Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 37 of 37

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

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,729
    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:	16 
Size:	59.9 KB 
ID:	256981

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	US4702145-2.png 
Views:	13 
Size:	95.3 KB 
ID:	256982

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

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,743
    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 at 17:32.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,729
    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."

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,127
    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.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    39
    @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.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,743
    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 at 19:44.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,127
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES