Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 07/26/2025 5:30:39 AM PDT by whyilovetexas111
The U.S. Air Force made a “strategic blunder” in 1991 by choosing the YF-22 over the more advanced YF-23 prototype. The YF-23 was a more futuristic design, prioritizing the all-aspect stealth, speed, and range needed for modern, beyond-visual-range combat.The Air Force, however, being risk-averse, chose the more conventional and maneuverable YF-22 (or F-22) because it clung to outdated dogfighting dogmas.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalsecurityjournal.org ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
YF - 23 is there to be studied from now. So its not a total waste.
And therefore a lot more fun to fly. Of course you would choose it. Me, between the Toyota Sequoia and the Bugatti I know what I am taking. My family can walk.
Which is better for national strategy? You don't even want to be in those meetings with a gazillion power point slides. Boring. Really dull, boring do nothing meetings.
The Cold War wasn’t quite over yet when the Air Force made their choice. They thought the Soviets would soon have stealth too, making BVR engagements impossible for both sides. They’d suddenly be back to the Red Barron days, and the more agile fighters would win.
The YF-22 would have been easier to modify for carrier use, since the Cold War hadn’t ended yet, and the Navy was looking for an F-14 replacement. The naval version of the YF-23 was *so* different from the land lubber prototype it wasn’t even the same bird.
The military trusted the companies building the YF-22 more than they did the group behind the YF-23. They anticipated fewer delays and cost overruns with the Lockheed led pack. Repeating myself again, the Cold War was still a thing, and the Pentagon couldn’t risk the USSR getting ahead in fighter jet technology.
And China has used the old design to build a new fighter, so it lives on!
If the ultimate objective is deterance, the F-22 has never had to fight anything but a Chinese spy balloon.
WIKI
It was powered by two turbofan engines, with each in a separate engine nacelle with S-ducts to shield engine axial compressors from radar waves, on either side of the aircraft’s spine. The fixed-geometry inlets were trapezoidal in frontal profile, with a bleed system to absorb the turbulent boundary layer by using porous suction panels in front of the inlet. The boundary layer air was then ducted to vents and doors over the fuselage and wings. Of the two aircraft built, the first YF-23 (PAV-1) had Pratt & Whitney YF119 engines, and the second (PAV-2) was powered by General Electric YF120 engines. The aircraft had single-expansion ramp nozzles (SERN) where, as on the B-2, the exhaust from the engines flowed through troughs in the aft deck lined with heat-abating tiles to shield the exhaust from infrared homing (IR) missile detection from below. The tiles, made by Detroit Diesel Allison, were built from a porous material called “Lamilloy” and “transpiration cooled” from engine bleed air to dissipate heat. Unlike the YF-22, the YF-23 did not use thrust vectoring. The YF-23’s propulsion and aerodynamics, designed to minimize drag at transonic and supersonic speeds, enabled it to cruise efficiently at over Mach 1.5 without afterburners.
Specifications (YF-23A)
(note, some specifications are estimated)
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 67 ft 5 in (20.55 m)
Wingspan: 43 ft 7 in (13.28 m)
Height: 13 ft 11 in (4.24 m)
Wing area: 950 sq ft (88 m2)
Empty weight: 29,000 lb (13,154 kg) contractor weight (without engines)
Gross weight: 64,000 lb (29,030 kg) takeoff, 51,320 lb (23,280 kg) combat weight
Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney YF119-PW-100N or General Electric YF120-GE-100N afterburning turbofans, 23,500 lbf (105 kN) thrust each (YF120) dry, 30,000 or 35,000 lbf (130 or 160 kN) with afterburner
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2.2, 1,452 mph (1,262 kn; 2,337 km/h) at high altitude
Supercruise: Mach 1.72, 1,135 mph (986 kn; 1,827 km/h) at altitude[N 10]
Range: 2,400 nmi (2,800 mi, 4,500 km) ferry
Combat range: 700–800 nmi (810–920 mi, 1,300–1,500 km)
Service ceiling: 65,000 ft (19,800 m)
g limits: +7.1 g (highest tested)
Wing loading: 67.4 lb/sq ft (329 kg/m2) (54 lb/sq ft at combat weight)
Thrust/weight: 1.09 (1.36 at combat weight)
Armament
None as tested but provisions made for:
1 × 20 mm (0.79 in) M61 Vulcan cannon
4 × AIM-120 AMRAAM or AIM-7 Sparrow medium-range air-to-air missiles
2 × AIM-9 Sidewinder short-range air-to-air missiles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YF-23
I liked the Boeing X-32 with that big mouth , I’m going to eat you ,LOL
Due largely to the bureaucratic, slow-moving, and expensive DoD acquisition process, the U.S. has been forced to skip generations of weapons systems RDT&E & fielding, or limit the numbers produced. In design, we should jump ahead now to the inevitable, unmanned air, ground, surface, subsurface, and space systems. That includes NGAD & the F-47. We’re being far outpaced by the Commie Chinese, who are using our own IP against us. We need a strategy to vault forward and produce lethal systems in the hundreds of thousands that could blunt any attempt to overthrow Western civilization. And this from a 4th gen fighter pilot who would like nothing more than to fly a 6th gen aircraft, but who knows it shouldn’t be.
The YF-23 was the better aircraft design, being faster and stealthier than the YF-22. As the fighter aircraft combat environment has developed in the ensuing years, that is the more potent combination, with speed and stealth mattering more than agility because they permit a kill before your presence is even detected.
Reminds me of the Henry Ford quote (paraphrasing), if I had listened to my customers, I would have got them a faster horse.
Real met take 9 g.
.....read about the politics behind the now-retired Air Force’s F-111 aircraft (one of only a handful of USAF A/C that never had an official name....)..Boeing’s offering was the better A/C, but General Dynamics in Fort Worth, Texas, got the contract....hmmmmm; the vice president at the time was one Lyndon B. Johnson, from.....Texas...
The USAF leaders that chose the F-22 over the YF-23 were still smarting from being out maneuvered by Soviet Migs in Vietnam and not having a dedicated fighter with guns, relying on the F-4 fighter/interceptor equipped with missles only. The same dynamic occurred again, faster OTH capable YF-23 or more agile, close in dog fighter F-22? They chose the latter.
But the YF-22 probably fit the threat environment of the time a bit better than the YF-23 when a land war in Europe was the concern and China was a bit of a joke militarily.
Nobody at the time could even conceive of the situation that has evolved since then.
And the YF-22 was actually a more complete and mature design coming out of the fly off. The YF-23 was not that far behind in maneuverability as the article says but the perception was that the YF 22 had lower technical risk. This was probably not the case but Lockheed's team was able convince the Air Force that it was. and that perception made a big difference to people dealing with Northrup at the time.
One big issue was that the YF-23 would need a significant re design of the weapons bay and fuselage and had a number of other problems that needed to be resolved and re engineered at a time when the B-2 bomber was having similar issues. The Air Force was under the probably mistaken impression that there were less development issues to sort out with the YF-22
As expected. The Navy went with the F-14 instead of the F-111B because the F-111B was less than what they sought.
This article is full of 20/20 hindsight. At the time the decision was made, the F-15 was demonstrating that aerial combat dominance was clearly a function of first shot capability. The choice for the F-22 was based on that legacy, not some crystal ball second guessing decades later.
In application, neither the F-22 nor the could have been, F-23, have been exposed to the "near peer" fighting environment which was their primary design driver, but is now on the horizon.
FWIW I think the best decision in retrospect would have been coproduction of both the F-22 and F-23. In any case, the real short sighted decision wasn't in which model was best to produce, but, was in the numbers produced. The politicians killed the one feature either aircraft needed to be truly successful, the numbers to meet the need.
I am sure the process was fraught with corruption and “last war” thinking.
In the end, we may have ended up with a plane that might not be the best thing since sliced bread.
But don’t lose sight of the fact that our “second best” is still better than our competitors. By a long shot.
Long term...it’s all going to un-piloted drones that will be flown from a trailer in Utah. Those things will fly like the “Tic Tac” things over the pacific.
You misspelled “Obama” as “politicians”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.