Posted on 08/18/2025 5:08:08 AM PDT by whyilovetexas111
The Northrop YF-23A Black Widow II was a revolutionary stealth prototype that competed against the YF-22 in the Advanced Tactical Fighter competition. While the YF-23A was arguably stealthier and possessed a longer range, it lost to the more agile YF-22, which became the F-22 Raptor. According to one of the program’s engineers, the decision was not based purely on performance but was influenced by politics and industrial base concerns; specifically, the need to keep Lockheed Martin in the fighter business.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalsecurityjournal.org ...
Bkmk
I think that the YF-23 and the YF-22 were both fine aircraft. They both were completely revolutionary in the early 1990’s when they were developed. The flyoff between them even had two prototypes each, one with GE and the other with PW engines. The US would have done well with either choice, IMHO. The most amazing thing here is that, in the end, you had Great and Great to make a decision from. Had the YF-23 won, there would now be a group saying how the YF-22 was the greatest fighter that never was.
If we weren’t spending half our military budget (or whatever percentage) on forever wars, we would have been able to develop BOTH of them.
Seems more like flogging a blog.
See: Posts by whyilovetexas111 Free Republic summary of whyilovetexas111 - Articles - Activity - Comments
No flogging just a fan. I do my best to write back but not easy as I have some health complications. I will do better!
You are most likely correct!
I strongly suspect that you are right.
What we need is a huge battleship. To this day, one would be useful. And it would be blown up domehow by something small.
These planes are great. They will be lown up on the ground by something small in their home country or on our aircraft carrier that looks like a seagull.
We need 10,000 drones that can link together to be one of these planes, carry the load, and then as soon as hit by a missile, or to land 9n the ground, disperse into 10,000 buggers, or to do a different mission.
What we need is a huge battleship
Funny how people don’t realize that most Battleships, during and after WWII weren’t used that much for surface warfare. They were used as artillery. Fast forward to Ukraine, and Artillery in land warfare 100+ years from Verdun, is still very lethal on the battlefield. Sure, the drones are ‘sexy’ and new, but artillery is still important.
My issue with the Navy is that missiles are great against surface targets. Drones would be great against surface targets. How would you take out a concrete bunker 25 miles inland now? How would you destroy shore based emplacements for invasion? In other words, were is the Artillery. More importantly, what and were is modern artillery.
I am not calling for battleships, but I think the US needs to rethink naval support artillery, in a world of hypersonic missiles, drones, deadly aircraft, and instant satellite visualization. What is survivable, what could create a sustained pounding for an invasion.
Buyers must maintain competitive suppliers — even if it costs more.
It’s a blog. A clickbait headline followed by a paragraph followed by two huge ads for erection drugs, and alternating between a paragraph of text and two advertisements for erection drugs and a couple of pictures inserted between the paragraphs and advertisements for erection drugs. And yet you can’t find what the four words are. Free Republic doesn’t subsist on advertising of erection drugs.
For the most part, he posts the same blog link, and then IGNORES those who comment to him. Because he doesn't care what any Freepers REALLY have to say. He just wants clicks.
A survey of his past posts and comments is proof positive.
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.