David Hingtgen Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 http://www.flightinternational.com/fi_issu...184091&Code=123 Don't know how long that link'll last, so here's the full text: Northrop Grumman's "forgotten" advanced tactical fighter leaves museum and could be heading for bomber contest Northrop Grumman's long-abandoned YF-23A advanced tactical fighter (ATF) is emerging as the possible basis for a surprise contender for the US Air Force's interim bomber requirement. The company recently retrieved the second of the two YF-23A "Black Widow II" prototypes (PAV-2) from the Western Museum of Flight in Hathorne, California, ostensibly for repainting for display at a forthcoming Northrop Grumman-backed air fair in August. However, the restoration is also thought to include several changes, including new cockpit displays and other possible cosmetic modifications. Northrop Grumman confirms restoration of the General Electric YF120-powered PAV-2 is taking place, but declines to comment on whether the revived YF-23A is linked to any USAF proposal. But sources close to the studies, which were kicked off by the USAF's recently issued request for information, say Northrop Grumman now includes a YF-23-based "regional" bomber concept among its raft of proposals and that the USAF "is interested". Until now, the company's offerings are known to include an upgraded B-2, X-47B unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) -based studies and possible designs based on its quiet supersonic technology programme. The distinctive, rhomboid-winged YF-23A lost out to Lockheed Martin's YF-22 in the ATF competition in 1991, but proved a valuable technology testbed for Northrop Grumman, which gave it all-aspect stealth. The company says it "drew upon a wide range of experience for its response to the interim bomber RFI, and the YF-23 is one". Other contenders include a Boeing's B-1R (regional) re-engined bomber studies and a larger D-model version of its X-45 UCAV, while Lockheed Martin is considering various derivatives of the F/A-22. These include single- and two-seat, re-winged and tailless versions dubbed the FB-22, the larger of which would be able to cruise at Mach 1.8 and have 75% of the range of the B-2 carrying up to 30 115kg (250lb) small-diameter bombs. Lockheed Martin is also understood to be offering a variety of other manned designs, including a flying-wing concept. The interim bomber is intended to bridge the gap between the current bomber fleet and a next-generation aircraft planned for 2037. The present timetable calls for a development effort to start in 2006, with an initial operating capability by 2015. GUY NORRIS / LOS ANGELES Quote
David Hingtgen Posted July 18, 2004 Author Posted July 18, 2004 My comments: Ok, let's just toss all the unmanned stuff out, first of all. So, FB-22 vs YF-23. FB-22 has the advantage of all the -22 stuff that's already been done, but re-winging and un-tailling the -22 is a LOT of work. Note that the Air Force didn't go for the F-16XL. However, the -23 is still only a "proof of concept" plane at the moment, and not even a true prototype. But, it is really fast and really stealthy, and any slight advantage the -22 has in agility is pointless for a STEALTH BOMBER. Also, I think the -23 could probably have a larger bombload, due to having a deeper weapons bay. F-22 has a shallow, wide bay for AMRAAMs only, or just 2 small JDAM's. F-23 has a narrower, deeper bay, and can stack weapons. Could easily carry the larger JDAMs, etc. So the question is: how stealthy do they want it? Enough to justify bringing the -23 to full production, or do they go with a "good enough" FB-22? Quote
eugimon Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 this would be very cool... I thought the 23 should have won the contract it just had the raptor beat in nearly every category... except political ass kissing. Quote
Knight26 Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 That is great news, too bad I won't get to go down and see the YF-23 as often now, but at the same time if they are getting her flying again for possible production I am all for it. Hmm, makes me wonder how my A-10 NA/AW is doing out at Edwards, they were suppossed to be bringing it back to airworthy shape in order to use it as a test bed for furthe A-10 upgrades. Man if only the NA/AW and the YF-23 had gone into production, now there's an air force I would be proud off. Quote
Akilae Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 Alright... any of this feel slightly Project Nova-ish to anybody? It would be kick ass if the YF-23 could come back though, even if as a bomber. But would Northrop still be able to perform adequately in this field? Thought they were getting out of the fighter business, and the YF-23, regional bomber or not, is still a fighter by blood. Personally, I don't see how a B-1 would work, larger, less stealth, etc.. but maybe larger payload. But if memory serves, isn't that how the B-2 won over the Lockheed alternative, less stealth, but made up for by a larger payload? Quote
David Hingtgen Posted July 18, 2004 Author Posted July 18, 2004 (edited) Uh, yeah, because Project Supernova was based on the first -22 vs -23 competition. I think part of the reason for the B-2 winning was Northrop's flying wing experience. Both the Lockheed and Northrop designs were similar, but Northrop had done several flying wings, whereas Lockheed had zilch experience AFAIK. And probably most importantly, Lockheed's designed was faceted, Northrop's was curved. Curves are inherently stealthier, but Lockheed flat-out didn't have the capability to design a curved stealth at the time. As for a new B-1: No way. Would require total redesign. Current B-1's are flat-out unreliable, with a horrendous mission rate. 9 hours to reload, on a good day. 24 hours to re-arrange the bays to change weapons type. If you MUST you can reload one in 3 hours, by sacrificing the reloading of 2 other planes. I love the design and everything, there's few planes cooler IMHO, and it'd probably rock as a doomsday 1-way-trip suicide supersonic semi-stealth bomber, which is what it was designed for. (That's why it's so hard to reload JDAM's etc---B-1's weren't expected to come back, and certainly not reload and RE-NUKE somebody). But as a modern day conventional bomber--it's frankly hard to justify its existence. Edited July 18, 2004 by David Hingtgen Quote
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 I really wanted them to un-dust the YF-23 for so long, I can't quite believe that they are seriously considering bringing it to production status after 14 years. The 120 engined version to boot!!! Gawwdamn! They going to put the GE engine back on track too??? Sounds too good to be true. I WANT it to happen. But I ain't getting my hopes up. If they did crank it out as a stealth bomber, how hard would it be to make an interceptor version? And wouldn't that upset the F/A-22? Quote
Coota0 Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 Ok, I'm a little slow this morning, what is the USAF replacing? The F-15E? Quote
B-52 GUNNER Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 (edited) N/AW A-10 A-10A[/url] Edited July 18, 2004 by B-52 GUNNER Quote
Nied Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 Something to consider about the F/B-22. Much of the drag and stealth disadvantages the YF-22 had up against the YF-23 would be eliminated along with the F/B-22's tails (it's one of the things I always thnk about when someone mentions re-designing the YF-23 for TVC, a F-22 could have it's tail chopped off with as much design work, and make up the it's stealth/speed deficiency and be even more maneuverable to boot). The F/B-22 is also supposed to feature a new weapons bay that is both deeper and longer so that it can stow full sized weapons. Having said that I've seen artist's concepts featuring an enlarged YF-23 with a cockpit not unlike the F-111's that looked pretty cool. Quote
F-ZeroOne Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 So, what have they replaced in the cockpit? The BDI system? Oops. Wrong universe. Very interesting news. Whatever the benefits of the YF-23 vs the F-22, theres no doubt it was the most futuristic looking. Heres hoping Northrop get some good news for a change; they always seem to get messed around. Quote
Apollo Leader Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 That would pretty sweet if after it lost to the F-22 over 13 years ago, the F-23 ends up getting a second lease on life. IMHO, though, the best solution for filling this bomber role is to make some more B-2's... proven several times in combat now, best range, and best payload. Quote
David Hingtgen Posted July 18, 2004 Author Posted July 18, 2004 Yup, my guess is F-15E replacement. Same concept--take a large fighter, and make a bomber that is capable of defending itself out of it. And I too think FB-22 is more likely due to F-22 already existing and the massive Lockheed/Boeing lobby. Heh heh--now Northrop needs to get the F-20 off the Cali. Science Center's ceiling and prep THAT for flight! A lot easier to get spares for, just a mix of F-5, F-16, and F-18 parts. Could probably steal X-29 parts too. Quote
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 Something to consider about the F/B-22. Much of the drag and stealth disadvantages the YF-22 had up against the YF-23 would be eliminated along with the F/B-22's tails (it's one of the things I always thnk about when someone mentions re-designing the YF-23 for TVC, a F-22 could have it's tail chopped off with as much design work, and make up the it's stealth/speed deficiency and be even more maneuverable to boot). The F/B-22 is also supposed to feature a new weapons bay that is both deeper and longer so that it can stow full sized weapons. Having said that I've seen artist's concepts featuring an enlarged YF-23 with a cockpit not unlike the F-111's that looked pretty cool. this mgiht be from the Agile Warrior F-111X video game back for the PS1 in 96. I doubt they would convert this thing like the russian platypus. Hopefully they don't chop the tails on this thing off.. I for one would LOVE to see this adapt forf the strike role. Ya know for the FB-22 lockheed needs major aerodynamic mods where as the YF-23 can imbedd a lot of bombs as is and is stealthier than the F-22. Hopefully we see a good fly off for these 2 and I hope northrop finally has something cool to show off after all these years! one that does not get CANCELLED! -Yet somewhere deep within, I oneday hope if the air force dont use this thing, that the navy will see a high speed, fleet defense interceptor.longrante strategic stealthy strike, tomcat replacement in this YF-23...... whoopp de dooo de dooo (phoenixes internally, STEALTH, fast as hell, STEALTH, moves better than super hornet, STEALTH) come on navy....bring us back to the days when we had the best fighters, not the air force! Quote
Angel's Fury Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 Just like the phoenix. It has risen from the ashes to once again roam freely. Quote
Coota0 Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 Having said that I've seen artist's concepts featuring an enlarged YF-23 with a cockpit not unlike the F-111's that looked pretty cool. Where? I want to see! Quote
Angel's Fury Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 Yet somewhere deep within, I oneday hope if the air force dont use this thing, that the navy will see a high speed, fleet defense interceptor.longrante strategic stealthy strike, tomcat replacement in this YF-23......come on navy....bring us back to the days when we had the best fighters, not the air force! Couldn't have said it better myself. Quote
ALLAN Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 -Yet somewhere deep within, I oneday hope if the air force dont use this thing, that the navy will see a high speed, fleet defense interceptor.longrante strategic stealthy strike, tomcat replacement in this YF-23...... whoopp de dooo de dooo (phoenixes internally, STEALTH, fast as hell, STEALTH, moves better than super hornet, STEALTH) come on navy....bring us back to the days when we had the best fighters, not the air force! I was thinking the same thing..lol Wonder about the landing gear and airframe stress though. It would be a lot better replacement than the super bug. Quote
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 -Yet somewhere deep within, I oneday hope if the air force dont use this thing, that the navy will see a high speed, fleet defense interceptor.longrante strategic stealthy strike, tomcat replacement in this YF-23...... whoopp de dooo de dooo (phoenixes internally, STEALTH, fast as hell, STEALTH, moves better than super hornet, STEALTH) come on navy....bring us back to the days when we had the best fighters, not the air force! I was thinking the same thing..lol Wonder about the landing gear and airframe stress though. It would be a lot better replacement than the super bug. dude they can handle all that!!!! Northrop grumman is the most EXPERIENCED of all aircraft companies in naval aviation! They can easily retrofit the YF-23's gear and undercarriage for carrier ops not to mention the engines within also have aenough thrust to still maintain a more than 1:1 t/w ratio. Not a prob. Mounting phoenixes is a sure thing I assume. Not to mention it can go faster, outrange, and be more stealther than the super bug will ever be not to mention more MANUEVERABLE! Quote
David Hingtgen Posted July 19, 2004 Author Posted July 19, 2004 (edited) The YF-23's main gear is nothing more than modified F-18 gear. (it's not "bent", nor is the giant shock strut installed--dead weight on a land-based plane) Add the shock-absorber strut back in, and you've got carrier-ready gear. Though a -23 weighs much more than even a Super Hornet, may need more mods. Would need a totally new nose gear, it's almost 100% stock F-15 parts. Could be problems, seeing as how the YF-23 is Northrop-McDonnellDouglas, and uses many F-15 and F-18 parts in it. But now MDC is owned by Boeing, and they're not going to want to help the Lockheed-Boeing FB-22's competitor... But of course, since the Hornet is really Northrop's F-17 in the first place... PS--there's some serious bad blood between MDC and Northrop because of the Hornet, kind of surprised they worked together on the -23. Basically, the YF-23 is a Northrop airframe "shell" with MDC gear/systems/avionics inside. Though MDC did the all-important v-tail. I wouldn't be surprised if the cockpit panel has F-20 parts though, the F-20 is supposed to have an amazingly "pilot-friendly" design, better than anything else even today--and the -23 was supposed to be similar. ::sarcasm:: Man, making a plane that the PILOTS like, that's not important at all, let's just make more Super Hornets ::end sarcasm:: PPS--remember, force is mass times velocity squared. Landing speed is more important than landing weight. And due to its humongous wing area (more than a -22 or Flanker), the F-23 would have a quite slow approach to the carrier. Same reason F-15's have such simple flaps and no leading edge devices--the wing is so huge, it doesn't need them. The YF-23 has a much larger wing, and leading edge flaps. Edited July 19, 2004 by David Hingtgen Quote
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 The YF-23's main gear is nothing more than modified F-18 gear. (it's not "bent", nor is the giant shock strut installed--dead weight on a land-based plane) Add the shock-absorber strut back in, and you've got carrier-ready gear. Though a -23 weighs much more than even a Super Hornet, may need more mods. Would need a totally new nose gear, it's almost 100% stock F-15 parts. Could be problems, seeing as how the YF-23 is Northrop-McDonnellDouglas, and uses many F-15 and F-18 parts in it. But now MDC is owned by Boeing, and they're not going to want to help the Lockheed-Boeing FB-22's competitor... But of course, since the Hornet is really Northrop's F-17 in the first place... PS--there's some serious bad blood between MDC and Northrop because of the Hornet, kind of surprised they worked together on the -23. Basically, the YF-23 is a Northrop airframe "shell" with MDC gear/systems/avionics inside. Though MDC did the all-important v-tail. I wouldn't be surprised if the cockpit panel has F-20 parts though, the F-20 is supposed to have an amazingly "pilot-friendly" design, better than anything else even today--and the -23 was supposed to be similar. ::sarcasm:: Man, making a plane that the PILOTS like, that's not important at all, let's just make more Super Hornets ::end sarcasm:: PPS--remember, force is mass times velocity squared. Landing speed is more important than landing weight. And due to its humongous wing area (more than a -22 or Flanker), the F-23 would have a quite slow approach to the carrier. Same reason F-15's have such simple flaps and no leading edge devices--the wing is so huge, it doesn't need them. The YF-23 has a much larger wing, and leading edge flaps. Dave whatys the beef of MDC and northrop? If it is being brought out of restoration, I believe MDC dont got a choice but to work with northrop grumman and restore this bnad boy to fllight status! Either that or grumman can yank out the undercarriage and use F-14 or A-6 undercarriages. somehow I see this thing with swing wings kicking all kinds of ass. Hah yes a dream.. Quote
David Hingtgen Posted July 19, 2004 Author Posted July 19, 2004 Basically, Northrop lost the rights to their own design, and MDC got all rights/licenses/contracts to it, even though they only modified it from the YF-17 to the F-18. Northrop was supposed to have all rights to non-carrier versions, as it was presumed the lower-weight high-performance version would be what Australia, Spain, Canada etc would buy. However, MDC finagled around with the govt and managed to get everyone to buy the carrier-capable MDC version. (There was supposed to be two planes: The Northrop F-18L and the McDonnellDouglas F-18A). Eventually, Northrop was reduced from "main designer/owner" of the plane, to "primary contractor of the forward fuselage". FYI: You know the LEX strake added around 1990? Northrop's idea. However, MDC didn't want "Northrop parts on OUR plane" and so if you look close, you will see that the LEX strake is attached via 4 bolts--two up front, and two just ahead of the middle, right infront of the panel line that it covers. The rear 3/5 is unsecured. Why? Because that's where the separation line between Northrop-built and MDC-built parts of the F-18 is. The LEX is only attached to the Northrop-built forward fuselage, it merely "floats above, very close to" the mid-fuselage. You'll see the attachment points are right ahead of the panel line, which is a structural break line. Quote
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 Hmmm so the F-18L was basically a strike YF-17? I have a feeling this is a tomcat vs superbug scenario, plane kicks all ass but politics soils the victory. Man I wonder if the F-18L could have been exported to other countries, how mucha ss some 3rd world countries like my own(Philippines) would have been able to kick. (Sorry but as of yet I believe the PAF Philippine Air Force needs a serious upgrade...I mean come on F-5's?thats IT? what the hell? ) Quote
Nied Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 this mgiht be from the Agile Warrior F-111X video game back for the PS1 in 96. I doubt they would convert this thing like the russian platypus. Hopefully they don't chop the tails on this thing off.. I for one would LOVE to see this adapt forf the strike role. Ya know for the FB-22 lockheed needs major aerodynamic mods where as the YF-23 can imbedd a lot of bombs as is and is stealthier than the F-22. Hopefully we see a good fly off for these 2 and I hope northrop finally has something cool to show off after all these years! one that does not get CANCELLED! -Yet somewhere deep within, I oneday hope if the air force dont use this thing, that the navy will see a high speed, fleet defense interceptor.longrante strategic stealthy strike, tomcat replacement in this YF-23...... whoopp de dooo de dooo (phoenixes internally, STEALTH, fast as hell, STEALTH, moves better than super hornet, STEALTH) come on navy....bring us back to the days when we had the best fighters, not the air force! The picture I saw wasn't from any video game, it was a painting of a F-23 in RAF markings being escorted by UCAVs. I doubt that the YF-23 will be able to carry much of a warload unmodified, it has the same disadvantage as the F/A-22 with the added disadvantage that it mounts them vertically, meaning no mixed loads (that design also conributed to the Air Force chooseing the YF-22, they were worried about the YF-23's mechanism jamming). Like I said before the F-22 doesn't have much of a stealth or drag disadvantage once it's tails are removed. While the idea of a YF-23 derived strike plane is neat, the cost and maintnence advantages of the F/B-22 ought to put it over the line. Quote
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 yes but would it not be much more money to mod a plane to become a 2 seater, change the wings, (FB-22)remove parts, mod the weapons bays, and radar and such rather than to just install a new radar and avionics package and figure out how to mod the weapons bay on the YF-23? Quote
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 PPS--remember, force is mass times velocity squared. Landing speed is more important than landing weight. Isn't the vertical velocity the more important component? Does the horizontal velocity put as much of a stress on the gears as the vertical drop? Tyre stress aside. Quote
ewilen Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 (edited) Agreed that this is a replacement for the F-15E. However, the expected use may be slightly different. I gather from the "regional" moniker that the request for information is designed to meet a need for strike systems which can be based far from the reach of enemy land-based weapons (typically, ballistic missiles) which could be used for access-denial. In other words, the Air Force is concerned that if we had to fight Iran, say, we couldn't base our bombers in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia because the bases would be in danger of being knocked out by nuclear or chemical-tipped missiles. As well, even if Iran lacks WMDs to use in access-denial, the Air Force may not be comfortable with its dependence on regional allies for bases, given risks of instability and/or growing hostility to the US in many countries. While B-52's could fly from Diego Garcia or even farther afield, they of course lack stealth and so would be vulnerable to SAMs. The current B-2 fleet is too few and too expensive. It's interesting that the F/A-22 is already being marketed as an answer to the stealthy deep-strike mission--even though the project budget doesn't answer how it's going to achieve full capability in that role, and even though its unrefueled range doesn''t quite put it in the "regional" category. I also wonder where we're going to get the money for a major new aircraft to appear in the 2016 time frame, assuming both JSF and F/A-22 are bought according to current plans. In any case, I don't see much likelihood of an FB-23 coming out of this. Note that the initiative from the Air Force is simply seeking a regional bomber solution. Northrom--err, Northrop Grumman--are the ones who've allegedly dusted off the YF-23 to be one candidate among many. The USAF "is interested" could mean practically anything. It could just mean they're listening politely and haven't rejected the idea out of hand. With very little information to go on, I suspect that the Air Force really wants the FB-22 to bolster the F/A-22 and/or replace it if it gets cancelled, but other factions inside and outside the service are pushing UCAVs, or in any case are skeptical of the request to build a bomber variant of the Raptor. So the answer is to develop a conceptual need somewhat tailored to the FB-22, then cast a wide net (or at least give the appearance of doing so) looking for solutions. Some background on the regional bomber concept: http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21848.pdf (PDF file about the FB-22) http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatement...3-03bolkcom.pdf (PDF file--some interesting data in a chart comparing F/A-22 and F-35 range/payload) Edited July 19, 2004 by ewilen Quote
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 from what I read in air and space weekly or something on campus, the FB-22 is fielded for more support for the raptor initself and keep the program alive. And yea a stealth long range replacement for the mud hen. I jsut think this wil be interestinfg and hope we finally get to see potential operational capability of the YF-23(weapons test, max speed/alt tests, avionics package and radar implemented with live weaponstesting). We never got to see the black widow do it before so i think its time we did! Quote
Druna Skass Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 Are they going to re-name it the Sturmvogel II? Quote
ewilen Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 (edited) from what I read in air and space weekly or something on campus, the FB-22 is fielded for more support for the raptor initself and keep the program alive. Yup, that's what I think is going on. Which is why I don't think the YF-23 is going to get very far in this RFI. The "public" reason for the RFI is to produce a regional bomber. The "real" reason is to promote the FB-22, as a way of supporting the F/A-22 program. There may also be a constituency either in Congress or the service for UCAV bombers. I doubt there's still much of a constituency for the YF-23 (outside of aviation enthsiasts), so Northrop Grumman is going to have a real tough time selling the idea. But I can certainly see them having a chuckle over the chance to rain on Lockheed's parade. Edited July 19, 2004 by ewilen Quote
Graham Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 The YF-23 is such a beautiful, sleek plane, it should have won the ATF compettion on pure aesthetics alone As they say, 'if it looks right, it probably flies right'. I still say the F/A-22 is too blocky and chunky looking. I want to see fleets of 23s filling the skies. Hell yes to a FB-23 varient! Graham Quote
Chronocidal Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 Hear hear! Of course, following the pattern in the past, the YF-23 would probably become the YF-24, and the name would probably be changed as well. (Phoenix anyone? ) Heh. I just think this is funny.. wasn't the F-22 supposed to replace the F-15 in the fighter and attack roles? I could be wrong, but that's the impression I had. If it's the amount of payload they're concerned with, I'd think the YF-23 would be able to carry much more than the -22... from what I've seen, they've kind of given up on keeping the -22 totally stealthy if it needs to carry lots of weapons.. I seem to recall seeing a chart with all the external hardpoints of an F-22, and there were quite a few. If that's the truth, imagine how much the -23 could carry under that gigantic wing...sheesh. Oh well, if it happens, it happens, if it doesn't it doesn't. It's a shame, but the FB-22 will still probably win out. But, on the other hand, they still haven't come up with a decent plane to replace the Tomcat, and I'm still hopeful... *imagines an F-23 in Jolly Roger markings* Quote
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 Hear hear! Of course, following the pattern in the past, the YF-23 would probably become the YF-24, and the name would probably be changed as well. (Phoenix anyone? )Heh. I just think this is funny.. wasn't the F-22 supposed to replace the F-15 in the fighter and attack roles? I could be wrong, but that's the impression I had. If it's the amount of payload they're concerned with, I'd think the YF-23 would be able to carry much more than the -22... from what I've seen, they've kind of given up on keeping the -22 totally stealthy if it needs to carry lots of weapons.. I seem to recall seeing a chart with all the external hardpoints of an F-22, and there were quite a few. If that's the truth, imagine how much the -23 could carry under that gigantic wing...sheesh. Oh well, if it happens, it happens, if it doesn't it doesn't. It's a shame, but the FB-22 will still probably win out. But, on the other hand, they still haven't come up with a decent plane to replace the Tomcat, and I'm still hopeful... *imagines an F-23 in Jolly Roger markings* well the F-22 ws intended to replace the F-15 mainly in A2A with some emphasis on strike but not much. Emphasis is air superiority. FB-22 is meant to replace the F-15E which has emphasis on strike but can do dual role duties. Quote
David Hingtgen Posted July 19, 2004 Author Posted July 19, 2004 This might be the pic Nied was talking about, note the A-6 style seating. Quote
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 BAH!!! the horridness! can we be sure the airforce would choose side by side seating over tandem? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.