Register here

Author Topic: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23  (Read 486990 times)

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #195 on: October 19, 2008, 02:54:20 am »
Indeed, only the bottom flat produces the performance effect, while the top flap produces the stealth effect  ;)
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10728
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #196 on: October 19, 2008, 02:36:20 pm »
Anybody know why the F119 had those flaps but the F120 didn't?   ???
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #197 on: October 19, 2008, 02:40:58 pm »
Quote
Anybody know why the F119 had those flaps but the F120 didn't?
You mean that the F119 on the YF-23 was the only one that had the extra flap and the F120 didn't?

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1092.0;attach=59462;image
wasn't this the F120 siting next to the grey PAV-2?

« Last Edit: October 19, 2008, 02:44:52 pm by lantinian »
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Online flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8483
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #198 on: October 19, 2008, 02:47:06 pm »
They both had flaps - check the photos carefully. On the pic is PAV-1 with F119 near it at USAFM restoration facility.
F120 is still pretty much classified to lay this way.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2008, 02:53:59 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline elider

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #199 on: October 19, 2008, 04:55:26 pm »
 flateric: Page 3 of this thread has a pic of the weapons bay. First time I noticed. It may provide some useful info concerning the bay if you haven't already seen it.

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 950
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #200 on: October 20, 2008, 04:24:47 pm »
Removed some recent off-topic posts.

YF-23 was certainly a beauty.
Need more pix, please! :D

And I know flateric got several.  ;)

As for the engine, is it technologically possible to have a 2d thrust vectoring nozzles but still maintain yf-23 nozzle stealth features? I mean like the bottom of the b-2 style nozzles of the yf-23 that hides it from ground radars would retract into a yf-22 nozzle style for thrust vectoring when needed?  I know that it would add lots of weight penalty to the aircraft, but is it even technologically possible?

I'm thinking this is because though the yf-23 nozzles helped stealth from below and the back, which is ideal for deep penetration missions envisioned for the ATF, thrust vectoring has a stealth advantage in another perspective.  It decreases the uses of control surfaces for maneuverability, which would mess up the plane's ideal stealthy shape. 
   

Offline GAU-8 Avenger

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #201 on: October 24, 2008, 11:38:45 pm »
I believe the F-23 would need some serious redesign in order to get thrust vectoring capability. The nozzles on the YF-23 were designed with stealth the main goal.

As for the suggestion of a navalized F-23, I thought the YF-23 was considered less suitable to the possibility of carrier operations than the YF-22? I doubt a navalized F-23 could have worked, when you consider the F-22 would have been redesigned with variable-sweep wings for carrier operations. This was the proposal under the NATF program.

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #202 on: October 25, 2008, 05:02:42 am »
Quote
As for the engine, is it technologically possible to have a 2d thrust vectoring nozzles but still maintain yf-23 nozzle stealth features

You should really do some research about the F-23 as an operational concept vs the F-22. It's not a question if it is possible or not, it's a matter of whether is was needed or not.

At the time of the competition, TVC was very popular in the aerospace industry circles and was considered almost as great value for Air Superiority as stealth and sustained speed was. Maybe even higher amongst front line pilots.

It is NOT.

Northrop operational concept called for overwhelming advantage in the BWR combat to reduce the enemy so you have numerical advantage in WVR combat.

Lockheed concept called for advantages in both areas. It was "politically" a better decision given the unproven record of stealth and the new Cobra Maneuvers demonstrated by the MiG-29s and SU-27s at the time.

What most people do not realize if the fact that F-23 had a lot more capability to totally refuse WVR fight compared to F-22 because of its higher sustained speed and better supersonic maneuverability. In those flight conditions trust vectoring brings little capability to justify its added weight, cost and affect on stealth.

Recent reports of how pilots tend to use the advantages of the F-22 in exercises totally supports the Northrop Concept. F-22 pilots virtually do not make any use of its super-maneuverability if that was not a target in the exercise.  Flying high, fast and unseen is the best tactic to keep you safe, lethal and in control of the battlefield.

In hight speed flight, F-22's TVC pitch control is not as important as directional control and I suspect F-23 was better at that given the design's ability to exert more control power by varying engine trust. (SR-71 had even more potential for that but I guess the digital FCS was not there yet)

So lets stop questioning Northrop's design decisions about not adding TVC or canards.
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 950
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #203 on: October 25, 2008, 01:59:41 pm »
Quote
As for the engine, is it technologically possible to have a 2d thrust vectoring nozzles but still maintain yf-23 nozzle stealth features

You should really do some research about the F-23 as an operational concept vs the F-22. It's not a question if it is possible or not, it's a matter of whether is was needed or not.

At the time of the competition, TVC was very popular in the aerospace industry circles and was considered almost as great value for Air Superiority as stealth and sustained speed was. Maybe even higher amongst front line pilots.

It is NOT.

Northrop operational concept called for overwhelming advantage in the BWR combat to reduce the enemy so you have numerical advantage in WVR combat.

Lockheed concept called for advantages in both areas. It was "politically" a better decision given the unproven record of stealth and the new Cobra Maneuvers demonstrated by the MiG-29s and SU-27s at the time.

What most people do not realize if the fact that F-23 had a lot more capability to totally refuse WVR fight compared to F-22 because of its higher sustained speed and better supersonic maneuverability. In those flight conditions trust vectoring brings little capability to justify its added weight, cost and affect on stealth.

Recent reports of how pilots tend to use the advantages of the F-22 in exercises totally supports the Northrop Concept. F-22 pilots virtually do not make any use of its super-maneuverability if that was not a target in the exercise.  Flying high, fast and unseen is the best tactic to keep you safe, lethal and in control of the battlefield.

In hight speed flight, F-22's TVC pitch control is not as important as directional control and I suspect F-23 was better at that given the design's ability to exert more control power by varying engine trust. (SR-71 had even more potential for that but I guess the digital FCS was not there yet)

So lets stop questioning Northrop's design decisions about not adding TVC or canards.
Though I try as much not to turn this into a yf-23 vs. yf-22 thread, I just found too many holes in this typical yf-23 fanbois argument.  First of all, I never said that I suggested the yf-23 to have thrust vectoring for subsonic maneuverability.  I suggested it for stealth performance.  Thrust vector of f-22, though not good for infared and heat seeking missiles from below, it is good for overall rcs stealth performance since you don't have to use as much control surfaces, which would mess up its ideal stealthy shape.  This is one of the reason why Lockheed kept thrust vectoring for the a/f-x proposal (quoted from flight global)  Does it mean yf-22 was stealthier than yf-23? Absolutely not.  It's a well known fact that yf-23 was stealthier.  But the f-22 design pushed its stealth boundary to be close enough to yf-23 so that it wouldn't be significant in the final decision from the Air Force, and at the same time, offering some additional capabilities that the yf-23 don't. 

   As for yf-23 maneuver better in supersonic speed then yf-22, who said that? You? Let's stick with reliable sources, shall we? According to Paul Metz, test pilot of yf-23, and later f-22, he said that thrust vectoring, unlike popular belief, actually benefits supersonic maneuverability. 

Quote:

Quote
What is not widely known is that thrust-vectoring plays a big role in high speed, supersonic maneuvering. All aircraft experience a loss of control effectiveness at supersonic speeds. To generate the same maneuver supersonically as subsonically, the controls must be deflected further. This, in turn, results in a big increase in supersonic trim drag and a subsequent loss in acceleration and turn performance. The F-22 offsets this trim drag, not with the horizontal tails, which is the classic approach, but with the thrust vectoring. With a negligible change in forward thrust, the F-22 continues to have relatively low drag at supersonic maneuvering speed.

As for the the decision were influenced by the fancy airshow cobras made by mig and su at the time: ridiculous bull. Again, where is the source for that?

As for one of the PRACTICAL capabilities offered by thrust vectoring, also from Paul Metz:
 
Quote
By using the thrust vector for pitch control during maneuvers the horizontal tails are free to be used to roll the airplane during the slow speed fight. This significantly increases roll performance and, in turn, point-and-shoot capability. This is one of the areas that really jumps out to us when we fly with the F-16 and F-15. The turn capability of the F-22 at high altitudes and high speeds is markedly superior to these older generation aircraft. I would hate to face a Raptor in a dogfight under these conditions.

Also from AviationWeek magazine, thrust vectoring offers significant maneuverability at high attitude, since there isn't much air up there for control surfaces to work efficiently with.  And given the characteristic of the ATF, which is to operate in highest attitude for a fighter to have the "look-down/shoot-down" capability, thrust vector is very relevant. 

The advantage of thrust vector for the requirements of the ATF is very significant.  Adding thrust vector to the yf-23 would deny the advantages of its counterpart, and with its already faster and stealthier airframe, can give its a significant edge over its counterpart.  This edge would hopefully balance the yf-23's program's weakness in management issues. 
But then again, the decision was done, history has been made.  So my question was not about "Did the Air Force choose the second best?" but it was if it's technologically feasible to add thrust vector to the aircraft while still maintain its b-2 style nozzles, by the mean of retraction of the bottom part of the nozzle when thrust vectoring is needed.   

I myself, an all time fan of yf-23, that's why I'm on this board, but let's try not to be biased and cut out all the made belief "informations", shall we?



Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #204 on: October 25, 2008, 05:01:13 pm »
Dear donnage99,

You need to have a lot more information that you obviously have your hands on to pretend you can question a very tough design decision made by Northrop. Don't argue it with me, argue it with the people who build this plane.

And you need to find some more quotes by Paul Metz re the YF-23 not the F-22 if you want to know something more about the true YF-23 perfomance

Quote
First of all, I never said that I suggested the yf-23 to have thrust vectoring for subsonic maneuverability.  I suggested it for stealth performance.
If you would like to suggest that the overall stealth profile of the YF-23 would have been better by adopting F-22 like 2D TV nozzles then I will be sure to save my time and skip reading your following posts

Quote
Thrust vector of f-22, ....is good for overall rcs stealth performance since you don't have to use as much control surfaces, which would mess up its ideal stealthy shape. 
You obviously are not fully aware of how the F-22 actually uses its TVC. It is not used to perform any one maneuver by itself or extend the maneuverability envelope of the aircraft. The sole purpose of the TVC on the F-22 is to get it from one maneuver into the other faster.

То imply that moving flight control surfaces on an aircraft like the YF-23 degrades its stealth and that can be eliminated by transferring control to the 2D TVC is plain funny my friend. You need to think about it some more.

Quote
But the f-22 design pushed its stealth boundary to be close enough to yf-23 so that it wouldn't be significant in the final decision from the Air Force
I think you have your facts very wrong. Actually I do not think you have the facts. But there are some people who do and very clearly imply what a difference that was. Watch the documentary YF-23 Web of Secrecy.

Quote
This is one of the reason why Lockheed kept thrust vectoring for the a/f-x proposal (quoted from flight global)
I bet it had to do more with adequate control power for an Navy aircraft than any consideration of decrease of stealth due to moving flight control surfaces.

Quote
As for yf-23 maneuver better in supersonic speed then yf-22, who said that? You? Let's stick with reliable sources, shall we? According to Paul Metz, test pilot of yf-23, and later f-22, he said that thrust vectoring, unlike popular belief, actually benefits supersonic maneuverability. 
That does not mean that F-22 has better supersonic maneuverability. It only means that F-22 has TCV and they help in supersonic maneuverability.
In fact on of the benefits of using TCV is that you can have your horizontal stabilizers smaller and reduce weight. Lockheed designers took advantage of that. In other words you can compensate the lack of TCV with a larger area flight control surfaces. That is what Northrop did.
That is a fact.

The superior supersonic performance of the YF-23 comes from the larger wing area, better area ruled design, and better engine integration. The YF-23 was a lot faster for a given throttle settings and so could pull more Gs while keeping the same speed. Again, you should check some comments of Paul Metz from the flight testing of the 1990 about the YF-23 performance.

Quote
Also from AviationWeek magazine, thrust vectoring offers significant maneuverability at high attitude, since there isn't much air up there for control surfaces to work efficiently with.
YOu should really think a little before posting something like that.
How would an airplane fly in the first place if the thin air was making control surfaces inefficient? Actually flying at Mach 1.5+ at high altitude is not a problem for the wings or the flight control surfaces. It is a problem for the engines. The engines simply do not have the needed inlet air-pressure to produce enough trust, hence the use of so much afterburners on similar aircraft such as SR-71.

You also seem to forget the reliability index. If TCV was so reliable, we would have had tailless aircraft decades ago. Aircraft relying on 3D TVC for all control.

If you have not read trough every book on the ATF subject, you should as I have if you consider yourself a fan and then ask questions that were not answered there.

Re the TVC as a selection criteria. Yes it did matter to some people but it was more a political factor than true capability. I don't know where you live but in the 90s a lot a people thought that a cobra like maneuvers were more useful in combat than stealth. The F-22 could counter such capabilities on paper with TVC. The F-23 couldn't. Its true strength lied in numbers that are to this day classified.

You should be seeking those, not to question the YF-23 design.
One of the biggest reasons F-22 won is that Lockheed produces several times the amount of paperwork needed to convince the brass it had a better management plan. It did and it probably had. It was not a performance stand of. It it was, the YF-23 would have won hands down.

We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 950
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #205 on: October 25, 2008, 06:27:40 pm »
Dear donnage99,

You need to have a lot more information that you obviously have your hands on to pretend you can question a very tough design decision made by Northrop. Don't argue it with me, argue it with the people who build this plane.

And you need to find some more quotes by Paul Metz re the YF-23 not the F-22 if you want to know something more about the true YF-23 perfomance

Quote
First of all, I never said that I suggested the yf-23 to have thrust vectoring for subsonic maneuverability.  I suggested it for stealth performance.
If you would like to suggest that the overall stealth profile of the YF-23 would have been better by adopting F-22 like 2D TV nozzles then I will be sure to save my time and skip reading your following posts

Quote
Thrust vector of f-22, ....is good for overall rcs stealth performance since you don't have to use as much control surfaces, which would mess up its ideal stealthy shape. 
You obviously are not fully aware of how the F-22 actually uses its TVC. It is not used to perform any one maneuver by itself or extend the maneuverability envelope of the aircraft. The sole purpose of the TVC on the F-22 is to get it from one maneuver into the other faster.

То imply that moving flight control surfaces on an aircraft like the YF-23 degrades its stealth and that can be eliminated by transferring control to the 2D TVC is plain funny my friend. You need to think about it some more.

Quote
But the f-22 design pushed its stealth boundary to be close enough to yf-23 so that it wouldn't be significant in the final decision from the Air Force
I think you have your facts very wrong. Actually I do not think you have the facts. But there are some people who do and very clearly imply what a difference that was. Watch the documentary YF-23 Web of Secrecy.

Quote
This is one of the reason why Lockheed kept thrust vectoring for the a/f-x proposal (quoted from flight global)
I bet it had to do more with adequate control power for an Navy aircraft than any consideration of decrease of stealth due to moving flight control surfaces.

Quote
As for yf-23 maneuver better in supersonic speed then yf-22, who said that? You? Let's stick with reliable sources, shall we? According to Paul Metz, test pilot of yf-23, and later f-22, he said that thrust vectoring, unlike popular belief, actually benefits supersonic maneuverability. 
That does not mean that F-22 has better supersonic maneuverability. It only means that F-22 has TCV and they help in supersonic maneuverability.
In fact on of the benefits of using TCV is that you can have your horizontal stabilizers smaller and reduce weight. Lockheed designers took advantage of that. In other words you can compensate the lack of TCV with a larger area flight control surfaces. That is what Northrop did.
That is a fact.

The superior supersonic performance of the YF-23 comes from the larger wing area, better area ruled design, and better engine integration. The YF-23 was a lot faster for a given throttle settings and so could pull more Gs while keeping the same speed. Again, you should check some comments of Paul Metz from the flight testing of the 1990 about the YF-23 performance.

Quote
Also from AviationWeek magazine, thrust vectoring offers significant maneuverability at high attitude, since there isn't much air up there for control surfaces to work efficiently with.
YOu should really think a little before posting something like that.
How would an airplane fly in the first place if the thin air was making control surfaces inefficient? Actually flying at Mach 1.5+ at high altitude is not a problem for the wings or the flight control surfaces. It is a problem for the engines. The engines simply do not have the needed inlet air-pressure to produce enough trust, hence the use of so much afterburners on similar aircraft such as SR-71.

You also seem to forget the reliability index. If TCV was so reliable, we would have had tailless aircraft decades ago. Aircraft relying on 3D TVC for all control.

If you have not read trough every book on the ATF subject, you should as I have if you consider yourself a fan and then ask questions that were not answered there.

Re the TVC as a selection criteria. Yes it did matter to some people but it was more a political factor than true capability. I don't know where you live but in the 90s a lot a people thought that a cobra like maneuvers were more useful in combat than stealth. The F-22 could counter such capabilities on paper with TVC. The F-23 couldn't. Its true strength lied in numbers that are to this day classified.

You should be seeking those, not to question the YF-23 design.
One of the biggest reasons F-22 won is that Lockheed produces several times the amount of paperwork needed to convince the brass it had a better management plan. It did and it probably had. It was not a performance stand of. It it was, the YF-23 would have won hands down.


Amusing, indeed! Amusing in that I think your message should be direct at yourself rather than me. As much as I'm tempted to dissect each part of your reply, but it's better to just sum it up.  Here's a thing: I fully know my limitation of my knowledge on both the planes, that's why I'm not drawing any conclusion or assumptions on the planes.  Thrust vectoring helps stealth performance was quoted by lockheed spokeperson on the a/f-x short lived program from Flightjournal.  Thrust vectoring helps at high altitude was quoted by f-22 pilot on aviationweek.  You don't have to argue with me, argue with them.  Everything I said was directly quoted from either pilots or makers of the planes, the ones who have more knowledge and know what they doing more than both you and me combined.  I've never questioned the decision of the northrop people.  I was asking if it was feasible to retract .  Maybe it wasn't; maybe it was too expensive and risky; maybe the weight of the retraction device adds up with the thrust vectoring is too heavy; maybe it's not technologically possible at the time at all.  I'm just asking whether it was technologically feasible.  but IF it was feasible, and within northrop's reach, thrust vectoring would have denied the advantages of its competitor. 

If anyone who jumps on conclusions and assumptions on their own, it's you.  Everything you provided in regard of the planes in comparison toward each other are from where? Your own mind (no official or even just reliable sources made direct claim that yf-23 has better agility than yf-22 at supersonic speed, such claims only came from amateurs around the net, so please cut the bull)?

And as for web of secrecy, there is 4 accounts I remember that the northrop made comparison between the planes.  One was that it's much faster than the yf-22; another was that if the decision was chosen in light of the airplane with the best capabilities, then it should be northrop, and the guy also made the remark at the end "that's how I feel."  There's also a remark at the beginning by a northroper is that their team has decided their aircraft to be stealthier and the other one more agile.  Please refrain from making baseless claims.  Taking into account that these comments are biased simply because they were the ones who shed the tears and bloods of long years into this plane, the document says nothing about the plane in comparison toward the yf-22.  Why? because in another document, a lockheeder said the same thing about his plane, that northrop had the second best plane in the world. 

And as for ignoring my post about adding thrust vector would help overall stealth performance.  You just proved your stupidity by not reading thoroughly what I said (since that's only half of what I said, which totally distorted the original meaning in my message).  Nothing personal, just plain old logic. 



Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2458
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #206 on: October 25, 2008, 07:09:05 pm »
Actually, the choice of the YF-22 over the YF-23 was quite a shock to many and it is a simple fact that the YF-23 had the superior stealth and supersonic performance. Lockheed officials liked to knock the Northrop design, saying they, Lockheed, designed a fighter first and a stealth aircraft second. The simple fact is that the YF-23 met the maneuvering requirements stipulated in the ATF requirements without thrust vectoring.

Now, as for the thrust vectoring on the YF-22/F-22, where it really does help, besides satisfying all the fanboy's at airshows, to which I confess being one, is during take-off and supersonic maneuvering. In take-off, it allows the F-22 to rotate at a lower airspeed than it would be able to with just the stabilators. One of the design points on aircraft is sizing the tail for rotation on take-off without causing too much drag at higher speeds. It's a trade-off and the TVC allows greater optimization of the tail size.

In supersonic maneuvering the TVC allows trim drag to be minimized, thereby minimizing how much energy is bled during maneuvers in certain parts of the supersonic envelope. The YF-22 had some advantages in those areas over the YF-23, but once again, it was a trade-off and clearly not in the entire supersonic regime. Also, the TVC brings a certain greater amount of maintenance over non-thrust vectoring nozzles and a weight penalty. Of course, the YF-23's nozzles had the problems with the tiles, which were also maintenance intensive, but IIRC, they were going to change that in the production version?

Having said that, let's try to keep the personal attacks down and just stick to the facts, or at least respectable disagreement, as there are already enough other aviation forums that devolve into that kind of nonsense and is one of the reasons I enjoy Secret Projects so much is it's lack of such behavior.

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 950
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #207 on: October 25, 2008, 10:32:00 pm »
yeah, yf-22's stealth met the ATF prototype requirements, too.  Does it mean that it is as stealthy as the the yf-23? No.  So to say that since the yf-23 meets the ATF prototype requirement in term of agility, it must mean it's as agile as yf-22 is just not logical.  And yes, the decision was a shock, and I'm still mourning for the yf-23 till now, but then again, popular belief and sympathy are not necessary the right ones.  And I'm sorry I should be smarter to know that not everything can be said, even when it's true.  It's just distortion of what other said for the sake of winning an argument is just..... 

Anyway, can we stop this yf-22 vs. yf-23 trend that I've probably (and certainly many of you) seen a thousand times around different forums, and get back to my original question of technological feasibility, since everything else beside what the Air Force said that both aircrafts met or exceed the requirements and neither were significantly better than the other one, so the decision was more than just capabilities.  The rest are just thin air fabricated by the bias of both planes fanbois who don't fully know enough about the planes and the professional knowledge and experience to make judgment. 

Offline GAU-8 Avenger

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #208 on: October 26, 2008, 12:30:12 am »
Did Northrop/McDonnel Douglas ever show an offer for the NATF program?

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 950
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 and EMD F-23
« Reply #209 on: October 26, 2008, 01:38:44 am »
Did Northrop/McDonnel Douglas ever show an offer for the NATF program?
There's one promotion video about northrop NATF proposal based on yf-23, but I've never seen a picture: