The F101 actually has less power than the F119. Something like that would have likely used F135s.utahbob said:I am going to try to make a model of this awesome A/C and I will be kit bashing a bit. A few questions are coming up:
1. What type of engine would be used? It got to be bigger than what was in the YF-23. Some thing like the General Electric F-101-GE-102 turbofan engines that push the B-1B? I might use the cans off this engines
2. Landing gear, also from a B-1B or a commercial airframe?
Oh, never mind.flateric said:KJ, check once more FB-23 topping model pic. There are no nozzle flaps a-la YF-23 on FB-23
Still mighty impressive, given the software and the perspective.darthpanda said:Wow your FB-23 is really great! I made a similar drawing of FB-23 last week with MS-paint, but it is nothing compared to yours.
Hi Jozef,PlanesPictures said:FB-23 is slowly coming on the scene. Are you short run producer and do you like this model. I can prepare for you Z-Printer's 3D model for your fast start
In a bomber, aerodynamics play a larger role than visibility. Check the B-2 cockpit. Also, the smaller the windows, the stealthier the design, since the inside of the cockpit is a big spike in RCS if not painted in gold like in the F-22.Why would Northrop-Grumman have gone with such a cockpit? It seems to go against the USAF's current opinion that visibility comes first.
The stealthiest aircraft has no edges besides those separating the top from the bottom surface. Its betterIsn't this too "smooth" for a stealth aircraft?
Those concepts made more aerodynamic sense than an F-117. F-117 should never serve as a model of the best stealth approach. That aircraft looked the way it did just because they did not have a supercomputers at the time to predict the RCS of a curves design.It looks like all of the 1980s concepts
One reason is that the YF-23 engines were designed to use Trust Reverses. These were eliminated late in the program but metal had already been cut for the prototypes.Also why was the engine nozzle configuration of the YF-23 abandoned?
The FB-23 proposal was part of an industry study into what the NG-LRS should be as a concept. One of the many. Since the end of that phase ( 2007 ) of the program the requirement settled onto a somewhat larger aircraft with subsonic cruise speed. Whatever chance any YF-23 related design has of seeing the light of day was gone with the decision not to include supersonic requirement for the proposed system with a 2018 IOC deadline.The DoD has already dumped the FB-22. Will the FB-23 be next?
XB-70 Guy said:The DoD has already dumped the FB-22. Will the FB-23 be next?
I really believed he was asking about the engines nacelles not nozzles even thought he said nozzles. The FB-23 has virtually no separate engine nacelles which were merged into the main body. That change is much more obvious and important than the change in the nozzles IMHO.With regard to the FB-23's nozzles, the reason for the design change was to lower cost and maintenance. It didn't have anything to with the thrust reverser
Thanks for the information, but I after a few searches I can't find anything related to Lockheed's purpose built RTS proposal. As far as persistence goes, when F-16s are largely being used to haul iron back and forth something like the FB-22 or FB-23 would be a vast improvement in that regard. Didn't NGB, NGLRS, 2018 Bomber, or whatever it was recently die a painful death at the hands of the bureaucrats?Abraham Gubler said:The Rapid Theatre Strike (RTS) specification was drawn up almost 10 years ago by USAF, the aerospace industry came up with proposals, they were assessed and ultimately rejected. Instead USAF decided to go down the path of a subsonic aircraft in the form of the Next Generation Long Range Strike (NGLRS) or 2018 Bomber. The RTS request for proposals (RFP) mission profile was something like that shown in the attachment.
In response to RTS Lockheed offered various iterations of strike customised F-22 called the FB-22. These ranged from a hull stretch through to a tail-less delta. Northrop on the other hand offered the upsized YF-23 called the FB-23. The FB-23 was made public via the infamous eBay model. Lockheed supplemented their FB-22 with a purpose built RTS similar in concept to the FB-23 perhaps as a response. Details of all these aircraft are available in the various subject threads here at secretprojects.co.uk. There appears to be no public glimpse of what Boeing would have offered…
RTS is well and truly dead with the future of air power now being focused on persistence rather than transience.
Not so much the bureaucrats (this time) so much as the politiciansColonial-Marine said:Thanks for the information, but I after a few searches I can't find anything related to Lockheed's purpose built RTS proposal. As far as persistence goes, when F-16s are largely being used to haul iron back and forth something like the FB-22 or FB-23 would be a vast improvement in that regard. Didn't NGB, NGLRS, 2018 Bomber, or whatever it was recently die a painful death at the hands of the bureaucrats?
I think that's what Abraham Gubler basically said as a conclusion a couple of posts above...Colonial-Marine said:Didn't NGB, NGLRS, 2018 Bomber, or whatever it was recently die a painful death at the hands of the bureaucrats?
What would make sense is if we got more such 5th generation aircraft regardless of our relations with China, but then again I don't have that brilliant DC mindset.lantinian said:And the lack of funds in the budget these days.
But politics above all, of course. It seams to me that the current administration is looking for ways on how to work more closely with China, rather than how to fight it in 15 years time, which actually makes sense.
I believe he stated Rapid Theater Strike was dead, not NGB/NGLRS. Sadly however, I can't imagine us getting anything out of these programs at this rate. As soon as our B-52s cannot be maintained any longer, we're out of luck.Stargazer2006 said:I think that's what Abraham Gubler basically said as a conclusion a couple of posts above...
Yeah. That is, unless that's the time they come up with that rabbit in the hat, a new secret bomber they've been secretly evaluating for several years and that is now ready to enter full-fledged operational status...Colonial-Marine said:I believe he stated Rapid Theater Strike was dead, not NGB/NGLRS. Sadly however, I can't imagine us getting anything out of these programs at this rate. As soon as our B-52s cannot be maintained any longer, we're out of luck.