Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0

you also have to take into account that lockheed seemed a lot more reliable and able to "put out" so to speak more so than northrop. A-12 that MD was working on was not going on good terms amongst design delays and numerous problems, MD was partnered in creating the YF23 with northrtop, also lockheed was moreexperienced with stealth aircraft dating back to the U2, was on time with plane and program delivery expectations, and at the same time demonstrated low speed high alpha, missle launch from internal bay, and a lot of other stuff. So in turn the battle was really reliability of a time tested company vs the RADICAL design of the northrop company's proposal...the YF23 incorporates a lot of features not seen on the raptor, but again reliability on mcdonal and perhaps the virgin like experience of northrop in terms of stealth meant that the F-22 in the air force's eyes, was more likely to happen with no problems. Maybe sometime in the future the YF23 could be used...I just hope NASA ends up testing it...its a good plane to learn a LOT from. NOt to mention it looks f****n BEAUTIFUL also taken from this site http://www.airtoaircombat.com/background.asp?id=9&bg=97 The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor - YF-23 vs YF-22 Last revised January 1, 2002 Written by: Greg Goebel YF-23A VERSUS YF-22A The Northrop contender for the ATF contract, the "YF-23A", was formally rolled out first, on 22 June 1990, and made its initial flight on 27 August 1990. The aircraft was informally named the "Black Widow II", in memory of Northrop's P-61 Black Widow night fighter of World War II. The YF-23A was unorthodox in appearance. The YF-23A was obviously a "stealth" design, with a diamond-shaped wing, a wide and flattened vee tail, engine exhausts hidden from view from below, a sawtooth rear fuselage across the tail and exhausts, and blended contours. The engine air intakes were underneath the wings, with the two engines buried well back from the inlets to keep them from reflecting radar signals. Air-to-air missiles (AAMs), such as the advanced AIM-9X Sidewinder and the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), were to be carried in internal weapons bays, not externally. Such a design was clearly meant to give enemy radars very little to lock onto. The YF-23A was 20.6 meters (67.4 feet) long, had a 13.3 meter (43.6 foot) wingspan, and a height of 4.27 meters (14 feet). The aircraft had a top speed of at least Mach 2.0 and supersonic cruise at about Mach 1.5. The YF-23A featured a "Vehicle Management System (VMS)" to keep it in the air. The VMS handled the YF-23A's flight control surfaces, including all-moving tailplanes and flaps on both the leading and trailing edges of the wings. The VMS could also monitor the aircraft's hydraulic systems, detecting and isolating damage to keep the fighter airborne. The Lockheed design, the "YF-22A", was rolled out on 29 August 1990, and first flew on 29 September. The aircraft was given the informal name of "Lightning II", after the famous Lockheed P-38 Lightning of World War II, but the name didn't stick. The YF-22A had a more conventional configuration than the YF-23A, similar in general plan to the current F-15 fighter: high-set cockpit, air intakes behind either side of the cockpit and extending to engines on either side of the fuselage, and twin vertical tailplanes. The YF-22A was less stealthy than the YF-23A, though more stealthy than the F-15. The YF-22A design was more optimized for maneuverability, featuring design elements such as thrust-vectoring engine exhausts that swiveled in the vertical plane. The YF-23A met USAF requirements for survivability, supersonic cruise, stealth, and ease of maintenance. However, the YF-22A was more maneuverable than the YF-23A, and won the competition in April 1991. Another factor was that the YF-22A was also seen as more adaptable to the Navy's NATF, though as it turned out the Navy abandoned NATF a few months later. The engine selected for the winning YF-22A was the P&W F119, which was judged a lower-risk path. The contract specified that Lockheed provide seven single-seat F-22As, two tandem-seat dual-control F-22Bs, and two nonflying test examples. First flight of a true F-22 was scheduled for 1996, with operational introduction in 2003. The second YF-22A prototype, powered by the P&W F119, quickly followed the first into the air. Although the first prototype was powered by two GE F120s, it was quickly modified to take the P&W F119. Flight tests of the two YF-22A prototypes were augmented by avionics tests using a Boeing 757 configured as a flying laboratory. The flight tests went well until 1991, when one of the prototypes suffered a landing accident and was badly burned. The other prototype had been relegated to ground tests by that time, and neither of the two initial prototypes ever flew again. Sources include: * LOCKHEED-MARTIN F-22 RAPTOR by Mike Wallace & Bill Holder, Schiffer Publishing, 1998. * "The Long Battle For The F-22" by James P. Stevenson, AEROSPACE AMERICA, November 1998, 36:41. * "F-22 Will Set Standard For Next-Century Fighter" by Stanley W. Kandebo, AVIATION WEEK, 3 August 1999, 46:50. * "Raptor Rolls Into Production" by Stephen J. Mraz, MACHINE DESIGN, 25 February 1999, 58:62. * "New F-22 Radar Unveils Future" by David A. Fulghum (and following), AVIATION WEEK, 7 February 2000, 50:51. www This site Search provided by Google News Articles There are 42 articles for this aircraft. Making the Raptor fly 10/18/2003 7:54:27 PM F/A-22 contract placed on hold 10/9/2003 11:18:56 AM GAO chief questions F/A-22 program 10/8/2003 11:43:44 AM More news... F-14D Tomcat | F-15C Eagle | F-15E Strike Eagle | F-16C Fighting Falcon | F-18C Hornet | F-18E Super Hornet | F-22A Raptor | F-35A JSF | F-35B JSF | F-35C JSF | F/A.2 Sea Harrier | AJ-37 Viggen | JAS 39A Gripen | MiG-23ML Flogger | MiG-25PDS Foxbat | MiG-29M Fulcrum | MiG-31 Foxhound | Su-30 Flanker | Yak-38 Freehand | F-2A | LCA Tejas | Mirage 2000-5 | Rafale M | F1 Mirage | EF2000 Typhoon | F-7MG | F8IIM Finback | FC-1 | J-10 | About Us | Site Map | Legal | Privacy Policy | Contact Us © 2004 AirToAirCombat.Com All Rights Reserved

1/48 x 1 1/72 x 2 1/60 x 1

I did thats where I got the info i just posted.

Developing radar for JSF, laying keel hauls for new navy ships, developing stuff for new navy submarines and doing other stuff for the JSF program and doing an advanced avionics upgrade for the E-2 hawkeye. As well as helping manufacture the super hornet.

Will be by 2010. Never DEAD though. From what david said the B/D models will be kept in storage in case they are needed. Just like what they did with the A-6E's when they retired in 96-7. I remember watching a wavy tv news special on it back in middle school in va beach.

yep 2 seaters ROCK! The only 2 things the JSF got goin for it over hrte night attacker D hornet is 1-stealth 2-range(nearlky double internal fuel of C hornet) The F/A-18D is my fav legacy hornet kuz its so unique. Its specialized for night attack. The marine one that is. very cool and does SEAD as well I believe. ANd it has a dedicated WSO in the back too! cant beat that. Its unique amongst hornets since it is a 2 seater and not a trainer like the navy B and D hornets.

YEp thats exactly what the F-15 was suppposed to do, that and intercept the MIg 25. The teen fighters, speicifically starting with the F-14 and including the F-15 were all developed from lessons learned in vietnam and to be manueverable from the start...and it proved to work well. F-15s kill ratio is unmatched and very manuverable, F-14s navy kills have all been CLOSE range, and the F-14 was able to outfly the phantom during test flights multiple times. BOTH FIGHTERS were to have a few things -internal gun -manueverable enough to counter the latest soviest threats of the time(mig 23,21,17, 25) and fast enough to intercept bear and other bombers -all around visibility cockpit If we break it down further we get this., F-15 1-internal gun 2-manueverability sufficient enough to turna nd burn with latest soviet threat 3-high t/w ratio 4-SPEED 5-be able to sufficiently counter and intercept the MIg 25 F-14 1-internal gun 2-manuverability 3-long range capability and ability to stay on CAP for hours 100s of miles away from base 4-multirole capability(again this was built in and provisions were already there form the onset it just wasnt really explored till late 80s) 4-phoenix missle *compared to previous attempts to make a phantom replacement(missler and F111B) the tomcat had MANY advantages.....MANUEVERABILITY and multirole being major ones. *eagle was at first "not a poound for air to ground" but it adopted the a2gh role very well and the strike is now the aardvark replacement. As for the vietnam stuff, to me it boils down to this. YEs the navy whgupped ass towards the end of the war and the phantom is loved by many surprise surprise, including ME. HOwever it is best at interception NOT dogfighting. It just wasnt built for it. Sure improvements are made but its just not the most ideal thing to take on an A-4 or similar sized craft in. F-8 on teh other hand was made for dogfighting. Thats why I feel the crusader is the best dogfighter, F-4 best interceptor, I canrt really say which one is the better FIGHTER overall but the only plane to do both in navy serfvice and outdo both is the TOMCAT. god i love that plane.

Didn an A-4 score a kill on a mig 17 with rockets as well? Also was not the thud's kill ratio in the USAF much higher than the phantom kill ratio for that branch? I was reading a lot about it the other day and most of the kills were actually GUN kills! damn that thud....thats one fine ass piece of machinery.

I would also like tyo add another part to this thread....F/A-18C legacy series VS JSF F-35C. we debated about the F-35 vs F-16 block whaever before...but now its time for the navy discussion...AND marine/RN!!!! HArrier vs F-35 B and F/A-18C/D vs F-35 C. JSf got better range supposedly. I wonder if manuverability is bette than the hornet though I highly doubt it.

where the hell did you hear that?

Yep. MOst crusader squadrons at that time were either converted to the phantom, in the process to converting, or just disbanded till operation frequent wind. Form what I recall some crusader squadrons never got phantoms and restarted operating as squadrons again with Tomcats. Which is a good legacy if you think about it. F-8 was built during the golden age of jet dogfighting. F-4 was built for advanced interception and warfare but had to fight a war that the crusader was at home at. F-14 was designed with the problems of the F-4 in mind and the lessons learned from vietnam as well. The F-4(navy) lacked an internal gun and manuverability and the F-14 had both and was designed from the onset to have both. It was also built to have a huge ass bomb truck capability that sadly wasnt used till the late 80s. (see early concept paintings and provisions..its there people). SO with that, the F-14 came at a good time...the first of the teen fighters to fly and fight and the FIRST to incorporate lessons learned from vietnam. Coincidentally also the biggest and the most powerful as well. God I love that plane. The greatest fighter flown by the navy....and a very worthy successor to both the crusader AND the phantom since it had the best capabilities from BOTH aircraft! See a pattern fellas? The super hornet is to the phantom as the tomcat is to the crusader....lemme rephrase. Crusader was good and was not succeeded in some ways by the phantom. Phantom was the majority plane and eventually the main navy fighter that was lacking. Tomcat came along and could outdo both. Tomcat was good and not succeeded in many ways by the super hornet. Super hornet becomes the majority plane and eventually the main navy fighter that will lack stuff. Its SUCCESSOR hopefully will be able to outdo the tomcat and the hornet!(god i wonder what the hell this thing will look like....hopefulyl awesome) It be awesome to see northrop grumman and lockheed team up to make the next generation navy strike long range fighter after the superhornet needs to be replaced......can you imagine that? grumman known for its successful CAT series of fighters NAVAL, northrop for working wonders in manueverability and sleekness and high AOA and lockheed for stealth...not to mention grumman is good with swing wings....holy crap.......

YEa the phantom to me was not the better dogfighter but the better multiroler. Carried so much stuff...dont know why thje hell people say its ugly it looked awesome. That and the tomcat made squadrons look awesome...where as the superbug just doesn't loopk as good in squad markings that frmerly were on phantoms and cats. Yep SAMs were the biggest killer in the war. The navy air superiority was so good that NO intruder was ever lost to an enemy mig in that war! I heard that from WINGS on discovery channel..damn I miss that show. Wild weasels came into effect in this war and were used in ironhand missions. Some navy planes on ironhand were the intruders. A-6B I believe. Air force used thuds then phantoms. While thinking back I noticed that thwe storm eagle from gijoe was YF23 based albeit hideously small. Also to you F-22 lovers the next gijoe plane is the thunderwing with the former FSW conquest pilot, slipstream. THe thunderwing is an F-22 and like all joe vehicles not accurate but FUN and looks cool nonetheless. Amongst joe jets it is easily in the top 5 of being the best. OH yea its a 2 seater and has a joystick in the cockpit too!

From what I recall the YF23 was superior in many ways, except for low speed high alpha, the raptor's was higher, this is not to say the widow was not good at low speed high alpha, the raptors handling at that speed was just better. Not to mention mcdonnal douglas who was partnered with northrop in creating the YF23(minimal work from md from what i remember) was going through a lot of problems specifically the cancellation of the A-12. Lockheed was already making progress withia bunch of stuff and was not in the kind of financial trouble their rivals were having plus they were already experienced with stealths while northrop's black widow was their first stealth. Essentiually they chose low speed high alpha and oh yea live armnament testing on the raptor and the reliability of lockheed to put out on time in their decision to choose the raptor. This battle was not as politically biased as tomcat vs super hornet. This battle was mainly experience, reliability, and low speed alpha + the fact that the raptor demonstrated high alpha more times AND did live fire exercises. Some of us, myself included think the widow and northrop should have been given more time. Former workers have said that the widow could demonstrate high AOA possibly close to the raptor in wind tunnel tests. I do know one thing,,,,damn thing was FAST. Another cool thing is that the widow could ride its own shockwave when breaking the sound barrier. That and it looks awesome. The navy should have done what it did to the YF17, turn the YF23 into a carrier based fighter./

they should be able to. At one con, maybe SDCC, kev from valk exchange said toycom had brought a long a 1/60 fixed pose battroid VF-1 casted in pure STEEL. IF they were able to show that(he siad they only did it just to see if the material would work) then I am sure they can show the 1/48s. After all, toycom technically was yamato the whole time, just the US distribution branch.

you know toynami, they dont kno where the hell to put them stickers LOL> yes it does indeed look like it is a final product sample.....and it looks good! The dead give away was the opacity of the stickers...see on resin protos which are usually shown, they are painted, but in this case as graham pointed out, it is plastic, and as i pointed out those stickers really stick out in the close in and personal shots. Even the crusty paint job on the glass rims is a dead give away to me that this is either final or damn close to it. I mean thats the paint we know and expect from them ! LOL but yes seriously their paint around the canopy tends to look like that.

to those with a milia qrau, will it fit a gijo size figure in the cockpit? IF so I already got a solution for the qrau! stik a gijoe in it! ....holy crap if so I mifht have to get one!

heres some info i read on the legacy supercruising. from http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/faq/ramfaq3.txt The definition of supercruise Engineers have always considered supercruise to mean flying supersonically -- that is with all airflow around the airframe supersonic (subsonic = no supersonic airflow, transsonic = some airflow supersonic; So different aircraft goes supersonic at different speeds, all faster than Mach 1, typically around Mach 1.3) -- without the use of afterburner. There is no clear agreement whether afterburner can be used to accellerate through the transsonic region or not, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to allow it, since the definition is about the cruise phase. In more recent times some people have started to use another definition, one meaning anything faster than Mach 1 without afterburner, usually as to include some aircraft in the very small group of supercruisers. Supercruising aircraft Using the strict definition the supercruisers include Concorde and F-22. If one includes anything faster than Mach 1 the list becomes longer with English Electric Lightning (M 1.2), Lockheed F-104A with J79-19 engine (M 1.05 at altitude), probably Draken, F/A-18C/D Hornet with F404-402 engines, F-15E Eagle with CFTs and LANTIRN either -220 or -229 engines (with the -229 engines it's reported to have accelerated to M 1.15 from subsonic and from supersonic speeds with afterburner slowed down to M 1.3 when the afterburner was turned off), Gripen, Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale and likely others. This is of course depending on altitude, weights and external loads and exact numbers are usually classified.

but tis a lot of added stuff from what I recall that makes the rhino drag more. Its stated in some configurations that the legacy can supercruise or at least break the sound barrier(F/A-18C). The top speed for rhino fluctuates; some sites say 1.6 and a lot like to say 1.8. It all boils down to this, its a compromise plane. It wont be the best in many respects, just good enough for what the navy wants at this point. Its capabilities exceed that of the legacy and so do its armnament, bringback, and capacity, BUT it is slower in acceleration. SOme facets of the legacy are better while some are not.

Here are some facts I can remember from tonight. legacy C can supercruise. Super cannot. top speed for legacy is mach 1.8. top speed for super bug is mach 1.6. the whole basis for drag is because of david's comments on the airframe. I have faith in what he says he is an aerospace engineer but I have read elsewhere about it on othersites like fas.org, globalsecurity, and some of the rhino fansites. and no most of this did not come from MATS.

oh yea and not to mention russia doesnt have any active Su37 sqyuadrons...hell I dont even think they even have the plane itself! in the militaryu! ONly sukhoi flies it i believe its not an active military plane...russia wishes it was but it just don got the money. Russia makes a lot of money off of exporting so they can make snazzy protos...but for other countries to buy. Their air force themselves is too poor to affor..at one year i think 97 they were at a rate of one new plane altogehter for the air force per YEAR.

Well you see the exact same quote over and over again. But one quote from one pilot taken out of context isn't exactly the best of evidence. ITs more than just one pilot. Even higherups admit the plane is a compromise plane, nothin evo or revolutionary. It is a good plane and it will do well at what it does, just not as well as the planes it is replacing.

No....phantom pilots if anything were only taught very very basic ACM or actually none at all....not until 69 and that was just the Navy. So no they were not taught the warhawk methods of taking on zeros. UIf they did learn them the kill ratios wouldnt have been so low in teh beginning. Nied, I skimmed through that issue. It is pricey but worth it, I love how that magazine always looks like a damn book with great photo. The superbug is a good multiroler but to me will never surpass the mission dedicated intruder and tomcat...it will never outdo the cat as a fighter and the intruder as a bomber... its like a sampler of food...has some tastes from both but is not the main course.

the aiframe has a lo of drag...theres numerous accounts in flightjhournal and others where legacy chase plane pilots pity the superbug mpilot since they outsped the superbug when the superbug was in reheat and the legacies were inn dry thrust. I understand its got better weapons capacities bu mopst of what i said is true. It is in general slower in acceleration compared to legacy and in top speed.On paper it would seem the superhornetn would leave the legacy in the dust but its the exact opposite.

ahh i see. No wonder it impressed Nied. It was most certainly pulling high alpha at low speed. I am sure it is an impressive sight. Never wil i say it is better than the tomcat but the super hornet is respectable in its own right,...just not in anywheree near as many cases. I think it looks cool. I wonder how the alpha performance on the superbug compares with teh cobra YF17 though......

OH its not that,. The only thing I really dont like...well a couple, are the fact that 1-legacy hornet can outspeed the thing in dry thrust-sad sad sad sad to hear 2-replacing the tomcat 3-chosen in favor of ST21 4-too much drag 5-...avionics mainly in engines and avionics as well as weapons payload, does not match performance of legacy in each class,,...as a new plane i would think it should outdo the legacy but it just doesnt in many respects. Other than that I think the rhino is ok and I am mellowing to it., I like how the rhino will also have growler variants since for the first time we get a suppression plane(naval) that can do self defense, and dogfight. THe only reason I disagree about the manueverability is the fact tha tthe falcon is so damn nimble..that coupled with the drag on the superbug makes me doubt a lot. I know the superbug is very manueverable, theres noone saying its like a lead sled here but to outturn a falcon is a lot, and from all accounts it would seem that the superbug does not sustain energy nor regain it as fast as a falcon...if anything the fight would be decided in the superbug with well planned instantaneous turns. This is not to say it cant outmanuvcer the falcon but in this case i just dont think it will. THe manuevers put on at air shows are manuevers that will most likelty not be in dogfights.....they are all done to showboat the plane. This is at every air show I have been at. There are so many ways how a superbu vs falcon fight can end up but I just dont think in a dogfight the hornet is superior.