Posted on 11/13/2015 2:50:19 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is the best air superiority fighter ever built, but could America have done better?
When the YF-22 prototype won the contract for the Advanced Tactical Fighter in April 1991, it was a lesser plane compared to the Northrop YF-23 in many ways. Though the YF-22 was a more maneuverable aircraft, the YF-23 had far greater supersonic cruise capability — especially when outfitted with the General Electric YF120 variable cycle engines.
Even when powered by the less powerful Pratt & Whitney YF-119, the YF-23 had the ability to fly an entire sortie at supersonic speeds above Mach 1.4 (explained to me sometime ago by Barry Watts at the Wilson Center — who was an analyst on the Northrop team at the time). The sleek prototype jet could also cruise at slightly more than Mach 1.8 when equipped with the YF-120.
WIB icon
“I don’t recall Barry Watts, although the name has a familiar ring. He was right about supercruising for the whole sortie, as that’s the definition (Ps=0), but he was wrong about the number,†Jim Sandberg, test pilot of the YF-120 powered YF-23 told me a few years ago.
“The one you quoted was just a bit shy for our PAV-1 that was equipped with the relatively underpowered YF-119 engines developed by P&W. ‘My’ airplane, PAV-2, equipped with the more powerful YF-120 engines developed by GE supercruised quite a bit faster — ‘very fast’, as the USAF censors advised us to say.â€
The final production version of the F-22 Raptor also cruises at speeds greater than Mach 1.8 without afterburner — but its endurance is much more limited. In fact operational Raptor pilots tell me that it’s not very useful during real world missions.
“Supercruise is impressive on paper but not very practical in a fighter with limited fuel,†a senior Air Force F-22 pilot said. “I would much rather have an aircraft that accelerates and gains energy back quickly than one that supercruises.â€
The YF-23 — contrary to popular belief — did not have an overall top speed that was any faster than the YF-22. Both jets were limited to an aerodynamic max speed of about Mach 2.2 as a result of their fixed-ramp external compression inlets.
In fact, operational F-22 Raptors are “red lined†at exactly Mach 2.0 with an artificial placard because the aircraft’s stealth coating are prone to delamination if the jet went any faster — particularly around the canopy. The Northrop design also had better range compared to the YF-22, and was arguably a stealthier design.
But why did the YF-23 get beat by the Raptor?
On the surface, the decision to go ahead with the YF-22 might seem like a vote in favor of a more conservative design since both jets grossly more than exceeded the Air Force’s requirements. But there was much more to the Air Force’s decision than aircraft performance. Three major factors played in Lockheed’s favor.
This being Washington, politics matter. Northrop and partner McDonnell Douglas had antagonized the Air Force and Pentagon leadership with their performance on the B-2 bomber and A-12 naval strike aircraft, Watts explained.
The second factor was the U.S. Navy. Even though the service had dropped out of the ATF program, the U.S. Navy still had a vote on which aircraft would be selected. The Navy’s choice was the naval variant of the YF-22 design, which looked like bizarre hybrid of a Raptor and F-14 Tomcat with variable geometry wings.
“The team, working hard on every detail of our NATF [Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter] design in late 1989 and early 1990, produced a very stealthy swing-wing fighter that could supercruise. It was very suitable for carrier operations,†according to Sherm Mullin, the Lockheed Skunk Works lead for the ATF program. “The Navy still got a vote in the ATF competition, and, as we found out later for certain, it cast it for our F-22 team.â€
The Navy was not fond of the naval derivative of the YF-23, which had a canard configuration the service found less than appealing. In fact, because the Navy’s reaction was so favorable, Lockheed later pitched a modified version of its NATF proposal for the ill-fated AF-X project that the Navy was ultimately forced to cancel in favor of the Joint Strike Fighter program.
Some Navy officials are bitter about that fact to this day.
The third major factor was that while Northrop adhered strictly to the requirements, Lockheed had the foresight to engage Tactical Air Command — and its successor Air Combat Command — on what the Air Force actually wanted. While theoretically the YF-23’s combination of sheer speed, altitude and stealth should have carried the day; ACC operators had not fully bought into the fact that stealth would actually work.
Instead, ACC operators wanted to be sure that the ATF was maneuverable enough to defeat any comer in a visual range dogfight — and moreover — those pilots wanted a jet that would have grossly superior agility at all speeds, altitudes and angles of attack.
Lockheed more than delivered on the Air Force’s desire for an extremely agile fighter with the thrust-vectoring Raptor. Watts described the YF-22 as a “super F-15†— which was exactly what the operational Air Force wanted.
WIB icon
Once the YF-22 was officially selected for the ATF program, it was designated the F-22 Raptor. Pratt & Whitney won the engine contest with its F119 — which while not as powerful, was far more reliable than General Electric’s novel variable-cycle YF120.
Ultimately, Lockheed Martin did deliver a world beating air superiority fighter that offers performance that is unmatched by anything else fly.
However, one can still wonder, what would an operational F-23 have looked like?
That is one beautiful aircraft.
It looks like it has faint resemblance to the SR-71.
What a beautiful aircraft.
I think Northrop lost mainly because the B2 was being built at the time and LockMart was hurting for contacts.
Boeing’s “Monica” never had a chance.
Look's like a high-school age aerospace nut's sketch of a "cool looking" airplane.
Actually, it looks better than that.
Diamonds are a pilot’s best friend.
Although it would have been expensive, the US would have been better off to have completed development of both the F-22 and F-23 to keep the contractors putting out their best efforts on price, quality, and schedule. Moreover, even with the F-22 as the preferred type, a relatively small production run of the F-23 would provide US commanders with the relative advantages of both.
In combat, for example, a five to one ratio of F-22s and F-23s would give the US the ability to use the speed of F-23s for a rapid initial contact and missile volley, with the F-22s then arriving in order to use its maneuverability in a dogfight or its larger internal weapons capacity for bombing missions. Having both types available would also complicate mission planning by our adversaries.
Some observers suspect that US built a small number of F-23s for strategic reconnaissance purposes. Or at least that may be why key performance data remains secret for an aircraft that -- officially -- never went into production.
I look at that picture and my first question is where would they put all the weapons and fuel?
Both the F-22 and F-23 have internal weapons bays like a bomber does, except that the fighters carry less ordnance but sometimes the fighters will carry the same types of ordnance that some bombers do. As for their fuel capacities and where they’re situated, I have no idea but I’m sure if you Googled for a cutaway illustration of either of these fighters, you’ll be able to see where they are.
YF-23 Walk Around and Design Features by Test Pilot Paul Metz
YF-23 DEM/VAL Presentation by Test Pilots Paul Metz and Jim Sandberg
discussion of the aero & RCS features and the V-Tails that I have never heard before are in one of these...
I remember following the competition between these two. I always liked the YF-23 better. Beautiful plane, up there with the B1.
Ah, a fan of Mr. Witcomb I see, ;-) are you aware of the "poor man's area rule" via John Thorp? Google: adverse pressure gradient matching ar-5 to find the link...
But given the shape, there isn’t much internal room, and that’s my point. Consider how they’ve put conformal tanks on the later F16s.
The YF-23 is a pretty and sleek plane, but there isn’t much volume to it.
I remember reading old articles about the USN’s involvement in the ATF selection, but could never remember where. Thanks for posting this.
As to the YF-23, there were rumors for years that a variant had been put into limited production as a black-world/silver bullet strike-interdiction replacement for the F-111 and F-117 fleets. I figure some day we’ll find out ;-)
I think you’d be surprised. The trapezoidal wings of the YF-23 have a LOT of internal volume dedicated to fuel, and there were big side saddle tanks outboard of the engines. Plus the aircraft’s weapons bay was long but shallow. The “hump” behind the cockpit was mostly a big fuel tank too.
The production F-23 was going to be larger than the YF-23 as well.
Am I supposed to be impressed?
Well, I don’t know, but I am UNimpressed with your understanding of what more than one of us is trying to help you with.
Sorry-
...what more than one of us WAS trying to help you with.
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.