• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

New Long Range Strike YF-23 based concept (B-23 Phoenix)

lantinian

Inspired
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
501
Reaction score
6
Website
www.lantinian.blogspot.com
So...lets get this baby done as well. :D
A simple 3 view drawing comming soon!

It took me many weeks of staring to discover that the picture below is not the FB-23 RTA but rather even bigger beast: A Bomber

If I have to refer to the official tabel attached as well, this got to be....well, see for yourselves.

Things to note:
- The size of the weapon: presumably an GBU-28 bunker buster.
- The the weapons bays. One big and wide, the second in the front being shorter and narrower.
- there is a distance between the wing trailing edge and the start of the V-tail
- the geometry of the jagged boat tail suggesting....well I am not going to spoil that!

Here is the WIP pic.

lantinian 8)
 

Attachments

  • YF-23_based_NLRS_concept.JPG
    YF-23_based_NLRS_concept.JPG
    145.1 KB · Views: 1,916
  • NLRS.jpg
    NLRS.jpg
    45.2 KB · Views: 807

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,819
Reaction score
266
Re: New Long Range Strike YF-23 based concept (B-3 Phoenix)

The plane in the pic is the FB-23 and I doubt it matches those NLRS figures, as most of the concept drawings I've seen for that are substantially larger. I could be wrong though.

However, the USAF announced this past week that the NLRS/B-3 will be a manned stealthy subsonic bomber. They ruled out the FB-22 and FB-23 somewhere between six months to one year ago.
 

lantinian

Inspired
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
501
Reaction score
6
Website
www.lantinian.blogspot.com
Here we go...

Just a few words.

As you can see, I have based my 4 view drawing solely on the picture above. After a bit of drawing ingenuity I was able to devise this method to extract a drawing from a good picture. As such I am quite positive about the accuracy of the bottom view.

The scale of the aircraft that came up probably surprises most of view. Well, fortunately for us we have a very good reference within the picture: The GBU-28 Bomb. It is 584.36 cm long and it is 8 time shorter than the aircraft in the picture.

I could have also scaled up the aircraft in the picture to match to contour of the F/B-23 boat tail or the size of The cockpits. Either way, I get a similar result for the overall Lent of the aircraft. We must also not forget that there is considerable difference in the requirements for the Regional Bomber proposals back in 2004 and the New Long Range Study in 2006. We have a significant increase in payload and range.

To meet the new requirements Northrop just scaled up the aircraft (more in Lent). The YF-23 configuration has prooven to be extremely adaptable to such changes. So much for the legends about the YF-23 being less adaptable for strike than the F-22.

One thing that the F/B-23 and the B-23 (I find this designation as logical as the F-35 ones) have in common in the cruising speed. Both emphasize high supersonic speed of Mach 2.4

The F/B-23 would have been able to achieve this thanks to improved aerodynamics and new engines. It is very likely that both proposals have counted on the further development of the F-136 fighter engine with is varable cycle. it , like its predecessor the YF120 was more suitable for the higher supercruise YF-23 design. With the development of the F-136 now in queston (if not allready cancelled), the alternative F-135 engine e may not provide the necessary performance. Hence a very low chance of success for any YF-23 based proposal.

The B-23 is 50% larger and needs more power to achieve the same speeds. A 3rd engine will exactly 50% trust increase. By the way, if one looks closely at the boat tail in the picture and compare it to the F/B-23 one, the additional jag toots becomes easily apparent. Actually that is how I first come to the conclusion that this is a different and bigger aircraft. The second feature that suggested a different model, was the clear separation of the boat ail fro the wing.

Yet another thing that I noticed to be different is the line running from the nose to the wing. It changes directions twice. This in my opinion is done so as to allow the nose to be build longer. This in turn is promted from the heavier three engine tail.

Another good sign was that I was able to easily fit the GBU-43 MOAB bomb inside the main weapons bay. The B-2 is able to carry 2 (two).

Its very difficult for me to stomach the resent announcement by the USAF that they cannot afford the new long range platform to be supersonic. Any YF-23 based design represents a very low risk approach to that and would have kept the advantage of Supercruise in the USAF hands. More and more aircraft claim to be able to cross into supersonic without afterburners. By the type this new strike aircraft enters service in 11 years time, the sky will be full of supercruisers. With the B-23 the USAF could have kept the same advantages in the bomber arena as the F-22 holds among the fighters.

regards, 8)
lantinian

P.S. A link to the F/B-23 4 view drawing is here:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,209.msg15594.html#msg15594
 

Attachments

  • B-23.jpg
    B-23.jpg
    71.9 KB · Views: 2,107
  • 23_family.jpg
    23_family.jpg
    62.7 KB · Views: 2,122

lantinian

Inspired
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
501
Reaction score
6
Website
www.lantinian.blogspot.com
I have found some things that needed to be corrected in the drawings. The angle at which the V-tails are canted was not the same as in YF-23. Same for the wing sweep in the B-23 drawing. I have also added beater looking engine nozzles.

As I have perfected the method for drawing extraction from the picture, the F/B-23 may need to be redone and the B-23 rescaled.

I am also hoping to receive some feedback or Ideas before I go into trouble of posting again new pictures

lantinian
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,901
Reaction score
1,134
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
lantinian said:
I am also hoping to receive some feedback or Ideas before I go into trouble of posting again new pictures

Damnably fine work. I might be forced to use your drawings as the basis for models, as well as sources for US Bomber Projects......
 

lantinian

Inspired
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
501
Reaction score
6
Website
www.lantinian.blogspot.com
Damnably fine work. I might be forced to use your drawings as the basis for models, as well as sources for US Bomber Projects......

Then I will go over them once again and make sure they are as good as I can get them to look...before I leave for the US on 17th.

And..... I will be honoured to make this small contribution to your book.

lantinian
 

CFE

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 1, 2007
Messages
259
Reaction score
3
B-23 might not be a very ominous name for the proposed new bomber. The original B-23's only claim to fame was that Jimmy Doolittle wanted to use it for the famed raid on Tokyo prior to selection of the B-25. Will the new B-23 also be called Dragon?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,376
Reaction score
1,413
lantinian said:
Here we go...

Just a few words.

As you can see, I have based my 4 view drawing solely on the picture above. After a bit of drawing ingenuity I was able to devise this method to extract a drawing from a good picture. As such I am quite positive about the accuracy of the bottom view.

The scale of the aircraft that came up probably surprises most of view. Well, fortunately for us we have a very good reference within the picture: The GBU-28 Bomb. It is 584.36 cm long and it is 8 time shorter than the aircraft in the picture.

Given the size of the bomb in the picture compared to the intakes and the canopies I'd think it extremely unlikely those are meant to be GBU-28s. More likely SDBs or BLU-109s or even some completely fictional device. Also given that the largest afterburning engine currently under developement in the US is the F136 and it would only have two of them it can't be very big and still be able to cruise supersonically (that is if the F136 were designed for that regime- which it isn't). The FB-23 seems likely to have been not much different in concept than the FB-22 simply based on a different airframe.
 

CFE

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 1, 2007
Messages
259
Reaction score
3
Perhaps the size of the cockpit would be a better reference for the size of the FB-23? It might be helpful to come up with a range of sizes for the design, based on whether the bomb in the pic is a GBU-28, GBU-24, or something smaller (GBU-31, GBU-32, or GBU-38.)
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,376
Reaction score
1,413
CFE said:
Perhaps the size of the cockpit would be a better reference for the size of the FB-23? It might be helpful to come up with a range of sizes for the design, based on whether the bomb in the pic is a GBU-28, GBU-24, or something smaller (GBU-31, GBU-32, or GBU-38.)

Personally I was thinking more along the lines of the intake being a better indicator as canopies can sometimes be deceptive. Get the YF-23's intake size and figure for an F136 or F135 the intake capture area would be 5-10% larger in area and go from there.
 

CFE

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 1, 2007
Messages
259
Reaction score
3
While it would certainly be useful for an FB-23 type aircraft to carry a GBU-28, I suspect that the weapons bays would be configured so that both would be needed to accommodate the extra-long bomb. For traditional strike missions, the forward and aft bays would carry two sets of bombs. For GBU-28 missions, the two bays would act as one extra-long weapons bay.
 

elmayerle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,344
Reaction score
116
CFE said:
While it would certainly be useful for an FB-23 type aircraft to carry a GBU-28, I suspect that the weapons bays would be configured so that both would be needed to accommodate the extra-long bomb. For traditional strike missions, the forward and aft bays would carry two sets of bombs. For GBU-28 missions, the two bays would act as one extra-long weapons bay.

That's quite likely the approach NGC took since the original F-23 proposal included a moveable partition between the weapons bays, much as between the front two weapons bays on the B-1B, to allow carriage of large stores when required.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,043
Reaction score
865
Hmmm...I always was thinking that forward (AIM-9s) and aft (AIM-120) logically, should be of various width on F-23A.

...Also I always was wondering about tight security that covered PAV-1 prototype weapon bay. It even didn't carry that advanced launcher destined for production bird, just a kind of trapeze substitute plus one inert AIM-120 for acoustic/vibration tests with the open bay as I was told.
 

elmayerle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,344
Reaction score
116
flateric said:
Hmmm...I always was thinking that forward (AIM-9s) and aft (AIM-120) logically, should be of various width on F-23A.

Well, that was the nominal baseline configuration, but it was designed from the beginning to be adaptable to other weapons fits.
 

lantinian

Inspired
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
501
Reaction score
6
Website
www.lantinian.blogspot.com
I apologies for not getting into this MUCH earlier...

While I am 99% sure of the accuracy of the planform shape of the aircraft (as derived from the picture) finding something to scaled it against was tough.
It might be helpful to come up with a range of sizes for the design, based on whether the bomb in the pic is a GBU-28, GBU-24
I sort of this that for various bombs and the aircraft came too small to fulfill the Long range missions if the bomb in the picture was no GBU-28.

Given the size of the bomb in the picture compared to the intakes and the canopies I'd think it extremely unlikely those are meant to be GBU-28s.
I had also initial doubts about this and believe me, I would not have posted this unless I had not spent many hours trying out the possibilities. However one thing struck me. The accuracy of the planform wing sweep angle. It was exactly 50 deg. Whoever made that drawing made a damm good job of drawing an accurate perspective however distorted the aeroplane turned out to be. So, why fake the bomb?

What was the biggest convincing factor however from be regarding the nature of the bomb was indirect evidence.
Look at the explosion on the ground. It is not a typical one. It looks like dust coming from deep underground. Like from a bunker buster. And there are not many out there. It either the GBU-36( only B-2 carries that) or its the GBU-28A/B, which however is brown coloured.

The GBU-28 has a new model that came operational around that time. Its the C/D model in the picture below. Its green.
It makes sense for a conceptual plane to carry the hottest bomb, doing what was most popular these days. Hunting Bin Laden in his caves.

So its GBU-28C/D all right.

P.S. I am not sure what the yellow or the blue ring around the front mean, but it had to do with the explosive charge (I think)
 

Attachments

  • GBU-28C_D.jpg
    GBU-28C_D.jpg
    18.7 KB · Views: 377
  • GBU-28C_D_orig.JPG
    GBU-28C_D_orig.JPG
    18.1 KB · Views: 71

lantinian

Inspired
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
501
Reaction score
6
Website
www.lantinian.blogspot.com
First, I would like to invite everyone to open the first attached picture and look at their monitors from as close to 90 of axis to the right as possible. The lines hinting the forward weapons bay and the gear doors are clearly visible.

The second thing to notice is the second bomb of similar type inside the weapons bay. You can see the yellow ring and the rear stabilizers. It can clearly fit around twice in the lengthily bay.

The Third thing to notice is the number of edges on the boat tail: Three. If the engine installation is similar to F/B-23, that would imply 3 engines.

Forth is the space between the end of the wing trailing edge and the begging of the V-tail. Not present on previous YF-23 based proposals. It makes sense to separate the tail only it the whole aircraft is longer.

Fifth is the line of the actual strake running from the nose. And the dark patch still on top is an actual camouflage colour meant to deceive us of the size of the nose. You can see that the camouflage line is not linear (below the cockpit) That's something I have just discovered and will have to correct in my 3 views.

I have also attached an accurate planform view with the latest bombs in the US arsenal. I used that to help me in the scaling. It's obvious that any future bomber would need to carry those. NLRS based YF-23 proposal could not be an exception.

I wonder if Jozef will consider doing a 3D for this one too. ::)

P.S. The B-23 designation was not the best idea, but seeing how they do it these days (X-35 -> F-35), you never know.
 

Attachments

  • FB-23_details.jpg
    FB-23_details.jpg
    396.1 KB · Views: 642
  • FB-23_bay.jpg
    FB-23_bay.jpg
    33.2 KB · Views: 479

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,043
Reaction score
865
I just wonder how smiling those of us who have this CGI in high resolution...
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,376
Reaction score
1,413
flateric said:
I just wonder how smiling those of us who have this CGI in high resolution...

Well don't be a tease, spill the beans. Where did you get the high res?
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,043
Reaction score
865
I don't have. But here stealthy present many of those who are working for NG, as well who are driving through Wright-Patterson's AFMC/ASC gate every business day.
 

lantinian

Inspired
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
501
Reaction score
6
Website
www.lantinian.blogspot.com
Why do I always miss the important posts?

I just wonder how smiling those of us who have this CGI in high resolution...

So, how much of my interpretation of the SMALL picture tends to get along with the obvious from the BIG picture, flateric? ::)
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,901
Reaction score
1,134
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
lantinian said:
It took me many weeks of staring to discover that the picture below is not the FB-23 RTA but rather even bigger beast: A Bomber

It may have taken several years, but I now have confirmation from A Reliable Source Who Knows that there was no three-engined, larger version... the artwork depicts the same beast as the FB-23 from notorious ebay fame.
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,235
Reaction score
454
Orionblamblam said:
lantinian said:
It took me many weeks of staring to discover that the picture below is not the FB-23 RTA but rather even bigger beast: A Bomber

It may have taken several years, but I now have confirmation from A Reliable Source Who Knows that there was no three-engined, larger version... the artwork depicts the same beast as the FB-23 from notorious ebay fame.

What about the Boscombe Down crash, then? ??? ??? Witnesses at the time spoke of an F-23-like design, but bigger.
 
Top