approach taken at Lockheed is to use ceramic materials.

The ceramics may be either lightweight, parasitic sheets mounted on conventional nozzle
structures or heavier structural materials forming saw-toothed edges."

-f-22raptor.com

InvaderZoch

posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link

Yeah, something faster and stealthier would definately be a better choice for the kind of fighting they're aiming to do. I actually heard the YF-23 actually performed significantly better than the YF-22, and plus, it's t3h s3x.

roniii259

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 12:18 PM
link

hmm, this kind of sounds like the f-4 over Vietnam. Planners assumed that the plane would only attack from long distance with missiles so they deleted the gun. the missiles did destroy planes from distances well, but mig-21 were launched at point blank range and seriously impared the squadrons of fighters. After the F-4's were equiped with guns they became less vulnerable, with most kills by missiles but also significant gun kills. That philosophy is in the raptor, keep them as a distance but be ready to fight them close in just in case.

American Mad Man

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 12:23 AM
link

Originally posted by roniii259
hmm, this kind of sounds like the f-4 over Vietnam. Planners assumed that the plane would only attack from long distance with missiles so they deleted the gun. the missiles did destroy planes from distances well, but mig-21 were launched at point blank range and seriously impared the squadrons of fighters. After the F-4's were equiped with guns they became less vulnerable, with most kills by missiles but also significant gun kills. That philosophy is in the raptor, keep them as a distance but be ready to fight them close in just in case.

We all know the story, but it is not a good comparison. The F-22 will most likely be the most manueverable plane, it HAS a cannon, plus there is a difference in the tech/tactics today. Think about it - the F-22 should really never be within VR - they will travel in groups of 2 or 4 probably, but be able to take out aircraft at a 10-1 pace. It is quite rare to see groups of 10-40 fighters at once......

on a side note, it's nice to see my thread still getting the occasional post

aerospaceweb

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 02:40 AM
link

Originally posted by Amur_Tiger
A small point I'd like to make about these planes, if you're going to go down the BVR route and focus on stealth and speed, then stick to it, especially given the unit costs incurred due to that. You would never want to take either of these planes into a dogfight, not only are they not particularily good at it but they cost 3 times more then the counter-part. You don't build this type of plane at that expense to send it into a situation where it's second best. This isn't to say that manuverability is a waste of money on planes, it just is for these planes, it will only tempt pilots to use them for roles they're not meant for. I don't think I'd want to take any fighter more expensive then 60 million into a dogfight if it focuses on stealth and speed features, it's just a waste.

That's the kind of thinking that led 1950s fighter designers to leave a gun off the F-4 Phantom. The thought was that all combat would be done with missiles from now on, so guns were irrelevant. That philosophy proved disastrous in Vietnam when pilots often found themselves inside the minimum range of their missiles and had no way to attack their opponents. BVR missiles have the same limitations, and you can never guarantee that a pilot won't find himself in a situation where a short-range missile or a gun wouldn't be the ideal weapon. If you try to remove those weapons from a pilot's arsenal, I can guarantee he'll put up resistance.

[edit on 18-8-2004 by aerospaceweb]

ximeno

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link

Originally posted by American Mad Man
...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...

You are correct.....BING BING BING! Give than man a prize.
The f-23 did out flew the f-22, the f-22 was pick because of one thing, POLITICS and POLITICS only, nothing more, no the f-22 did not get it because it shot a missle (it was not needed in the fly off) The f-22 is STILL in development after 20 years plus, the longest in history and the f-35 is follow that way too it is time to shelf that junk a/c.

INTELGURL
It was NOT given to the f-22 team because f-23 company was having funding problems.
The A-12 was allways being change by the navy, every week or day. B-2 there is allot of man hrs in that one.
by the way rumers have it the f-23 is coming back.

mod edit: Please do not quote entire lengthy posts, especially ones with pictures, just the portions you are directly replying to. Quoting Guidelines

[edit on 12-3-2005 by Spectre]

Anonymous ATS

posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link

to longbow: hahahahhahahaha even a su-35/30MKI can beat a raptor in dogfighting!!!!!!don't be ridiculous.

however f-22 does win in BVR

supacruze

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link

More info on the YF-23 can be found here:

www.yf-23.net...