Northrop F/B-23 Rapid Theater Attack aircraft

[sferrin]

You can't say that better than Don Rice

Rice noted that the Lockheed and Pratt & Whitney designs "clearly offered better capability at lower cost, thereby providing the Air Force with a true best value."

period

What else would he say? He's certainly not going to say "We trusted Lockheed to deliver ontime and Northrop and McD are in the doghouse over the B-2 and A-12 so essentially whatever Lockheed offers we'll take it as long as it meets the requirement."

 

[sferrin]

It's more than "silly unsubstantiated rumors". Pretty much everybody agrees on it. If it were just the kooks at ATS and the fanboys that would be one thing but it's pretty much across the board as far as I've read.

The desk model, which appears to be genuine, only proves that Northrop-Grumman was still marketing manned combat aircraft as recently as a couple of years ago. Why the model was discarded or mislayed, and how it ended on eBay, are matters for speculation? I can only assume that the -23 designation and basic YF-23 configuration were "recycled" as part of an unsolicited proposal to the USAF within the last 5 or 6 years.

What the model fails to substantiate is that there was any sort of conspiracy surrounding the ATF competition.

Don't know who's suggesting "conspiracies" but it certainly isn't me. A lot more goes into the decision of who wins other than performance. As one guy put it (about contracts in general) "meets requirements and cheaper will win out over better every time."

 

[Sundog]

I think the reason people think there is a strike aircraft based on the YF-23 is due to the crash at Boscombe Downe in 1994, where it was reported that the aircraft had many features that were similar to the YF-23. However, if the aircraft that crashed at Boscombe Downe did have similar features, I would think most observers got their timelines backwards. It would seem to me that the YF-23 had features similar to the aircraft that crashed at Boscombe Downe because the YF-23 was developed <i>after</i> that aircraft.

I can state that simply, because if that aircraft was developed after the YF-23, I seriously doubt it would have been flying overseas by 1994. Flying overseas indicates a certain level of development and operational capability that most likely would have been impossible to reach by an aircraft developed after the YF-23 to be in Europe by 1994. At least that's my POV.

You can read about it at the Dreamland Resort. Look under Black Projects, the Boscombe Downe Incident.

 

[frank]

Um, can you clarify that? The YF-23 was developed in the late '80s & rolled out in '90 or so. Now, exactly how was the YF-23 developed AFTER a crashed a/c in '94? Maybe I missed something here......

I think the reason people think there is a strike aircraft based on the YF-23 is due to the crash at Boscombe Downe in 1994, where it was reported that the aircraft had many features that were similar to the YF-23. However, if the aircraft that crashed at Boscombe Downe did have similar features, I would think most observers got their timelines backwards. It would seem to me that the YF-23 had features similar to the aircraft that crashed at Boscombe Downe because the YF-23 was developed <i>after</i> that aircraft.

I can state that simply, because if that aircraft was developed after the YF-23, I seriously doubt it would have been flying overseas by 1994. Flying overseas indicates a certain level of development and operational capability that most likely would have been impossible to reach by an aircraft developed after the YF-23 to be in Europe by 1994. At least that's my POV.

You can read about it at the Dreamland Resort. Look under Black Projects, the Boscombe Downe Incident.

 

[flateric]

Guys, please left Boscombe Down case for other forums. If YF-23-based something ever existed in metal, it was no way could be sent across the ocean to UK in 1994

 

[TinWing]

I think the reason people think there is a strike aircraft based on the YF-23 is due to the crash at Boscombe Downe in 1994, where it was reported that the aircraft had many features that were similar to the YF-23. However, if the aircraft that crashed at Boscombe Downe did have similar features....

There are absolutely no pictures in the public domain of the alleged 1994 Boscombe Down sighting. There are only conflicting anecdotes, many offering details such as "inward canted fins" and a "forward opening canopy" that conform more to much of the incorrect "F-19 Stealth Fighter" speculation from the 1980s than the actual YF-23.

 

[TinWing]

Don't know who's suggesting "conspiracies" but it certainly isn't me. A lot more goes into the decision of who wins other than performance. As one guy put it (about contracts in general) "meets requirements and cheaper will win out over better every time."

There is no reason to believe that the YF-23 demonstrator was notably superior to the YF-22. To recapitulate, the YF-22 won a well documented fly-off, Lockheed outperformed Northrop in the demonstration phase of the ATF program, and both entiries were built to the same requirement.

 

[sferrin]

Don't know who's suggesting "conspiracies" but it certainly isn't me. A lot more goes into the decision of who wins other than performance. As one guy put it (about contracts in general) "meets requirements and cheaper will win out over better every time."

There is no reason to believe that the YF-23 demonstrator was notably superior to the YF-22. To recapitulate, the YF-22 won a well documented fly-off, Lockheed outperformed Northrop in the demonstration phase of the ATF program, and both entiries were built to the same requirement.

It would be nice if it were that simple but it's not. For one thing Lockheed (because they were running late) had time to take advantage of the fact that thrust reversal was not required and designed their prototype accordingly. Northrop did not. So no, they weren't built to the same requirement. Secondly the YF-22 as a package won the competition. That includes things like quality of management, production capacity, and so forth which have absolutely nothing to do with the flight performance of the aircraft and in fact the USAF specifed the criteria in a way that specifically prevented flight performance from being the determining factor. Lastly, your's seems to be one of the few voices in the wilderness claiming the YF-22 ourperformed the YF-23 in testing and while numbers alone don't determine the accuracy of the information they can't be disregarded either as some of those making the claims are a hell of a lot more connected than any of us.

 

[Sundog]

The YF-23, based on all of the performance figures I have found, was much better than the YF-22. The deciding factor in the competition, at least as reported by Aviation Week, and the then Sec. of Defense, Dick Cheney, was the fact that the NATF version of the YF-22 was more "doable" than the NATF version of the YF-23. Most people knew it was B.S. because most people doubted there would ever be an NATF. Which, in fact, was obvious when the NATF program was canceled less than one month after the ATF down-select.

I also remember Northrop being "penalized" for getting it right the first time, as reported up thread. As usual, it was politics that determined the winner, not which aircraft was the best plane for the mission.

Guys, please left Boscombe Down case for other forums. If YF-23-based something ever existed in metal, it was no way could be sent across the ocean to UK in 1994

To clear this up, my point was, that nobody understood, is if the plane that crashed at Boscombe Downe had features similar to the YF-23, it had to pre-date the YF-23 or have been developed in about the same time frame. Prototype aircraft aren't sent overseas and anything that theoretically could have been developed from the YF-23 would not have been developed enough to fly overseas by 1994. Therefore,I was making the point that YF-23 developed some of it's features from the technology in that plane, not the other way around as many tend to keep suggesting when they talk about a strike aircraft developed from the YF-23. Afterall, we still haven't been able to determine of if ASTRA was ever built and it would fit the time frame (mid 80's).

As for the F/B-23, the Air Force rejected it and the F/B-22, which is why they are working on the new bomber, which based on everything I've read in Aviation Week should be called the B-2.5, since it is basically just a newer B-2 with a lower range/payload requirement and better stealth with the possibility of maybe switching it over to an unmanned aircraft later in it's service life. The interesting information I found in the latest Aviation Week regarding the new bomber is regarding whether or not it will be nuclear capable. The reason is nuclear hardening can add 50% to the cost of the system.

 

[flateric]

What the connection between next-gen long-range bomber (NGLRS) described in last AWST article and so-called regional bomber program (or Rapid Theather Attack), for which F/B-23 and FB-22 were proposed?

 

[F-14D]

Frankly, it seems a stretch to claim the selection was cover for the "F/B-23". For one thing, you have to assume that AF knew in the late '80s that it would be wanting to start such an aircraft program 15-20 years in the future, but wanted to lock in the airframe technology of the late 1980s. Second, given the controversy over the selection, it's hard to believe USAF would produce a derivative of the losing design. This would make it look to the world like they picked the "wrong" aircraft for the ATF. After all, if the design was versatile enough to be the best choice for this, why didn't they just pick it in the first place and save money and time? This appearance would be embarrassing. Avoiding embarrassment is something that trumps virtually all other considerations to any large governmental organization. This considers trumping simply wouldn't be allowed to happen if it can be avoided any way. I could easily be wrong, but it seems inconceivable that the YF-22 would be selected in 1991 as a cover for a derivative-of-the-YF-23 program planned to start in the middle of the next decade. It would be very expensive, and why bother? Of course, now that this has been posted, USAF will publicly reveal the "A-17" next week.

The truth is probably much simpler. Although the YF-22 was an is an absolutely superb design it seems that the YF--23 design was better in more categories, especially in the categories USAF said were the most important. However, the competition rules were publicly set up so that Sec. Rice could pick whichever design he wanted for whatever reasons he wanted...and that's just what he did.

One other note: There seems to be some confusion in some posts on how many AIM-120s the specifications required the proposals to carry. At the time of the initial announcements and requests for proposals, the fact that the clipped fin AIM-120C was being developed was not public knowledge (although the bidders knew). So, everything referred to the number of big fin AIM-120s that had to be carried in the designs' bays, and that was four. As soon as AIM-120C was disclosed it was acknowledged that at least six of them was the requirement.

 

[yasotay]

"For one thing, you have to assume that AF knew in the late '80s that it would be wanting to start such an aircraft program 15-20 years in the future, but wanted to lock in the airframe technology of the late 1980s."

Sad truth is that it takes that long to develop and field an aircraft now in the west. I am not as fluent in fixed wing, but NH-90, Tigre, V-22. You have to lock down what you are going to do at some point or you are never going to get there.

"Second, given the controversy over the selection, it's hard to believe USAF would produce a derivative of the losing design."

That may be true, however the U.S. Navy did not have this issue with the YF-17.

 

[sferrin]

"For one thing, you have to assume that AF knew in the late '80s that it would be wanting to start such an aircraft program 15-20 years in the future, but wanted to lock in the airframe technology of the late 1980s."

Sad truth is that it takes that long to develop and field an aircraft now in the west. I am not as fluent in fixed wing, but NH-90, Tigre, V-22. You have to lock down what you are going to do at some point or you are never going to get there.

I think the problem with both the F-22 and the V-22 had more to do with politics than anything else. Consider both the YF-22 and YF-23 were designed, built, and flight tested in a matter of a few years. The F-22 took nearly 10 years to go from it's first flight to IOC. Many aircraft have gone from the drawing board to the scrap heap in less time than that.




"Second, given the controversy over the selection, it's hard to believe USAF would produce a derivative of the losing design."

That may be true, however the U.S. Navy did not have this issue with the YF-17.
[/quote]

 

[yasotay]

"For one thing, you have to assume that AF knew in the late '80s that it would be wanting to start such an aircraft program 15-20 years in the future, but wanted to lock in the airframe technology of the late 1980s."

Sad truth is that it takes that long to develop and field an aircraft now in the west. I am not as fluent in fixed wing, but NH-90, Tigre, V-22. You have to lock down what you are going to do at some point or you are never going to get there.

I think the problem with both the F-22 and the V-22 had more to do with politics than anything else. Consider both the YF-22 and YF-23 were designed, built, and flight tested in a matter of a few years. The F-22 took nearly 10 years to go from it's first flight to IOC. Many aircraft have gone from the drawing board to the scrap heap in less time than that.




"Second, given the controversy over the selection, it's hard to believe USAF would produce a derivative of the losing design."

That may be true, however the U.S. Navy did not have this issue with the YF-17.

[/quote]

Its ALWAYS about the money. And because it is always about the money it is always about the politics. Now you have to throw in the inevitable protest by the loosing vendor. Then there is the challenge of the government changing the requirements after the contract is signed because something new has come along in the mean time. Then there is the discussions about what the government really meant versus what the vendor decided to think it meant. Then there is the problem of the sub-vendor who goes out of business in the interim or provides sub-standard parts, then there is the inflationary effect that causes the vendor to loose market share, then there is the...etc. I have been at the edge of this process for a while now and have been amazed that we are not still flying Sabre Jets and OH-13, with all of the bureaucratic frivolity that goes into seeing a program to fruition.

Also I would submit to you that while both YF-22 and 23 were finalized as working prototypes in a few years, I believe there had been several other fighter projects that had led to the final design efforts once parameters were established. I am out of my lane a bit, but suspect that the USAF was planning its next generation requirements even as the F-15A was being fielded.

 

[sferrin]

Also I would submit to you that while both YF-22 and 23 were finalized as working prototypes in a few years, I believe there had been several other fighter projects that had led to the final design efforts once parameters were established. I am out of my lane a bit, but suspect that the USAF was planning its next generation requirements even as the F-15A was being fielded.

There were a few programs that tested technologies that might have found there way into the ATF effort. HiMAt, X-29, AFTI (F-16 and F-111), F-15 SMTD and so forth come to mind. However none of these had any direct lineage to either of the prototypes.

 

[F-14D]

"For one thing, you have to assume that AF knew in the late '80s that it would be wanting to start such an aircraft program 15-20 years in the future, but wanted to lock in the airframe technology of the late 1980s."

Sad truth is that it takes that long to develop and field an aircraft now in the west. I am not as fluent in fixed wing, but NH-90, Tigre, V-22. You have to lock down what you are going to do at some point or you are never going to get there.

Absolutely true (although the V-22 delay was mostly political). However, keep in mind that in the situation we're discussing, it's not that the new aircraft would be developed and enter service in 15-20 years in the future, but that
development itself would not even Start for 15-20 years. If you're going to wait that long to start it, you're going to at least start with what's current then, not 15-20 years prior.

"Second, given the controversy over the selection, it's hard to believe USAF would produce a derivative of the losing design."

That may be true, however the U.S. Navy did not have this issue with the YF-17.

It's important to look at the next sentence I wrote. Developing a derivative of the YF-23 would be embarrassing and would leave the original selection open to second-guessing. Regarding the YF-17, USN picked that because for their missions and needs it was the better aircraft. In fact, the F/A-18A/B was a better aircraft overall than the F-16A/B. This situation did not carry into the C/D versions of those aircraft, BTW.

 

[LowObservable]

From Interavia, just after source selection:

Q: Got the time? A: Looks like rain.

When the ATF decision was announced, the media naturally wanted to hear why the F-22 was the better aircraft. But nobody wanted to tell them.

One of the first questions was: "Can't you give us some summary of why this plane is better than the other plane?" USAF Secretary Donald Rice answered:

"The two aircraft... are an excellent demonstration of what we were trying to accomplish.. We ended up with two aircraft, each one of which could meet the Air Force's technical specidications and technical requirements."

Which of the two aircraft was Stealthier? Maj Gen Joseph W. Ralston, director for tactical programs at USAF headquarters, broke hard right:

"When you try to compare various airplanes on their Stealth characteristics and try to sum it up on a bumper-sticker, it invariably gets us into trouble all the time. It's frequency-dependent, it's aspect-dependent, it's elevation-dependent. Both aircraft met the requirement."

Tactical Air Command chief Gen Mike Loh was faced with the question: "From a pilot's standpoint, which is the better airplane?" General Loh tried the right-hand break again:

"Both designs met the basic elements that were laid out for the demonstration/validation program, and I'm sure the Lockheed/Pratt & Whitney combination will be an outstanding air-superiority fighter for all of our pilots."

But Loh's adversary was not so easily foxed. "But which one's better...which one would you want to fly?" Loh hauled over into a vertical rolling scissors: "I want to get the program moving so we get one to fly."

Even then, the attacker wasn't quite done: "Which is the better one?" Loh pulled a high-speed yo-yo: "Since I didn't fly the prototypes, I don't want to answer that."

We are not sure what happened next. We think that Loh's interlocutor suffered a G-LOC episode and impacted the floor of the Pentagon auditorium.

 

[Jeb]

As fun as I think it'd be to assume that Loh & co. were trying to hide something, that sounds more to me like a dodge for PR's sake. If they spoke in an official capacity about a plane's deficits or superiority at that stage in the procurement game, the entire project would probably get tied up in a couple of years minimum of protests and do-overs. I don't think they were particularly frank either about why the F-35 was picked over the F-32, and that one was glaringly obvious.

 

[JoeinTX]

As nice as it would be to think that an "F/B-23" actually existed, if it did, would N-G be releasing pics and models of it considering it would be a secretive development under contract to the U.S Government?

Seriously, how many truly real AND "black" projects have both been flying in secret yet had the parent company releasing any kind of info, including depictions or models, to the public?

SR-71? No.

U-2? No.

F-117? No.

Tacit Blue...Bird of Prey....stealth cruise missile....? No, no, and no.


If Northrop-Grumman has any type of federal money or support to develop this thing in private then the very notion of an "F/B-23" would be nearly non-existent. In short, it doesn't exist....it ain't flying....and it's a long way from achieving either.

 

[F-14D]

As fun as I think it'd be to assume that Loh & co. were trying to hide something, that sounds more to me like a dodge for PR's sake. If they spoke in an official capacity about a plane's deficits or superiority at that stage in the procurement game, the entire project would probably get tied up in a couple of years minimum of protests and do-overs. I don't think they were particularly frank either about why the F-35 was picked over the F-32, and that one was glaringly obvious.

Remember, the way the competition was structured, aircraft comparative performance was only a decision factor if one aircraft met more of the design points than the other. Otherwise AF got to pick the winner whichever way they wanted. Since both aircraft met or exceeded all requirements, aircraft performance couldn't be a basis for protest.

They were pretty open about why the X-35 won. Boeing's design wasn't nearly as mature, embodied more risk, never demonstrated that it could do STOVL with a supersonic intake installed and virtually no growth capability or ability to absorb weight increases. Boeing took a risk with their innovative (and ugly) design, that didn't pan out. Kudos to them for trying, but for them to win it wouldn't be enough that everything had to go right for them, it would also entail that a lot had to go wrong for Lockheed, that didn't' happen.

Trivia note: The X-32 was the only Boeing aircraft to ever actually fly supersonically in normal flight.

 

[JoeinTX]

Trivia note: The X-32 was the only Boeing aircraft to ever actually fly supersonically in normal flight.

Easy.

This says nothing to the F/B-23 that is so facifully bantied-about.



Secondly, I loved the X-32.....I thought it the best most likely produced in the competition even with its design problems.


I like the F-35, but I think an F-32 would have been tearing things up too by now isn't an automatic discharge from the site.

 

[TinWing]

I don't think they were particularly frank either about why the F-35 was picked over the F-32, and that one was glaringly obvious.

The JSF competition saw unprecedented press access in the final flight test stage. There is plenty of documentary footage indicating how the X-32 failed and just how spectacularly the X-35 fulfilled the requirements.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

As of late has Northrop still been pitching the FB-23 for different programs? Or has Northrop moved onto different offerings for NGB/NGLRS/LRSA-X, or whatever the current iteration of that program is.

How likely is it that a FB-23 designation would be used if the aircraft was to be produced? As I understand it the only prior FB designated aircraft, the FB-111 is one of those improper designations. Presuming the USAF went by the book would the designation be F-23B, F-24, B-3, or A-14? The same designation question also applies to the FB-22.

 

[Stargazer]

Presuming the USAF went by the book would the designation be F-23B, F-24, B-3, or A-14?

As for "F-24", we know it was quoted in a pilot's log book, so the designation is definitely in use already for some secret aircraft. "B-3" seems to have been reserved (albeit informally) for the replacement of the B-2. "A-14" comes next after "A-12", true, but A-18 is already in use, so I don't think DoD would bother filling the blanks...

I guess if the primary class is "fighter" and the secondary mission is either "attack" or "bomber", it SHOULD be AF-23 or BF-23... and since it would be a new variant, it could be AF-23B and BF-23B... Except I think the "FB-23" is sufficiently different (notably larger) to justify a new number (BF-36A?) or even a complete change of designation (A-19A?, B-4A?).

I for one believe that the easiest path would be to use the attack and fighter class lists in conjunction, keeping the same numbers for the same aircraft and just switching from F- to A- depending on the main mission. It was done before for F-18 and A-18 (I believe that originally A/F-18 was supposed to reflect that duality, not be a proper designation). According to this logic, the Tomcat, Eagle, Fighting Falcon, Hornet, Raptor, Black Widow and Lightning II designs could have "A-" designations reserved in case "attack" becomes their primary mission: A-14, A-15, A-16, A-18, A-22, A-23, A-35. What do the rest of you guys think? Am I the only one to think it could be a good idea?

 

[Gridlock]

As for "F-24", we know it was quoted in a pilot's log book, so the designation is definitely in use already for some secret aircraft.

Do you have further info on this? A forum search didn't enlighten me.

Which base houses F24s and F19s then? Have they got "The Mothership" there too?

 

[Matej]

Take a look here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,528.0/highlight,mrf-24x.html

Now back to FB-23.

 

[Triton]

As for "F-24", we know it was quoted in a pilot's log book, so the designation is definitely in use already for some secret aircraft. "B-3" seems to have been reserved (albeit informally) for the replacement of the B-2. "A-14" comes next after "A-12", true, but A-18 is already in use, so I don't think DoD would bother filling the blanks...

I guess if the primary class is "fighter" and the secondary mission is either "attack" or "bomber", it SHOULD be AF-23 or BF-23... and since it would be a new variant, it could be AF-23B and BF-23B... Except I think the "FB-23" is sufficiently different (notably larger) to justify a new number (BF-36A?) or even a complete change of designation (A-19A?, B-4A?).

I for one believe that the easiest path would be to use the attack and fighter class lists in conjunction, keeping the same numbers for the same aircraft and just switching from F- to A- depending on the main mission. It was done before for F-18 and A-18 (I believe that originally A/F-18 was supposed to reflect that duality, not be a proper designation). According to this logic, the Tomcat, Eagle, Fighting Falcon, Hornet, Raptor, Black Widow and Lightning II designs could have "A-" designations reserved in case "attack" becomes their primary mission: A-14, A-15, A-16, A-18, A-22, A-23, A-35. What do the rest of you guys think? Am I the only one to think it could be a good idea?

After reading the Current Designations of U.S. Military Aircraft web page by Andreas Parsch, I really don't know what the MDS (Mission-Design-Series) Designation would be for the Northrop Grumman F/B-23 Rapid Theater Attack. What should be a relatively easy designation to predict, has become difficult to predict because the Department of Defense is not following the usage rules of their designation system.

We already know that design numbers have been skipped, or reserved depending on the sources that you read, to explain the absence of the F-19 designator. Design numbers have also been assigned from requests by the manufacturer, such as Boeing KC-767 or Northrop F-20. Then there is the matter of the Lockheed Martin F-35, skipping 12 official fighter design numbers and the rumored classified F-24. Is the next number in the design number sequence to be used F-36 or F-25? Will any of the numbers below F-35 ever going to be used?

Then we have choice of vehicle Mission and Modified Mission, which have also been determined due to service politics or the way that they sound. For example, the F-117 Nighthawk was never a fighter. SR-71 sounded better to a general than RS-71. The F/A-18 Mission and Modified Mission designation. The F-15E Strike Eagle that never received the B for bomber Modified Mission designation.

With all these exceptions to the conventions, we can only make a guess of what MDS Designation the Northrop Grumman F/B-23 Rapid Theater Strike would receive. My inclination is that the aircraft would be consistently referred to as the F/B-23 if it went into development and that it would become its official MDS Designation.

Source:
http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/aircraft.html#_System_3_Note1

 

[Gridlock]

"Super Aardvark" gets my vote...

 

[Triton]

"Super Aardvark" gets my vote...

Not likely considering that the aviation business of General Dynamics was absorbed by Lockheed Martin, not Northrop Grumman, and Aardvark was the name of the F-111. I would have liked to have seen the name Black Widow II become official and have the F/B-23 named for the Northrop P-61.

 

[Stargazer]

"Super Aardvark" gets my vote...

Not likely considering that the aviation business of General Dynamics was absorbed by Lockheed Martin, not Northrop Grumman, and Aardvark was the name of the F-111.

Not necessarily. Avenger II was assigned to a General Dynamics/McDonnell Douglas project although the name originally belonged to a Grumman project... Raven was assigned to a General Dynamics but it had been used for a Curtiss aircraft before... Eagle was a McDonnell Douglas (now a Boeing) but had been a General Motors before... Tiger was a Grumman but it was later reused for a Northrop. I'm sure we could find other similar examples.

 

[Triton]

I thought that the Northrop Grumman F/B 23 Rapid Theater Attack aircraft was a Northrop Grumman concept for the US Air Force's interim bomber requirement, which also gave us the Lockheed Martin FB-22 and the Boeing B-1R concepts. The interim bomber was meant to supplement the US Air Force bomber force and enter service in 2018 using an existing airframe. It appears that this requirement has been cancelled by the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review in favor of a more long-term bomber with greater range.

At this time, should we consider the F/B-23, FB-22, and B-1R projects to be dead?

 

[Sundog]

I certainly would consider them (FB-22, FB-23, & B-1R) dead, especially since we have good reporting that NG is building an advanced bomber (Demonstrator/prototype?) that based on most of the information released uses their kite configuration as also used on the X-47B. I have no idea what they will designate it. For all we know, they could call it the ISR-1 (SR-73? ).

For a new fighter, it would not receive the designation F-23, unless it's somehow a derivative of the YF-23. It seems the YF-24 (F-24) designation has already been used, so I would expect the next fighter to be the F-25. However, if the "F-24" does exist and they still want to keep it secret, I could see the DOD jumping straight to the F-36, because the latest aircraft to enter production is the F-35.

 

[Stargazer]

However, if the "F-24" does exist and they still want to keep it secret, I could see the DOD jumping straight to the F-36, because the latest aircraft to enter production is the F-35.

Yeah! As I said earlier in another thread, how convenient to have 11 designations unaccounted for if you want to conceal some secret programs... :

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I don't see why they couldn't find designations for black projects without jumping 10 in the fighter designation scheme. Consider the F-21A designation used Used for a handful of Israeli Kfirs bought for aggressor training. Now to me it would seem convenient for a F-21B to be used for a different aircraft entirely.

The USAF rarely seems to use the attack designation for some reason, the F-105 for example could hardly be considered a fighter in the conventional sense. I imagine either a F or B designation would be more likely than an A.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Shazam!

 

[Stargazer]

Shazam!

Fantastic! Thanks Scott.

 

[OM]

I don't think they were particularly frank either about why the F-35 was picked over the F-32, and that one was glaringly obvious.

The JSF competition saw unprecedented press access in the final flight test stage. There is plenty of documentary footage indicating how the X-32 failed and just how spectacularly the X-35 fulfilled the requirements.

...The whole story can be found on YouTube:

...IIRC, this one shows up on the Former Hitler Channel when they've run out of crap shows about pawn scum, biker trash, and frozen truckers and decide to air something that's actually *History*. Anyone who saw last night's South Park will understand how much of a joke the History Channel has become in the past few years. Last time it was dedicated to historical documentary programming, I still had two good legs

UPDATE: Found this clip of interest. Both prototypes on display:

 

[OM]

...And while we're talking about the JSF, any comments about this clip?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M&feature=related

 

[Madurai]

...And while we're talking about the JSF, any comments about this clip?

Well, for starters, despite the title the F-22 isn't actually mentioned.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

...And while we're talking about the JSF, any comments about this clip?

Job 13:4