Register here

Author Topic: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23  (Read 486443 times)

Offline Steven

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 67
    • AIAA at UCLA
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #1125 on: May 17, 2018, 08:52:32 am »
...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.

Correlation does not mean causation.

I don't think it's accurate to characterize the YF-22 and YF-23 as the successors of the F-15 and F-14 respectively. For one, McDonnell Douglas which designed the F-15 was on the YF-23 team. The configurations that the Lockheed and Northrop teams settled on were driven by different requirements compared to the requirements for the F-14 and F-15. Speaking of the configuration, the YF-23 configuration differed from the F-14 particularly in the placement of the inlets and the empennage. And in addition, one of Lockheed's original ATF RFI proposals resembled a scaled down SR-71 with widely spaced engine nacelles.

Furthermore, the spacing of the engines don't determine whether or not the fuselage can be classified as a "lifting body"; even the F-15's "boxy" fuselage was able to provide enough lift such that when a wing was torn off, the remaining control surfaces could still provide stability and some control abilities.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2018, 01:06:08 am by Steven »
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2025
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #1126 on: May 17, 2018, 12:15:55 pm »
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 2004 PBD 753 also killed Air Force buys of the C-130J which didn't come to pass; the 2006 QDR punted the decision on the F-22 to FY2010.

It was strictly (as confirmed by Obama campaign advisor McPeak who argued against it) an Obama and Gates decision.

But at least the fourth estate spoke truth to power on the folly of this decision.


Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 494
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #1127 on: July 16, 2018, 07:10:40 am »
Not sure its this is YF-23 news or ATD-X news

Based on this report about Northrop considering participation in the Japanese Stealth Fighter Program
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-defence-northrop-grumman-exclus/exclusive-northrop-grumman-angles-for-role-in-japanese-stealth-fighter-program-sources-idUSKBN1JW0YU

We have this clickbait by Popular Mechanics ... that's not impossible to imagine given similarities between the YF-23 and the Japanese project ATD-X version 24DMU

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a22093705/northrop-grumman-japans-fighter-jet/

Quote
One possibility is the resurrection of the YF-23 design, with modernized electronics and a Japanese engine. (One positive outcome of the ATD-X program has been Japanese advances in high performance jet engines.) If thatís Northropís proposal, then we could be living through the 1990s all over again, pitting Son of F-22/F-35 versus a reincarnated Son of YF-23

The overal tactical concept behind the YF-23 was a lot more suitable for operations in the Pacific with its longer range fighter faster speed. So, Japan's own efforts to build an air superiority platform could greatly benefit from Northrop experience with YF-23. I just don't see how Northrop will not consider a YF-23 based proposal.
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 845
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #1128 on: July 18, 2018, 06:42:55 am »


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.

Not sure what you culled so I'll comment on what's left.

I certainly don't read the reference to PBO that was left in as insult.  And I don't quite understand your reference to what Rumsfeld (PGWB) thought being of any significance.  The F-22 was in production beyond the PGWB's administration. Gates made a tough decision, but, the decision criteria he attributed to the decision was incorrect.  That's not a criticism, it's just a fact.  Whether Gates would have made the same decision if he had today's political reality might be an interesting thought experiment but that's about it.

Given what we know about general production delays and how consistently new tech seems to fall short of expectations and basic manufacturer times for complex systems it's incumbent upon civilian leaders to overlap existing systems and their replacements.  Rumsfeld was foolish, Gates should have known better.  That's why the decision was so disappointing. 

With airframe MCR's pretty crappy across the board we see the effects of diminished defense budgets that sacrificed sustainment and maintenance for high tempo operations.  Subs not at sea because of years of drydock backlogs for maintenance.  Shipyards in a horrendous state of disrepair with too few workers.  Pilots not getting flight time.  The list goes on and on.

It's been reported that defense spending (DOD + DOE Nukes) decreased from ~5% of GDP in 2010 to ~3% in 2016 after having grown ~9% per year between 2000-2009.  But those increases largely bypassed the USAF and airframes were not replaced in any significant numbers with the AF forced to divest itself of hundreds of combat and transport aircraft and enablers under PBO. While one could nit-pick the minutia of these numbers it's pretty obvious that defense spending dropped significantly under PBO. 

That's the way I read the comment re:PBO.  Political realities (PBO et al) required diminished defense budgets which caused difficult decisions to be made resulting in the termination of F-22 production.  In addition to it being a comment and not a criticism, it is based in fact and is attributable to the policies, programs and overall view by PBO in the 'new norm' of the US economy and the resulting impact on GDP/government receipts/DoD as implemented by his leadership team, including Bob Gates.






Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10649
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #1129 on: August 16, 2018, 12:00:55 am »
Also, where did Mach 1.82 for the F-22 come from? IIRC, the highest supercruise speed released by the Air Force is Mach 1.78. I also can't help but wonder how much the extra weight that the F-22 gained vs. the YF-22 hurt the potential speed. Is there any reason to assume that the F-23 wouldn't have the same weight control issues?

Mach 1.82 is listed in Jay Miller's book.  The 2.42 I'd guess is from Paul Metz's quote about "the top speed is secret but it'll do 1600 mph".

Mach 1.82 was the figure given at ADP 75th Anniversary presentation 2018.

"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10649
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #1130 on: August 24, 2018, 06:59:51 pm »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Online Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 457
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #1131 on: August 25, 2018, 03:08:29 am »
Thanks for that, appreciated.