Register here

Author Topic: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23  (Read 469453 times)

Offline Steven

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 59
    • AIAA at UCLA
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #1110 on: May 13, 2018, 02:48:29 pm »
There is a general who was part of the process who said "if an aircraft looked right it flew right". He actually stood behind his assertion that the F22 was selected partly based upon what it looked like.

Firstly, I would be shocked if the decision really came down to something so trivial, so consider me skeptical. Secondly, if that were the case then I have to question his taste, as the YF-22 was not a good looking aircraft.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1954
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #1111 on: May 13, 2018, 08:33:58 pm »

Big contributors to source selection:

CFD was far more mature at Boeing, Lockheed and GD and particularly at GD where
they had more experience with supercruising concepts e.g. SCAMP/F-16XL.  Boeing was
much better with avionics integration than McAir or Northrop.

CFD was immature at Northrop and very immature at McAir and remained so.
As a consequence, the YF-22 flight data was far closer to the sealed envelope predictions
and they were able to retire major Air Force concerns during Dem/Val e.g. hot gas ingestion.
         
Sources:

"Computational Fluid Dynamics in the Design of the YF-23 ATF prototype" 
"F/A-18E/F Trajectory Improvement Study"


In contrast, YF-23 bay acoustics were not good and failed to meet predictions;
scaling the bay to meet the weapons capacity of the F-22 was very problematic
as was scaling the YF-23 overall to accommodate a real radar and real sensors.
 
The YF-23 was a very thermally and electrically challenged aircraft that could barely accommodate
off-the-shelf flight computers due to their power dissipation. Its massive control surfaces
drove complex actuators and a hydraulic system that were hot, exquisite, fragile and looked to have
little growth margin.  These thermal and electrical challenges were fundamental to the planform/control
scheme.               

Sources:

"High Performance Fighter Fly-By-Wire Flight Control Actuation System" AIAA 92-1123
"The ATF YF-23 Vehicle Management System" AIAA 92-1076
                                                                     

Offline Ogami musashi

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 291
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #1112 on: May 14, 2018, 01:54:12 am »
You source are purely technical (i have them as well) and do not contain any information on the selection process nor on the state of CFD at LM vs Northrop.
The predicted vs observed ratio was one highlight of the YF-23 program.

The selection process was certainly based on a myriad of parameters that until disclosed (if ever), will stay a bit mysterious.

Offline Jeb

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 205
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #1113 on: May 14, 2018, 07:30:10 am »
Look at the weapons bays. The YF-23 system was much, much riskier because it was reliant on a nesting trapeze system to get the requisite number of AMRAAMs into its internal cavity. It also didn't have Sidewinder bays in the test aircraft and was going to require a fuselage stretch to make that happen. Compare that to the YF-22 system which put all of its missiles in positions where a failure in one or multiple actuators didn't block any other missiles from firing, plus the Sidewinder bays were in place.

If you're looking to buy a fighter/bomber, buy the one that's got the simplest ordnance release system. "Clever" just gets you another A-5 Vigilante.

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 361
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #1114 on: May 14, 2018, 10:17:58 am »

Northrop came to the table with an x-plane science project. Lockheed came with a plane that with a few modifications was essentially ready for duty even without all of the changes that it eventually was given. Lockheed met the requirements. Less risk. No fuss, no muss. End of story.






"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.
General George S. Patton

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 817
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #1115 on: May 14, 2018, 08:18:50 pm »

Northrop came to the table with an x-plane science project. Lockheed came with a plane that with a few modifications was essentially ready for duty even without all of the changes that it eventually was given. Lockheed met the requirements. Less risk. No fuss, no muss. End of story.


Hmmm.  But was it less risk, no fuss, no muss?

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 361
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #1116 on: May 15, 2018, 06:20:03 am »

Northrop came to the table with an x-plane science project. Lockheed came with a plane that with a few modifications was essentially ready for duty even without all of the changes that it eventually was given. Lockheed met the requirements. Less risk. No fuss, no muss. End of story.


Hmmm.  But was it less risk, no fuss, no muss?

The only way to know is to go back in time and source NG and see the how the results shake out (then compare). Given politics, the USAF would have still only been allowed to buy 187 copies ASSUMING that by the time Obama was in office a sufficient quantity had been built (I don't remember the exact build numbers & years). IF by that time the F-23 program was suffering delays because of developmental issues, THEN the USAF would have gotten LESS than 187 copies.

Its a real shame that the USAF could not sneak in a brand new fighter into production the way NAVAIR got superbug. Too bad there are not superbeagles or vipers roaming the skies.

EDIT

...and why the love affair with which is better, the 22 or the 23?

It's the modern day question from the 80s of which is better, the 15 or the 14? And in many ways this analogy it correct whereby the 23 is like the 14 and the 22 is like the 15. Like the 14, the 23 was a 3 nacelle design that was a lifting body. And the 22 is CLEARLY very similar to the 15.

The 23 was a true successor to the 14 with its lifting body design and widely spaced engines, and the 22 clearly a successor to the 15.

They were both good planes for their missions but neither one was better for every circumstance and occasion. The last generation of tomcat drivers  with its powerful engines and bombcat capability would have you believe the 14 was indeed superior to the 15 in EVERY situation, but.... we know that isn't correct.


« Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 02:48:42 am by PaulMM (Overscan) »
"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.
General George S. Patton

Offline Jeb

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 205
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #1117 on: May 15, 2018, 06:30:19 am »
Its a real shame that the USAF could not sneak in a brand new fighter into production the way NAVAIR got superbug. Too bad there are not superbeagles or vipers roaming the skies.

This was the future that stealth broke.


Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1956
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #1118 on: May 16, 2018, 05:47:24 am »
Ditto to Jeb.

Not only could the AF have obtained a SuperViper, but a third party would have paid for it. But the AF/OSD leaders regarded it as an alternative/competitor to "real stealth" which was being promised at an unbelievably low cost and rapid schedule.

At least they got the "unbelievable" bit right.

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1954
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #1119 on: May 16, 2018, 12:02:39 pm »
It's especially depressing given the unbelievable number of cranked-arrow
or tailed-delta-canard + TVC or diamond-wing + CVT aircraft dominating the skies today.


Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 520
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #1120 on: May 16, 2018, 05:41:10 pm »
Ditto to Jeb.

Not only could the AF have obtained a SuperViper, but a third party would have paid for it. But the AF/OSD leaders regarded it as an alternative/competitor to "real stealth" which was being promised at an unbelievably low cost and rapid schedule.

At least they got the "unbelievable" bit right.
Which 3rd party would pay for it? It would certainly involve a fair share more work and money than the Block 60.

Even if the USAF got Falcon 21s or something similar it would be a short-term fix. They'd still need something beyond that which would inevitably be pretty expensive to develop.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 361
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #1121 on: May 16, 2018, 06:39:42 pm »
Ditto to Jeb.

Not only could the AF have obtained a SuperViper, but a third party would have paid for it. But the AF/OSD leaders regarded it as an alternative/competitor to "real stealth" which was being promised at an unbelievably low cost and rapid schedule.

At least they got the "unbelievable" bit right.
Which 3rd party would pay for it? It would certainly involve a fair share more work and money than the Block 60.

Even if the USAF got Falcon 21s or something similar it would be a short-term fix. They'd still need something beyond that which would inevitably be pretty expensive to develop.

Remember Agile Falcon from the late 80s? It was what was originally going to compliment the ATF. Not a single engine stealth fighter at all.

Really, when you have on the order of 2000 fighters in just the USAF the idea of them all being stealth fighters within... Lets say 20 years, is needlessly expensive and frought with risk. From the perspective of 1989, 500 ATF and a few hundred A-12 complimented by advanced eagles and vipers could have been a viable solution... Along with the B-2.

What killed advanced eagles and vipers was the fall of the USSR. There was no more boogey man in the 90s so whet we had was good enough to get us through until the 22 was in production. Then JSF came along and that was the final nail in 16XL derivative. What we had in the 90s was actually good enough. But then defense program timelines ballooned into 20 years to build a new fighter and hence we are still relying on what are now museum pieces. Meanwhile China is now building stealth fighters in a fraction of the time it takes the US.
"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.
General George S. Patton

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10503
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #1122 on: May 17, 2018, 02:54:53 am »

Northrop came to the table with an x-plane science project. Lockheed came with a plane that with a few modifications was essentially ready for duty even without all of the changes that it eventually was given. Lockheed met the requirements. Less risk. No fuss, no muss. End of story.


Hmmm.  But was it less risk, no fuss, no muss?

The only way to know is to go back in time and source NG and see the how the results shake out (then compare). Given politics, the USAF would have still only been allowed to buy 187 copies ASSUMING that by the time Obama was in office a sufficient quantity had been built (I don't remember the exact build numbers & years). IF by that time the F-23 program was suffering delays because of developmental issues, THEN the USAF would have gotten LESS than 187 copies.

Its a real shame that the USAF could not sneak in a brand new fighter into production the way NAVAIR got superbug. Too bad there are not superbeagles or vipers roaming the skies.

EDIT

...and why the love affair with which is better, the 22 or the 23?

It's the modern day question from the 80s of which is better, the 15 or the 14? And in many ways this analogy it correct whereby the 23 is like the 14 and the 22 is like the 15. Like the 14, the 23 was a 3 nacelle design that was a lifting body. And the 22 is CLEARLY very similar to the 15.

The 23 was a true successor to the 14 with its lifting body design and widely spaced engines, and the 22 clearly a successor to the 15.

They were both good planes for their missions but neither one was better for every circumstance and occasion. The last generation of tomcat drivers  with its powerful engines and bombcat capability would have you believe the 14 was indeed superior to the 15 in EVERY situation, but.... we know that isn't correct.

I've culled a bunch of insults that seem to refer to Barack Obama from this post. Unnecessary, and without basis in fact.

The decision that 183 F-22's would be sufficient was taken by the DOD in 2004, under the Bush administration. The most you can blame Obama and Gates for is ending F-22 production at 187, which is 4 more than the DOD said it needed under a Republican administration.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10450
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #1123 on: May 17, 2018, 05:01:05 am »
Meanwhile China is now building stealth fighters in a fraction of the time it takes the US.

Much easier when you have somebody showing you how vs figuring it out for yourself the first time.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1956
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #1124 on: May 17, 2018, 06:34:01 am »
Colonial-Marine

Here's a clue as to the third party...