Northrop / McDonnell Douglas ATF - YF-23 and EMD F-23

Thanks!
I took some artistic license in certain places to let the shape flow in a better way, also the blueprints as you can see are just something of a guide really. Those are from Paul Metz Book, which has the best detailed ones, but even scanned in high res and blown up to "real world" size the thickness of the lines makes them not really that useful in the end. Too blurry to be precise with them.

As you can see in the screenshots the overall shaping is very close to the actual blueprints, however in some areas I deviated a bit - like the nose for example, it is more curved and rounded, like the F-35 or F-22 and not this sudden triangular shape towards the front.
I'm happy that I got the lower fuselage pretty much entirely correct with the inlets and the divertless intake cones plus the serration. That took some work!
 

Attachments

  • F-23-shape1.jpg
    F-23-shape1.jpg
    264.8 KB · Views: 439
  • F-23-shape2.jpg
    F-23-shape2.jpg
    280.9 KB · Views: 229
  • F-23-shape3.jpg
    F-23-shape3.jpg
    220.2 KB · Views: 266
The F-35 does have a chiseled nose radome though, so I think it’s reasonable if the F-23 would also be shaped like this.

Is the one piece canopy also an artistic interpretation on your part? The DWGs show a two-piece design but it’s possible that it may have had a one-piece canopy had the design been refined further during EMD.
 
In terms of minor detailing of e.g. flaps etc I'd look to the B-2 and F-22 for inspiration. Jim Goodall posted some nice B-2 closeups in

Pictorial History of the B-2A Spirit Stealth Bomber.​

 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
The F-35 does have a chiseled nose radome though, so I think it’s reasonable if the F-23 would also be shaped like this.

Is the one piece canopy also an artistic interpretation on your part? The DWGs show a two-piece design but it’s possible that it may have had a one-piece canopy had the design been refined further during EMD.
Click to expand...

I meant it from the top down perspective the side profile is also adjusted a bit, its not round like the nose cone of a F-15 or F-14, it still has the chime going all the way to the front.

Yes, the canopy was a deliberate change due to the picture that got me into making this model in the first place. I just think it looks way better and given that the former project leads of the YF-23 programm said the F-22 took some of their ideas, I took some pointers from the F-22.
overscan (PaulMM) said:
In terms of minor detailing of e.g. flaps etc I'd look to the B-2 and F-22 for inspiration. Jim Goodall posted some nice B-2 closeups in

Pictorial History of the B-2A Spirit Stealth Bomber.​

Click to expand...
Thanks for that and the blueprints. Something to order on monday.


I think, I will do a little bit of refinement on the overall shape. It was actually some time ago when I last checked the shape against the cross sections. The transition from the main fuselage to the nacells can use some touch up. There won't be full 100% accuracy, because there are some inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the blueprints themselfs.
Though, I think that I got it very close and still did it justice - hopefully. :)
 

Attachments

  • F-23-top.jpg
    F-23-top.jpg
    248.9 KB · Views: 260
  • F-23-side.jpg
    F-23-side.jpg
    201 KB · Views: 267
  • F-23-nose.jpg
    F-23-nose.jpg
    88 KB · Views: 320
  • C3QExXMUYAAC73I.jpg
    C3QExXMUYAAC73I.jpg
    369.7 KB · Views: 328
VentZer0 said:
Thanks!
I took some artistic license in certain places to let the shape flow in a better way, also the blueprints as you can see are just something of a guide really. Those are from Paul Metz Book, which has the best detailed ones, but even scanned in high res and blown up to "real world" size the thickness of the lines makes them not really that useful in the end. Too blurry to be precise with them.

As you can see in the screenshots the overall shaping is very close to the actual blueprints, however in some areas I deviated a bit - like the nose for example, it is more curved and rounded, like the F-35 or F-22 and not this sudden triangular shape towards the front.
I'm happy that I got the lower fuselage pretty much entirely correct with the inlets and the divertless intake cones plus the serration. That took some work!
Click to expand...
Yes the blue prints are far from perfect and in fact are not symmetrical in several plans. The nacelle/fuselage junction has been the most difficult part as the only real picture we have is that of dp-232 mock-up on Paul Metz book. But first, the mock up is also far from being perfect as the yf-23 one shows, and since the configurations were evolving every day, who knows if it was to be that way. Still, your interpretation, which is seen in many other planes, is the first I see for the f-23. Do you have screens of different angles of that junction?
 
Ogami musashi said:
Yes the blue prints are far from perfect and in fact are not symmetrical in several plans. The nacelle/fuselage junction has been the most difficult part as the only real picture we have is that of dp-232 mock-up on Paul Metz book. But first, the mock up is also far from being perfect as the yf-23 one shows, and since the configurations were evolving every day, who knows if it was to be that way. Still, your interpretation, which is seen in many other planes, is the first I see for the f-23. Do you have screens of different angles of that junction?
Click to expand...

You are right, the blueprint also have a wobble in them, they are not 100% straight. Had to adjust things so that the horizontal reference line was actually horizontal, stuff like that causes inaccuracies down the line.
I checked the book and the junction has more of a ridge to it, my approach was a more blended shape. I was thinking about the words of one of the project members in the unclassified documentary "if it is smooth it's fast / stealthy" something to that effect.

I hope the screenshots help.
 

Attachments

  • F-23-upper-fuselage5.jpg
    F-23-upper-fuselage5.jpg
    156.2 KB · Views: 263
  • F-23-upper-fuselage4.jpg
    F-23-upper-fuselage4.jpg
    192.6 KB · Views: 165
  • F-23-upper-fuselage3.jpg
    F-23-upper-fuselage3.jpg
    87.5 KB · Views: 170
  • F-23-upper-fuselage2.jpg
    F-23-upper-fuselage2.jpg
    184.9 KB · Views: 165
  • F-23-upper-fuselage1.jpg
    F-23-upper-fuselage1.jpg
    264.5 KB · Views: 213
VentZer0 said:
You are right, the blueprint also have a wobble in them, they are not 100% straight. Had to adjust things so that the horizontal reference line was actually horizontal, stuff like that causes inaccuracies down the line.
I checked the book and the junction has more of a ridge to it, my approach was a more blended shape. I was thinking about the words of one of the project members in the unclassified documentary "if it is smooth it's fast / stealthy" something to that effect.

I hope the screenshots help.
Click to expand...
Well actually I prefer your intepretation :)
Any plan on releasing the model at some point?
 
VentZer0 said:
Hello Everyone, firstime posting here.
For the past couple years I have been working on a F-23A Model in Blender. I have been through a bunch of iterations and artistic license version of that particular aircraft including a two seat navalized version. However I have decided to create a more true to what could've been version and essentially re-did the model from scratch. I have had particular issues with all my iterations, when it comes to certain aspects of the model that are not well represented or explained in enough detail in any of the material I came across (I have the Paul Metz book and the Japanese picture book).

Those are the control surfaces.

The particular issues: What were the deflection limits for the leading edge and the trailing edge flaps. And, how do they actually move, where is the rotational axis, how did they get rid of the gaps and seams that form when the surfaces deflect or the collision with the wing surface. (The screenshots will explain what I mean by this)
I know the ailerons do 40° up and down, but for the flaperons I am not so sure.

That is why I'm writing this post. Maybe somebody can help or knows how they'd solve this issue on the real bird.
I have no real knowledge about aerospace engineering and aircraft manurfacturing so I don't know the lingo to look for in solving my questions. I will attach some screenshots of the issues for reference.

View attachment 707889
Click to expand...


Great work! I like your interpretations of how the design might have evolved. I too am working on the F-23A project, in this case as a "mod" for DCS World. For my project, I stuck strictly with the General Arrangement Plans for DP231 with some interpretation where necessary. Things like weapons launchers for example. The external model is just about finished and we are now working on the internal cockpit model. Please keep us updated with your progress.
 

Attachments

  • Dusk_refueling.png
    Dusk_refueling.png
    374.8 KB · Views: 221
BDF said:
Great work! I like your interpretations of how the design might have evolved. I too am working on the F-23A project, in this case as a "mod" for DCS World. For my project, I stuck strictly with the General Arrangement Plans for DP231 with some interpretation where necessary. Things like weapons launchers for example. The external model is just about finished and we are now working on the internal cockpit model. Please keep us updated with your progress.
Click to expand...
Thanks and very nice! Can you also show more pictures or give a link to the mod, I have DCS myself! Would love to take a look in the model viewer!
I am very interested how you modelled the exhaust nozzle paddles, because the Blueprints are very vague there.
I attached some screens of how I did it. Basically they are made up of three parts, instead of 2 like for the F-22.
 

Attachments

  • F-23-nozzles5.jpg
    F-23-nozzles5.jpg
    141.8 KB · Views: 244
  • F-23-nozzles4.jpg
    F-23-nozzles4.jpg
    142.1 KB · Views: 131
  • F-23-nozzles3.jpg
    F-23-nozzles3.jpg
    142.2 KB · Views: 139
  • F-23-nozzles2.jpg
    F-23-nozzles2.jpg
    103.2 KB · Views: 149
  • F-23-nozzles1.jpg
    F-23-nozzles1.jpg
    155.7 KB · Views: 197
VentZer0 said:
Thanks and very nice! Can you also show more pictures or give a link to the mod, I have DCS myself! Would love to take a look in the model viewer!
I am very interested how you modelled the exhaust nozzle paddles, because the Blueprints are very vague there.
I attached some screens of how I did it. Basically they are made up of three parts, instead of 2 like for the F-22.
Click to expand...

We are still developing it and it hasn't been released so I don't have a .EDM to share at the moment. We modeled the AB paddles almost exactly the same. I will have more to share in the future when we are closer to release
 
BDF said:
We are still developing it and it hasn't been released so I don't have a .EDM to share at the moment. We modeled the AB paddles almost exactly the same. I will have more to share in the future when we are closer to release
Click to expand...
I see, please let us know when you release it or can share more!
 
Maro.Kyo said:
Hoped it was something new but its basically an article about the Western Museum of Flight videos. It's quite remarkable how there are so many videos featuring Paul Metz regarding his experience with the YF-23, what anyone fond of the YF-23 should be grateful about.
Click to expand...
There was another interview where Paul Metz regarded the YF-23 to be the finest handling airplane he has ever flown, even edging out the F-22 which he also spoke very highly of.

In the end, the USAF would have had a fantastic aircraft regardless of which one was chosen, F-22 or F-23. They each had their advantages over one another but it wasn’t major or decisive. I think a lot of people were captivated by the YF-23’s exotic appearance and thus got carried away when describing its advantages to exaggerated extents. Ultimately, both were excellent designs, unlike some other programs where one entry was decisively superior to the others.
 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
There was another interview where Paul Metz regarded the YF-23 to be the finest handling airplane he has ever flown, even edging out the F-22 which he also spoke very highly of.

In the end, the USAF would have had a fantastic aircraft regardless of which one was chosen, F-22 or F-23. They each had their advantages over one another but it wasn’t major or decisive. I think a lot of people were captivated by the YF-23’s exotic appearance and thus got carried away when describing its advantages to exaggerated extents. Ultimately, both were excellent designs, unlike some other programs where one entry was decisively superior to the others.
Click to expand...
You encapsulate exactly my perspective on the program. From a pure aesthetic and emotional appeal, I wished the F-23 had won. But we did get a great airplane with the F-22 and I think it was a rare instance where both competitors were great airplanes and fully met the requirements. That interview with Rick Able on Mover's youtube channel is fascinating and I think his seemingly non-biased perspective of the program really bears this out. He clearly states each airplane had its strengths and weaknesses but would be, as he put it, "damn fine killing machines." I also believe that the official reason for the down select, as elucidated by the USAF, was more or less correct. It came really down the ability of teams to execute the program and unfortunately Northrop was going through a real rough patch with it's big programs.
 
lantinian said:
Many thaks to Flaterick to pointing out my patent research thing. I would not have said it myself.

Still elmayerle had a very good in Reply #21 . YF-23 design allowed not only aft and fore movement of the Bays but also increase in depth. There are no engines or airducs on top of the bay, only fuel and minor systems..

Looking at the F-23A as an aircraft designer I would say: yes its longer but since when lengthening the airplane is more risky than making it shorter, because the F-22A is indeed shorter and thinner in its middle section where you have weapons, fuel, air intakes, gun magazine. Packing the same stuff in less space is more riskier to me. Also lets not forget that F-22A had completely redesigned main weapons bay doors.

Now if we recall some of the problems the F-22 design went trough.

1. Overheating rear fuselage in Supercruise. Compare the rear of YF-22 and F-22A.How thinner it is on the production model. The F-23 with widely spaced engine blocks would not have had the problem of overheating.

2. Shockwaves in the Engine inlets requiring a strengthen forward fuselage after Raptor 01. No wonder, the air intakes on the A model are obviously shorted than the prototype. The F-23A has inlets way more optimized to handle supersonic airflow and the adoption of the concept by the F-35 only proves it.

3. F-22 was always criticized by not being able to carry big bombs. The latest FB-22 proposal features bulged up main weapon doors so it can house the 2000lb JDAM, yet the fuselage is the same is used with no lengthening to reduce cost. The YF-23 had a deeper bay and would have no problem fitting the 2000lb JDAM.

4. The 1994 redesign due to signature problem, costing probably a year delay in the F-22 program. Looking at the F-22A and you ca see it borrowed a lot of the Black Widow features: he shape of the nose, the way the aircraft brakes, the probes measuring AoA on the side of the radome, the minimum number of edges every panel, the topside of the engines, the clipping of the all moving tails. Yet the F-23A design features stealth/performance blending from the next level, like the inlet cone design.

5. Weight. The inability for the F-22 design to meet it weigh target is attributed to the failure of its designers to meat their goal of 50% Composites in the Airframe(2 as well). From the news article flaterick send me it is clear that the F-22A proposal in material is similar to the YF-23 design (one step behind). Also the F-23A featues not only 50% composits but BMI termosets account for a higher percentage out of that than the same BMI termoset do out of the total composits used on the F-22A, which are only 24%.(Flight International March 1997)

To me the F-23A would have had easier time meeting its weight target. As far as risk goes the change between Lockheeds 1985 winning design and the YF-22 tells me all I need to know about confidence in concept and the ability of USAF to choose their aeroplane based on their flying qualities. Same with the Rockwell F-X submition looking so much like SU-27. I hope the PAKFA does not turn out the be looking like the YF-23. I am going to be massively upset with defense secretary Rice, who chose the F-22

Regards, to all

P.S. I hope you are all enjoyng this discusion as much as I am ;)
Click to expand...
Reading through this thread again, I think some of the early takes require some corrections in light of more recent information.

Concerns about overheating of the aft fuselage were common to both the YF-22 and YF-23, but this was a solvable issue and it's no longer an operational concern for the F-22 after flight test validation. Similarly, the EMD F-23 would have had its engines toed in to be slightly closer but the volume between the nacelles would have had a fuel tank that would help act as a heat sink.

Regarding weapons bays, this has been discussed recently and while the F-23 has at least as much volume in this regard than the F-22, the geometry meant that weapons had to be stacked vertically, which current U.S. ordnance is generally not designed for. That said, I do think that this issue could have been resolved through EMD, perhaps by using an adapter similar to Sidekick that's currently planned for the F-35A/C which would bring the F-23's internal AMRAAM carriage to parity with the F-22. Overall, the added volume of the F-23 over the YF-23 in the weapon bays and fuel tanks may not help with drag but it would have enabled better operational characteristics (range specifically). On the note of volume, I'm not sure if the F-23 would have been lighter than the F-22, especially since the F-23 is more voluminous with some 20% greater internal fuel tank capacity. BMI proved to be a tricky material to work with for both Lockheed and Northrop, and perhaps contributed to the F-22 having such a high percentage of titanium by weight (more than any fighter, I believe).

It's very unlikely that the F-22 borrowed any features from the F-23. The F-22 design certainly evolved as it went through PDR and CDR after the EMD down-select, but the outer mold line remained largely unchanged from what Lockheed submitted for EMD in December 1990, with the differences mainly in the panel lines. As such it's unlikely that the shaping of the F-22 took much influence from the YF-23; rather, this was likely because of the major design by the Lockheed team starting in summer 1987 resulting in the YF-22 being quite immature by the time it was frozen in May 1988, so the F-22 had more room to evolve from the YF-22 than the F-23 from the YF-23, which had evolved from the same Northrop configuration since early 1986.

Performance-wise, the YF-22's late redesign and changes before the design freeze meant that its aerodynamics weren't quite as refined as the YF-23, whose design saw a gradual progression from Northrop's Dem/Val submission and still greatly resembled it. The YF-23 did have superior performance in supercruise with speeds in the Mach 1.7 range, notably better than the YF-22's Mach 1.58 but not quite as much as what has been exaggerated over the years; I think many got carried away by the novel aesthetics. The much more refined F-22 can match the YF-23's speed but that said, any objective comparison is difficult to make because neither aircraft flew the same test points. Again, statements from the SPO indicate that both aircraft met requirements and while each had its advantages, neither were decisively better in performance.

Ultimately, I think the biggest benefit of the F-23 would have been the greater internal fuel capacity, and better all-aspect stealth. However, I don't think the advantages would have been great enough for what USAF is currently seeking from NGAD.
 
Last edited:
I suspect the more conventional, tightly-packed airframe layout of the F-22 was also the structurally less risky choice. We may never know what challenges (and associated cost increases) would've cropped up with a post-EMD F-23. It entered that development stage with a higher degree of maturity, as you say, but I'm not sure there weren't still unknown pitfalls waiting to rear their ugly heads.
 
One of the issues regarding the F-23's weapon bay were missile packaging. The F-22 has a nice flat bay for the AARAAMs but can only load a smaller JDAM weapon. Yes, we did have a nice deep main weapons bay on the YF/F-23 but did have risk in an appropriate launcher configuration. The F-23 did have a smaller forward bay for AIM-9s. A rotary missile launcher was one of the configurations evaluated as were others, missile weapons carriage was a significant risk area.

Supercruise was high and even though I was on the program, the USAF has kept the lid on pretty tight regarding actual maximum supercruise speed attained on PAV-2. It was better than 1.7+. NG has definitely capitalized regarding all that was developed and learned on the YF-23 program, especially when they bid for the USN F/A-XX. Even though NG is not bidding the USAF NGAD, NG has garnered excellent naval experience with the X-47B project and probably other classified efforts as well.
 
The YF-23 did exceed Mach 1.7, but that was with PAV-1 with the YF119, which tested flutter out to Mach 1.8 in afterburner; PAV-2’s highest speed attained was Mach 1.72, and maximum speed in afterburner would have been higher, north of Mach 2 although reaching this performance limit isn’t one of the test points. That said, the Northrop guys I listened to were proud of their ability to meet predicted performance.
 
Interesting information about the YF-23 that I did not know about previously icyplanettnhc(Steve), I am surprised that NG never went for the Mach 2 top speed flight during the testing.
 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
Reading through this thread again, I think some of the early takes require some corrections in light of more recent information.

Concerns about overheating of the aft fuselage were common to both the YF-22 and YF-23, but this was a solvable issue and it's no longer an operational concern for the F-22 after flight test validation. Similarly, the EMD F-23 would have had its engines toed in to be slightly closer but the volume between the nacelles would have had a fuel tank that would help act as a heat sink.

Regarding weapons bays, this has been discussed recently and while the F-23 has at least as much volume in this regard than the F-22, the geometry meant that weapons had to be stacked vertically, which current U.S. ordnance is generally not designed for. That said, I do think that this issue could have been resolved through EMD, perhaps by using an adapter similar to Sidekick that's currently planned for the F-35A/C which would bring the F-23's internal AMRAAM carriage to parity with the F-22. Overall, the added volume of the F-23 over the YF-23 in the weapon bays and fuel tanks may not help with drag but it would have enabled better operational characteristics. On the note of volume, I'm not sure if the F-23 would have been lighter than the F-22, especially since the F-23 is more voluminous with some 20% greater internal fuel tank capacity. BMI proved to be a tricky material to work with for both Lockheed and Northrop, and perhaps contributed to the F-22 having such a high percentage of titanium by weight (more than any fighter, I believe).

It's very unlikely that the F-22 borrowed any features from the F-23. The F-22 design certainly evolved as it went through PDR and CDR after the EMD down-select, but the outer mold line remained largely unchanged from what Lockheed submitted for EMD in December 1990, with the differences mainly in the panel lines. As such it's unlikely that the shaping of the F-22 took much influence from the YF-23; rather, this was likely because of the major design by the Lockheed team starting in summer 1987 resulting in the YF-22 being quite immature by the time it was frozen, so the F-22 had more room to evolve from the YF-22 than the F-23 from the YF-23.

Performance-wise, the YF-22's late redesign and changes before the design freeze meant that its aerodynamics weren't quite as refined as the YF-23, whose design saw a gradual progression from Northrop's Dem/Val submission and still greatly resembled it. The YF-23 did have superior performance in supercruise with speeds in the Mach 1.7 range, notably better than the YF-22's Mach 1.58 but not quite as much as what has been exaggerated over the years; I think many got carried away by the novel aesthetics. The much more refined F-22 can match the YF-23's speed but that said, any objective comparison is difficult to make because neither aircraft flew the same test points. Again, statements from the SPO indicate that both aircraft met requirements and while each had its advantages, neither were decisively better in performance.

Ultimately, I think the biggest benefit of the F-23 would have been the greater internal fuel capacity, and better all-aspect stealth. However, I don't think the advantages would have been great enough for what USAF is currently seeking from NGAD.
Click to expand...
As we now know, seeing the EMD F-23 configurations, the weapons issue was solved with two separate weapons bays. Also, the only feature I can think of that the YF-23 had that the YF-22 didn't and ended up in the production version, was using the flight controls for deceleration as a opposed to a dedicated air brake. But, to me, that's just a refinement of the FCS.

What's interesting to me, is that when asked what the best aircraft he ever flew was, Paul Metz replied the YF-23. He was the Chief Test pilot on the YF-23 and The F-22A. I would be interested to know why he thought that. Of course, that would probably entail references to classified capabilities, so I doubt we'll never know why he thought that.
 
Indeed, even though Paul Metz spoke very highly of the F-22, he still thinks that the YF-23 edges it out, which speaks for how well Northrop did with the flight controls.

View: https://youtu.be/HSeApmqE_z4?si=eOInxZa_xqKC4Gkm&t=2046

FighterJock, while the YF-23 could have exceeded Mach 2, the maximum speed tested was Mach 1.80 for PAV-1 (P&W) and Mach 1.72 for PAV-2 (GE). Supercruise was Mach 1.43 for PAV-1 (P&W), and while it was never explicitly stated what the speed was for PAV-2 (GE), it was likely Mach 1.72 as PAV-2 wasn't the flutter test vehicle (I believe PAV-1 was the workhorse for envelope expansion). The Dem/Val flight test program is such that contractors are free to choose their own test points and how they want to execute it.
 
I could have sworn I had a copy of the comparison report between the YF-22 and YF-23 that I got from this forum, if not this specific thread.

Can't find it.

Does anyone have a copy?
 
ScrutorAudax said:
In the event of a failure of this air data system, the vehicle would revert to fixed control gains.
Click to expand...
I’d be curious how this would work if the aircraft is statically unstable, which requires constant adjustments from the flight control computers. Perhaps some pre-determined deflection of control surfaces would be enough to shift the aerodynamic center further aft?
 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
I’d be curious how this would work if the aircraft is statically unstable, which requires constant adjustments from the flight control computers. Perhaps some pre-determined deflection of control surfaces would be enough to shift the aerodynamic center further aft?
Click to expand...
Other aircraft also have this feature; it's usually limited to specific aircraft configurations and specific parts of the flight envelope to be able to recover to a very limited attitude envelope. Really more just like giving you more time for straight and level flight to eject, definitely nothing like full performance.
 
Sorry to interrupt your conversation, but I found this image while watching the documentary about the YF-23 uploaded by the Western Museum of Flight. You can find it at 15:14 in the video. I am not sure if this is a rendition of an F-23 or F-22 concept, but it seems to show an HMD targeting system. Is there any information that the F-23/F-22 were supposed to have an HMD?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20240309-140027~2.png
    Screenshot_20240309-140027~2.png
    407.7 KB · Views: 86
iwantmoresources said:
Sorry to interrupt your conversation, but I found this image while watching the documentary about the YF-23 uploaded by the Western Museum of Flight. You can find it at 15:14 in the video. I am not sure if this is a rendition of an F-23 or F-22 concept, but it seems to show an HMD targeting system. Is there any information that the F-23/F-22 were supposed to have an HMD?
Click to expand...
The HMD and IRST were dropped to reduce risk IIRC.
 
I've seen a photo of engineers working on what looked like a stealthy housing for the AIRST but on both the F-22 and F-23 where was it intended to be placed? Nose? Wing root?

Speaking of other cut features, the F-22 originally had space in the nose reserved for side AESA arrays which were intended to expand radar coverage. Ultimately these were never used, but did the final F-23 design going to allow for similar arrangement?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom