Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No buying the B-70 was far from the only screw up the Air Force made

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    The combat capabilities of the F-22 are higher by 18%, these are determined by the choice in his favor
    Thanks for the random chart of vague factors generated by you Paralay,

    Really clears up everything.

    Comment


      #22
      Use on health. Otherwise, you will reason 200 pages without any grounds

      Comment


        #23
        Still what pilot would not like higher faster, and stealth. Being above and behind without the enemy knowing you are there is primary.

        The greatest fighter pilot ever Erich Hartman said most of his kills were made when the enemy probably never knew he was there! If the enemy is already shot down, all the other things people mention means nothing.

        Comment


          #24
          Maybe not buying the F-16XL. It had better ITR than the C and STR was going to become less important with off boresight missiles. It had been shown to supercruise with the F110-GE-129 which was soon going to be available. The F-16C can't sustain Mach 1+ unless it has no centerline tank.

          Production cost was going to be about 15-20% more per unit, but cost over the service life of the plane maybe one third of that, since there is no reason it would have cost more to operate than a C.

          A super long range XL could have used CFTs by the end of the 90's to get a range similar to the strike eagle. That would have made more stations available for bombs since the EFTs prevented some stations to be used.

          I think 2 versions of XLs ( 1 single seater for multirole, 1 dual seater with maybe CFTs for strike ) would have provided significant economy of scale compared to purchasing both the F-15E and the F-16C.

          Also the F-15C stopped, was such a large radar necessary for strike? And the AMRAAM hes a range compatible with the APG-68, no need for the range of the APG-70.

          And the XL probably would probably have had a lower signature than the F-15.

          Comment


            #25
            Lots of replies here against the F-23. But I bet there is not even one from a combat pilot. Are there any combat pilots posting here that would rather dogfight rather than being higher faster and invisible to the enemy. If he or she has that advantage all they have to do is push the button on a missile, and the enemy is gone. An enemy that is gone is a good thing. The pilot gets to come home. THAT is what it is all about.

            Comment


              #26
              Today, it is 20 years since the F-22 first flew (not counting the YF-22 prototype), and it's still alone in its league... future 5th gen fighters may come into service in the next 4-5 years at best and they may be, or not, able to detect it. The USAf can count ont an infrastructure combining SIGINT assets, AWACS and so on second to none.. While I find the F-23 beautiful and am sure that it would make a great fighter, the choice of the USAF to go conservative may be also considered as "F-22 wil be good enough, so more risk isn't necessary".. until now, it proved to be exact

              Comment


                #27
                Sorry but the greatest fighter pilot was HJ Marseille & not Hartmann.

                Comment


                  #28
                  One advantage of the F-23 was that it could eventually have carried up to 12 missiles, 9 AMRAAMs and 3 AIM-9s. That meant that it wouldn't have been forced to go to a visual fight as soon because of lack of BVR missiles. I don't know if they took that into account when they chose the plane. Just saying that the launcher can jam is not really a good argument because it had 3 launchers so there was well enough redundancy. If one jammed, it still had 6 missiles which is equivalent to what the F-22 carries.

                  This being said maybe Lockheed could have found a way to increase its number of missiles, had the Air Force shown more interest.

                  Comment


                    #29
                    YF-23 was excellent super cruiser:

                    Though the YF-22 was a more maneuverable aircraft, the YF-23 had far greater supersonic cruise capability—especially when outfitted with the General Electric YF120 variable cycle engines. Even when powered by the less powerful Pratt & Whitney YF-119, the YF-23 had the ability to fly an entire sortie at supersonic speeds above Mach 1.4 (explained to me sometime ago by Barry Watts at the Wilson Center—who was an analyst on the Northrop team at the time). The sleek prototype jet could also cruise at slightly more than Mach 1.8 when equipped with the YF-120.

                    “I don’t recall Barry Watts, although the name has a familiar ring. He was right about supercruising for the whole sortie, as that’s the definition (Ps=0), but he was wrong about the number,” Jim Sandberg, test pilot of the YF-120 powered YF-23 told me a few years ago. “The one you quoted was just a bit shy for our PAV-1 that was equipped with the relatively underpowered YF-119 engines developed by P&W. ‘My’ airplane, PAV-2, equipped with the more powerful YF-120 engines developed by GE supercruised quite a bit faster—‘very fast’, as the USAF censors advised us to say.”

                    Comment


                      #30
                      ne advantage of the F-23 was that it could eventually have carried up to 12 missiles, 9 AMRAAMs and 3 AIM-9s.
                      The F-23 proposal had a loadout of 4 Amraam and 2 aim-9 (this was before the clipped wing Aim-120C). The suggestion of 9 Amraam comes from fanart and opinions. That would have required them to be stacked on top each other, there would have been no way to fit a launcher in that scenario. Even in the current F-22 bay the pneumatic launcher kicks the missile clear at 40g.

                      YF-23 was excellent super cruiser:
                      - you can look at the actual speeds reached by both the YF-22 and -23 on my post near the top of the page. There is a lot of myth regarding the YF-23 as there usually is when a promising design does not see fruition. Aviation lore is littered with these: Avro Arrow, TSR-2, XF-108, YF-23. The more time that passes, the faster, more "advanced", basically more exaggerated the actual specifications and achievements get.
                      Last edited by FBW; 14th November 2017, 16:06.

                      Comment


                        #31
                        Given Northrop's work & patent on stacked internal AAMs, 9 AMRAAMs (3x3) would not be farfetched.

                        Click image for larger version

Name:	US4702145-1.png
Views:	1
Size:	59.9 KB
ID:	3677564

                        Click image for larger version

Name:	US4702145-2.png
Views:	1
Size:	95.3 KB
ID:	3677565

                        https://www.google.com/patents/US4702145
                        "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                        Comment


                          #32
                          USAF rejected that (any jam in mechanism would leave aircraft unable to fire missile), I believe there was some question whether such a stack system would fit. Weapon separation might have been smoother than in the F-22 as the bay was to have a swing out baffle to protect the missile from airstream.

                          Basically irrelevant, the YF-23 proposal had a trapeze system for 3 AMRAAM and 2 Aim-9, the F-23 EMD would have had 2 door mounted AMRAAM, 2 (possibly 3) on a pallet that would have been lowered, and 2 Aim-9 in a smaller forward bay.
                          Last edited by FBW; 14th November 2017, 17:32.

                          Comment


                            #33
                            Yet another reason why the dev of the GD version of the AAAM should have continued (tube loaded, tightly packed, & tilting bed launcher).
                            "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                            Comment


                              #34
                              USAF rejected that (any jam in mechanism would leave aircraft unable to fire missile), I believe there was some question whether such a stack system would fit. Weapon separation might have been smoother than in the F-22 as the bay was to have a swing out baffle to protect the missile from airstream.

                              Basically irrelevant, the YF-23 proposal had a trapeze system for 3 AMRAAM and 2 Aim-9, the F-23 EMD would have had 2 door mounted AMRAAM, 2 (possibly 3) on a pallet that would have been lowered, and 2 Aim-9 in a smaller forward bay.
                              That's why I pointed out that it would have had 3 launchers which would have provided redundancy.

                              It is a very compact way of carrying AIM-120s, they're even closer than on the F-22, vertically I mean. I wonder if NG could use their patent for the next gen fighter if they chose a design where the bay is behind the cockpit. They would have to prove that it works on their prototype to convince the AF probably.

                              Comment


                                #35
                                @FBW

                                Not speed but duration. YF-23 done whole sortie flying supersonic, that show how good super cruiser it was. I don't have data how much fuel it could carry but probable more then YF-22.

                                Comment


                                  #36
                                  That's why I pointed out that it would have had 3 launchers which would have provided redundancy.
                                  Wouldn't have had three stacked launchers because that was never proposed for the F-23 (and wouldn't fit), the EMD drawings make it pretty clear on the configuration of the main bay (which was smaller than on the prototype YF-23) Four (possibly five with clipped wing -C version) AMRAAM on LAU-106 launchers.

                                  You can see from the leaked schematic, two amraams in rear weapons bay (the other two would have been on launchers on the doors similar to F-35 weapon bay:
                                  http://yf-23.net/Pics/F-23A/F-23A%20...son%201023.gif

                                  (courtesy of YF-23.net) visit them and you can read about the weapons bays and changes.
                                  Last edited by FBW; 14th November 2017, 19:44.

                                  Comment


                                    #37
                                    As you can see from the patent's drawing, it dates back from october 1987. I would be surprising that Northrop would not have proposed it. And as you said before yourself, it was rejected by the Air Force. Maybe Northrop was forced to use another design with 4 missiles because it was rejected, not sure about the details.

                                    Also it appears that from looking at the drawing, those missiles are AMRAAMs with the large wings and fins. If you look carefully it seems that the distance between the missile is determined by the wingspan ( they would touch each other if they were closer ). With AIM-120Cs it could have been more compact vertically and narrower. 4 probably wouldn't have fitted, 3 maybe.

                                    Comment


                                     

                                    Working...
                                    X