Aircraft VS super thread!

[Nied]

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.

Legacy can't supercruise, neither can the Rhino. The official top speed for the legacy is Mach 1.8, same for the Rhino (or any other aircraft that can go faster than Mach 1.8, the military won't admit to having a fighter capable of going faster than that). And David can comment on his aerospace credentials better than I can.

Actually on the subject of drag, with the exception of the offset pylons, the Super Hornet is signifigantly cleaner than the legacy Hornet. Far fewer protrusions from the hull compared to the legacy model, and much better fit on most panels (though I imagine that's for RCS reasons).

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

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.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

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.

[David Hingtgen]

Whoa, hey, I have no formal credentials at all. Everyone always asks (and many presume) I have some degree or something. Not a thing. I just read a lot. I am most certainly not any sort of engineer or designer. I haven't even had a ground school class.

Hmmn, supercruise definitions. Well, the Concorde is still #1, but it does use afterburner to accelerate past Mach 1, then shuts them off and "coasts" on up to Mach 2 on normal power. Much like the SR-71, it tries to avoid Mach 1 if at all possible. Even the SR-71 will enter a dive so as to get transit Mach 1 in a few seconds as possible. Concorde only uses afterburners for a few secs at a time, so as to not need a 25,000ft runway, and to not take too long to get through Mach 1. Mach 1=bad. Go faster or slower, don't hang around it.

Mach 1.3 is the upper limit of transonic though, I'd say anything that goes past 1.2 is "true" supercruise.

Super Bug drag: new intakes are huge though. And that's one of the big differences from the original YF-17. Intakes were spread apart, and now they're even bigger and further apart. The frontal area is just growing and growing as the Hornet ages. Also, the LEX's are almost totally new, and I would imagine they bleed energy at an insane rate during even moderate alpha. Sure, it's got a higher limit now, but I would imagine at the sake of duration.

As for weight--I'm seeing a ~7,000lb empty weight increase, ~15,000lbs MTOW increase. 8,000lbs more thrust counteracts new weight when empty, but not at normal aircombat loads nor max loads. Yes, at an airshow when it's 99% empty it'll have superior ratio, but under no other conditions I'd imagine. Kind of like a Flanker--a Flanker at normal weights sees its ratio drop tremendously. Only at an airshow can it do half the moves it does.

[mechaninac]

Here's a fighter vs. fighter competition for you: The ATFs. To this day I still think that the USAF chose the wrong fighter from that competition.

From everything I've read to date the YF-23 had a faster, more efficient supercruise, had a faster top speed with after-burners, was stealthier, and had comparable maneuvering to the YF-22 without having thrust vectoring, and it was, by far, the best looking of the two, and IMO one of the coolest looking jet fighters ever designed. Barring other judging criteria that I'm not privy to, the only thing the YF-22 had going for it was the fact that it was a bit smaller, at least lengthwise, and incorporated thrust vectoring from the get go; this feature could have been engineered into the YF-23 during any subsequent redesign that invariably takes place before the plane goes into full scale production.

While the F-22 raptor is an awesome plane that looks great from some angles and downright ungainly form others, in my estimation, politics had about as much to do with the final decision for its victory over the YF-23 as did the merits of either design.

[ewilen]

I think you're leaving out cost. I may be mistaken, but I believe the YF-22 was considered likely to lead to a less expensive production version.

Politics may have been a factor, but you may also be leaving out institutional bias. The YF-22's maneuverability advantage (however slight) may have appealed to those in the Air Force who wanted to be assured of maximum advantage in traditional WVR aerial combat.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

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./

[ewilen]

Returning to the USN Phantoms' record post-Top Gun, I used the source I linked above to calculate some stats. I first imported the data into spreadsheets, then I sorted it by Service (USN or Air Force), Aircraft type, and date. I excluded records which were unconfirmed (apparently, North Vietnamese victories claimed by North Vietnamese sources) or which didn't identify the service (apparently, North Vietnamese losses not recorded in American sources).

For F-8 Crusaders, all models, throughout the war, I get a victory-loss record of 20-4.

For USN F-4 Phantoms, all models, from March, 1969 to the end of the war, I get a victory-loss record of 25-4.

The Top Gun program was started in March, 1969, though obviously the first class didn't graduate until later. But since there were no Navy F-4 victories or losses prior to 28 March, 1970, it is likely that I've captured the entire "post Top Gun" record for the Phantom. If Jerome Beaulier and his RIO didn't attend Top Gun prior to that 1970 victory, then the record would drop to 24-4.

One problem with the data is that some of the losses are commented as "attibuted to SAM" or "attributed to AAA", even though an enemy aircraft type is often listed as the victor. If you exclude those, the F-8's record improves to 20-2, while the post-Top Gun Navy's F-4 losses to air-air combat drop to 2.

The above numbers do not include the Marine Corps. I don't know if the USMC participated in Top Gun during Vietnam. USMC F-4's had 2 victories and 1 loss in the period after March, 1969.

So depending on what you decide to include, based on the data used, the F-8's overall victory:loss ratio was somewhere between 10:1 and 5:1. The USN/USMC's post-Top Gun ratio was somewhere between 12.5:1 and 5.2:1

Now, in spite of the Phantom's marginal advantage over the Crusader in this particular comparison, I would hesitate to conclude that one plane was superior to the other in the air-to-air mission against enemy MiGs, or would necessarily defeat the other in a 1-1 fight. As David alluded, it's clear that training and tactics are the paramount factor given two able (though dissimilar) aircraft. Where the Phantom outshone the Crusader was its ability to work about as well as an air superiority craft, while also doing so many other jobs.

Edit: one thing I noticed from going through various online sources--the biggest killer of American aircraft in Vietnam wasn't enemy MiGs--it was anti-aircraft fire and accidents.

Edited June 3, 2004 by ewilen

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

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!

[David Hingtgen]

Well, we are comparing post-Top Gun F-4's to pre-Top Gun F-8's. And the ratio is quite close. But imagine how good post-Top Gun F-8's would have done. And compared to pre-Top Gun F-4's.

Basically: the best F-4 situation was as good as the worst F-8 situation. Anything else, I think the F-8 comes out ahead.

And I'd love to see the USAF F-4 numbers, especially early war.

Most places split the air war in to 65-68, and 70-74. There really wasn't anything from 68-70. I think 1 MiG was shot then. And the F-8 wasn't around for the later part.

[David Hingtgen]

PS, Ewilen--are you including the RF-8A loss? Because that's the only way I can see having "4" in the F-8 loss records. That shouldn't count. RF-8's were unarmed recon photo planes. They never ever engaged in air combat. That'd be like listing if a KC-10 was shot down. It's not an air combat loss.

http://www.danshistory.com/airwar.shtml has a nice summary (for 65-68 vs 70+:

For the F-4, USN went from 3.7:1 to 12.5:1. USAF went from 3:1 to 4:1. F-8 was 6:1 overall. So the USN got a huge boost from new tactics, USAF got a small boost. So what would the F-8 have gotten? And I always like to point out, the USN never got a gun for the F-4, the USAF did. The gun wasn't as important as was thought, it was the tactics.

Edited June 3, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

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.......

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

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.

[ewilen]

The problem with the danshistory page is that it isn't clear if the USN/USAF data you're referring to is supposed to be just F-4's or all aircraft.

Here's are the F-8 losses I got from the page I linked above:

21-Jun-66 F-8E Black

14-Jul-66 F-8E Bellinger

5-Sep-66 F-8E Abbott (USAF)

24-May-72 F-8J Beeler

I'll bet the last one is the one that's not in your tally. If you search on Beeler F-8J you'll find a bio of the pilot, and elsewhere you can find references to the fact that F-8J's were used toward the end of the war and incurred losses from accidents and SAMs.

Here's the RF-8A record (which I didn't use in my tallies):

21-Jun-66 RF-8A Eastman

[David Hingtgen]

Yup, never heard about the last one. Can't really find any info, can't even really tell it's air-to-air.

From what I could tell, the danshistory numbers I used were F-4's only. If you include the F-105, the numbers drop a LOT for the USAF. And the USN's easy to tally--the only things shooting were F-4's and F-8's. Well, asides from the lone lucky Skyraiders that occasionally bagged something.

[ewilen]

Some data cleaning is necessary to get the AF numbers...

Maybe someone else can do it. Here are the spreadsheets.

Again, these are from the data compiled at

http://home.sprynet.com/~anneled/usloss.html (last revision June 9, 2002)

http://home.sprynet.com/~anneled/usvictor.html (last revision May 5, 2002)

by David Lednicer and Adrian Camp. (By the way, it looks like there's more useful stuff in the aviation history section one directory up at http://home.sprynet.com/~anneled/ )

I removed the second seat records from the victories database, for which I apologize. If I had more time, I'd rework it to have a separate field in each record for the second seat.

vn_airwar.xls.zip

Edited June 4, 2004 by ewilen

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

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.

[ewilen]

Anyway, it may not be fair to compare post-Top Gun F-4's vs. pre-Top Gun F-8's, but as we've noted, the F-8 pilots in the early part of the war were trained for WVR combat while the F-4 crews were trained for a situation very unlike what they were called upon to deal with. So that's unfair, too.

Basically, it comes down to how much more the F-8 pilots could get out of their machines than what they were already doing. All we really know is the USN F-4 pilots improved a lot. OTOH, the F-15 was designed with input from pilots who had experienced with the F-4's deficiencies. It seems that the Eagle was designed to keep all the good things abou the F-4 (mainly, lots of thrust and excellent radar/BVR capabilities) and recover the good things about the F-86 (maneuverability), which the Crusader shared.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

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.

[Coota0]

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.

I like the 2nd crew member of the F/A-18D. Better bombing accuracy in my opinion, better for night attacks, less for one crew member to deal with, and a 2nd set of eyes air-to-air engagments...can't beat having a 2nd crew memeber.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

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.

[Angel's Fury]

So does that mean that the F-14 is dead/retired?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

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.

[Gaijin]

And they better take care of 'em. One day, they'll break 'em out to save the world from evil aliens taking over the planet and recommission those old military craft into a new space worthy type...oh wait, that's Space Battleship Yamato.

Actually, that was my idea for a show...old fighters that are modified into new ones.

[Angel's Fury]

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.

I hope they don't get mothballed permanently. They have so much promise.

[Nied]

Super Bug drag: new intakes are huge though. And that's one of the big differences from the original YF-17. Intakes were spread apart, and now they're even bigger and further apart. The frontal area is just growing and growing as the Hornet ages. Also, the LEX's are almost totally new, and I would imagine they bleed energy at an insane rate during even moderate alpha. Sure, it's got a higher limit now, but I would imagine at the sake of duration.

Actually that's one of the first things I looked at, the frontal area of the Super Hornet isn't that much biger than the Legacy's, despite the fact that it's much larger otherwise. In fact the only truely draggy bit on the front section is the "Rhino horn" IFF antena. Hell even the fact that the number of bolts and rivets has been cut down should improve matters imensly.

As for weight--I'm seeing a ~7,000lb empty weight increase, ~15,000lbs MTOW increase. 8,000lbs more thrust counteracts new weight when empty, but not at normal aircombat loads nor max loads. Yes, at an airshow when it's 99% empty it'll have superior ratio, but under no other conditions I'd imagine. Kind of like a Flanker--a Flanker at normal weights sees its ratio drop tremendously. Only at an airshow can it do half the moves it does.

The numbers I've got are 30,500 lbs (Rhino) vs 29,616 (Legacy) empty, the rest seem to match up with yours. Those come from my copy of International Air power Review.

[Nied]

Here's a fighter vs. fighter competition for you: The ATFs. To this day I still think that the USAF chose the wrong fighter from that competition.

From everything I've read to date the YF-23 had a faster, more efficient supercruise, had a faster top speed with after-burners, was stealthier, and had comparable maneuvering to the YF-22 without having thrust vectoring, and it was, by far, the best looking of the two, and IMO one of the coolest looking jet fighters ever designed. Barring other judging criteria that I'm not privy to, the only thing the YF-22 had going for it was the fact that it was a bit smaller, at least lengthwise, and incorporated thrust vectoring from the get go; this feature could have been engineered into the YF-23 during any subsequent redesign that invariably takes place before the plane goes into full scale production.

While the F-22 raptor is an awesome plane that looks great from some angles and downright ungainly form others, in my estimation, politics had about as much to do with the final decision for its victory over the YF-23 as did the merits of either design.

Well the YF-22 was generally considered to be more mature than the -23. The F-22 had performed most of the maneuvers that the YF-23 had only claimed. It also fired weponry and had a working cockpit based on what was to go into the final production model (the YF-23's was mostly came from a F/A-18). Northrop's final F-23 was much more different from the prototype compared to Lockheed's final F-22 design (and Lockheed's wasn't exactly a carbon copy of the YF-22). I think the biggest factor though was maintainability. From what I can tell the F-23 was fixing to be a major hangar queen, while the F-22 was designed almost from the ground up to be an easy to maintain aircraft. I can never stress enough how important this is, because an aircraft stuck in a hangar is useless no matter how high performance it is.

[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

Edited June 4, 2004 by Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0

[David Hingtgen]

Nied--c'mon, the Super Bug's 25% bigger overall. You think that only cost 1,000lbs? 99% of the sources I find list a 23,000lbs empty weight for the legacy Hornet. 29,000 seems way too high.

Anyways---whoah, the YF-23 was a heck of a lot closer to a production plane than the YF-22 was, now that the F/A-22 is practically a whole new plane. The YF-23 was considered further away when they'd have to add a gun, radar, modify the back end, and stretch the forward fuse 2 ft for a Sidwinder bay. THEN, Lockheed decided to do a complete redesign of practically the entire -22. There's no way the mods to make a operational -23 would add up to the new wings/stabs/intakes/nose/gear/canopy of the -22.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

IM not sure if this is official but I saw the 2 ton camo grey from the raptor and eagle applied to lineart of the widow...and it looked AWESOME. Damn beautiful airplane. I hope dragon makes a 1/72 warbird toy of that or gijoe makes a big ass YF23 to compete with their upcoming F-22B thunderwing.

Yf23 was so damn beautiful....gesus christ ...Each day I look at it as the next step of evolution in fighter planes.

and now that I think about it damn this really did influence the AVF competion in macross plus. YF19 won out because of conventionality. YF21 was to risky. They said the same about the YF23. Coincidentally, YF21 is based on the YF23!!!

taken from abovetopsecret.com.....the truth about the famed notorious CObra manuever... and some stuff about the F-22

\Seekerof

That Others May Live

Spinmaster of ATS

Moderator

ATSNN.com Reporter

posted on 20-7-2003 at 02:16 PM

The Truth about the Cobra Maneuver

I have heard alot of 'talk' and confident bragging here on the famed "cobra maneuver" and the "super-cobra" by the Russians, who brag about this also, Sukhois's (Su-37's, etc).

I wish to discuss some facts that illustrate the "cobra's" ineffectiveness.....

First, the "cobra maneuver" and "super-cobra" can only be done without any armament and with less than 50% or half the fuel tanks.....

Second, the "cobra maneuver" and "super-cobra" performed in a wrong way can cause serious damages and in fact, has attributed to numerous deaths of pilots at 15g.

Thirdly, the "cobra maneuver" and "super cobra" is only effective if the interceptor is really close and does not pick it up ....

Fourth, the "cobra maneuver" and "super-cobra" slows the Sukhoi down so much that if the interceptor spots the maneuver early enough and adjusts there is absolutely no way that the Sukhoi can survive.

Fifth, the only air maneuvers that the Sukhoi's can truly claim as a "no one else can do" is the "Super Cobra" and "Kulbit".

The Swedish did the famed "cobra maneuver" back in the 60's and it has been claimed, yet still unconfirmed, that a number of US aircraft (ie: F-22, etc.) can perform the standard "cobra maneuver".

Sixth, the Sukhoi's can also do a 120 degree AOA (angle of attack) which they also brag about but fail to comment on how long the aircraft can hold the position. The 120 AOA has only been proven to have been done a few times and only for a few seconds. And that is not opinion...thats simply fact.

On the other hand.......the F-22 can perform a constant 60 +/- degree AOA, not seconds, and can do this while rocking the wings at higher speeds than the Sukhoi's. This is a feat that NO other aircraft can do. Also, the AOA for the F-22 is unlimited even though it has not been tested outside the wind tunnel tests beyond 80 degrees + AOA.

Edited June 4, 2004 by Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0

[Nied]

Anyways---whoah, the YF-23 was a heck of a lot closer to a production plane than the YF-22 was, now that the F/A-22 is practically a whole new plane. The YF-23 was considered further away when they'd have to add a gun, radar, modify the back end, and stretch the forward fuse 2 ft for a Sidwinder bay. THEN, Lockheed decided to do a complete redesign of practically the entire -22. There's no way the mods to make a operational -23 would add up to the new wings/stabs/intakes/nose/gear/canopy of the -22.

So minor changes in wing sweep and a few other details on the F-22 vs a new fuselage for the F-23. I still don't see how changing the entire fuselage is less drastic than changes to the wing sweep and intake position.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Anyways---whoah, the YF-23 was a heck of a lot closer to a production plane than the YF-22 was, now that the F/A-22 is practically a whole new plane.  The YF-23 was considered further away when they'd have to add a gun, radar, modify the back end, and stretch the forward fuse 2 ft for a Sidwinder bay.  THEN, Lockheed decided to do a complete redesign of practically the entire -22.  There's no way the mods to make a operational -23 would add up to the new wings/stabs/intakes/nose/gear/canopy of the -22.

So minor changes in wing sweep and a few other details on the F-22 vs a new fuselage for the F-23. I still don't see how changing the entire fuselage is less drastic than changes to the wing sweep and intake position.

wel for the blackwidow it was basically just adding stuff..........not redesigning. Adding would be cheaper and take less time then redesigning parts.

EVEN more info on the YF23 VS F22 from http://www.area51zone.com/aircraft/f22.shtml

How the YF-22 beat the YF-23

The YF-23 from Northrop vs. the YF-22 from Lockheed Martin. The YF-23 should have won, and it is a better plane, in stealth and in speed. The only thing it was worse at was low-speed handling. That wasn't why it lost, though. It lost because, while Northrop's B-2 bomber was late and suffering cost overruns, Lockheed had developed the F-117 Stealth Fighter on time and under budget, which made the jugdes favor Lockheed. Northrop felt the loss greatly, because it didn't have enough experience with fighters.

Do you think it was fair to favor the YF-22 just because Northrop wasn't doing so good with the B-2, while Lockheed Martin was doing well with the F-117? Vote Below!

Edited June 4, 2004 by Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0

[Nied]

wel for the blackwidow it was basically just adding stuff..........not redesigning. Adding would be cheaper and take less time then redesigning parts.

Technically speaking the F-22's mods were simply moving parts around a little (the canopy was moved forward and the intakes were moved back but the design of the two didn't change) THe F-23 on the other hand would have had a new nose (putting in a Radar wouldn't have worked without a re-design), a new forward fuselage (you can't just cut a hole in the bottom of the plane to make it work you have to make room for everything) and new engine naceles (replacing the big honkin ones that were going to house thrust reversers), when you consider that you'd have to re-design the mid fuselage to accomodate the changes to the rest of the airframe, you've got a whole new fuselage.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

WHOA even more info!! taken from http://www.combatsim.com/archive/htm/htm_a...atfighter-2.htm

The US taxpayer is getting the cheaper and more predictable product with some penalty in top end performance and long term performance growth potential.

The USAF however had NO choice in this matter as the Administration killed the A-12 Avenger in January due cost overruns resulting from high risk R&D. By killing off the radical but high performance A-12, the Administration set a clear precedent. The A-12 was considered a very secure project politically because its cancellation would mess up Navy deployment plans for the next decade (the A-6Es are very old, basic airframe design 1958) and cause all sorts of problems.

In comparison with the A-12, the ATF was considered politically expendable as it is seen (incorrectly in my opinion) as a dedicated killer of PVO/VVS aircraft, while the F-15s will remain viable for at least another decade.

As a result, the USAF had no choice than to pursue the lowest risk design options regardless of any other criteria. As it turns out, both Lockheed and P&W were desperate enough to submit lower bids and hence the decision could not have really gone the other way. If the USAF chose the F-23 and it got into difficulties say in 1994 due R&D problems, it would almost certainly die the death of the A-12. Politicians generally seem to have little respect for air warfare strategy.

As for the future of the F-23, it may not end up being adopted by the Navy simply because the Navy is having real money problems, ie. buying F-18s instead of its preferred F-14s. Therefore the Navy is unlikely to buy any Naval ATFs until the end of the decade, by which time the Lockheed product will have matured whereas the Northrop one will have been sitting on the shelf.

Alternative roles for the airframe could be theatre strike and reconnaisance, but it is basically too good an airframe for these jobs and hence cheaper options could be found.

Final Observation: politics is always a stronger decision criterion than technology or air warfare strategy.

HMm NAVAL AVF SOUNDS AWESOME!! wait its actually supposed to be ATF

tis a shame the YF23 was not tested or seen at its full potential<> i think it would be interesting to see how the plane would ahve ended up had it gone into service....come on NASA buy the damn ting and fly it!!!!

Edited June 4, 2004 by Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0

[David Hingtgen]

Minor changes in wing sweep? Not to mention a new underside, and completely redesiging the internal structure to accomodate the new gear. The main gear went from forward-retracting into the belly, to side-retracting into the wings. Adding a gear well into the wing's pretty major, and that's a LOT of systems to re-route and add.

Also, changing the wing sweep means every other angle needs to be changed to match, if you want to keep the whole "parallel angle"-style stealth going. But since they were going to get new stabs and relocate the intakes anyways...

Finally--a new fuselage is a lot easier (aerodynamically) than wing and tail mods. Heck, the A300-600ST is fine with practically a wholly new fuselage compared to an A300-600R, but keeps same wings. (And add simple end-plates and dorsal kinks to the stabs to compensate for blanking effects) But the same stabs overall. Also, the F-23A would have been notably even stealthier, due to the "optimized" back-end/nacelles. Yeesh, might be up there with the B-2 and F-117 at that point.

PS--I love to point out that LOCKHEED said the YF-22 was more manueverable at low-speed/high-alpha. It was never mentioned or rumored or anything by anyone else.

PPS--while we're here, why didn't they go with THIS design for the JSF:

The Lockheed/Boeing X-32 JAST:

Edited June 4, 2004 by David Hingtgen