find a flaw
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
find a flaw
Dead
Checkmate atheists
No flaw
>>27958964
Northrop didn't pay as much bribe money as Lockheed.
>>27958964
Much faster than the F22, stealthier, higher payload, almost as agile (what they achieved with the aerodynamic surfaces was really amazing for the time). Better use of composites. Ahead of schedule.
Very expensive. Less F-15 like in terms of pilot interface, so less popular with test pilots.
Honestly, I was hoping the Navy would have picked up this plane as their air superiority fighter to replace the F-14, but the cold war ended.
>>27959040
This is America, we don't bribe, we lobby. ;^)
>>27958964
canards
>>27958964
Wasn't as manoeuvrable as the F-22, so it would have been poor in dogfights if an enemy ever managed to sneak up into WVR by using electronics warfare or stealth.
>>27959160
But Lockheed now says that maneuverability doesn't matter.
>>27959160
I dunno if it was significantly less agile than the F-22. The YF-23 had a slower stall speed and a slightly better rate of roll. It's initial turn speed was also pretty close although I think it bled energy faster IIRC.
My understanding was that despite not having thrust vectoring or a "Torque box" fuselage design, it was nearly as agile, just differently so.
>>27959160
>dogfights
when was the last time a jet shot down another jet with bullets?
>>27958964
It was even more ridiculously expensive.
>>27959212
Vietnam, The first Iraq war was the last time a enemy jet was maneuvered into the ground.
>>27959212
>when was the last time a jet shot down another jet with bullets?
Hey, I'm not trying to justify the Pentagon's decision, I'm just giving you the rationale as to why they did it.
If the Pentagon truly thought that there were no scenarios where dogfights were possible, then the YF-23 would have been picked. They clearly thought otherwise.
You have to keep in mind that Russia, even today, has always favoured heavy jamming and electronics warfare and then engaging enemy fighters at a closer ranges when manoeuvrability matters much more. I am not going to pretend to know how much merit there is in this or if Russia is actually capable of beating American radars and BVR doctrines in order to engage in closer combat and WVR where they might have a distinct advantage with their aircraft designs.
>>27959174
Not entirely correct. The justification is partly that USAF already has the F-22 against any modern 5th generation fighter that would have the electronics warfare capability or stealth capability to sneak past BVR combat and into WVR combat.
Th argument is that since no other 5th generation fighter exists that has that capability the F-35 can easily engage and destroy all the 4/4.5 generation enemy fighters at a comfortable BVR situation.
>>27959206
I had read otherwise. One of the 'selling points' of the YF-23 was that it could very much mask the IR signature of the engines by restricting their overall power and aggressively sheathing them. Such restrictions however decreased the manoeuvrability and added to the overall cost. The point of this was to increase the survivability against A2A homing missiles that tracked IR signatures.
Pentagon must have come to the conclusion that either it was not capable enough of deterring IR homing missiles enough to justify its inclusion, or that the increased manoeuvrability of the YF-22 was simply better or equal at surviving IR homing missiles.
>>27959212
You have to remember that the program that eventually created the F22 was started only 6 years after the end of the Vietnam war.
Many of the goals that were relevant at the start were meaningless by the time they finished it.
>>27959411
>If the Pentagon truly thought that there were no scenarios where dogfights were possible, then the YF-23 would have been picked. They clearly thought otherwise.
There are multiple supposed reasons for choosing the YF-22 over the YF-23, and maneuverability is one of the less frequently cited reasons. The F-22, being a more conventional design, was lower risk, appeared to be easier to navalize (the Navy-Raptor was later cancelled), and could fire any one of its munitions at any given time, while the YF-23's serial load of munitions had to be fired in the loaded order.
>>27959483
Well, the 'official' reason given by the Pentagon in a congressional report was
>Air Force Secretary Donald Rice stated that the choice was based on confidence
in the ability of the Lockheed team and Pratt & Whitney to produce the aircraft and its engine at projected costs. Rice
emphasized the importance of the Lockheed team’s management and production plans, and added that the YF-22
offered better reliability and maintainability.
>http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31673.pdf
This is obviously a cop-out designed to protect important military secrets, as this is the single most rote and generic answer often given to Congress/Public in official reports because it is what they like to hear the most. 'Confidence in timely completion of the program (haha) and cost/reliability/maintainability'.
Everything else is technically hearsay and the result of individual speculation or 'rumours', and the Pentagon and everyone working on the programs are never going to actually tell you the real reasons. Even if they say 'there were identical in every other factor such as stealth and IR signature' that too is almost certainly a cop-out. They don't want anyone to know and don't want to confirm if either design actually had distinct advantages and give enemies key clues.
From what I have heard and read it was mostly issues with manoeuvrability as the Russians were going all-in on highly unstable and very manoeuvrable designs with the Su-27 type fighters. Since Russia and Russian type fighters would have been the most likely adversaries against the USAF in every modern combat scenario, the YF-22 design was chosen. Whether I'm right or your right in the Pentagon's justification, we will never know for certain.
>>27959116
we never should have ditched the tomcat, faggot
it wasn't until the 5th generation arrived that we gained something objectively better than the cat.
>>27960477
Do you understand how much maintenance was needed to keep the F-14 flying?
>>27960929
Do you understand just how fuckin baller the Tomcat was?
They would fly literal circles around any bug variation you throw at it and I'm sure the maintenance costs could have been worked down to a reasonable level if the political dick didn't get rammed so far up its ass.
>>27960477
>>27960950
>muh Tomcat was the greatest
Get over it. For all intents and purposes, it has been administratively killed. Stop crying about what could have been and move on.
>>27958964
cant out turn a flanker
>>27960950
The problem wasn't the cost, it was the amount of maintenance required to keep it running. The Tomcat required more than double the number of maintainers as the Hornet.
>>27961089
As I said, shit like that could have been worked on.
Changing out the wiring on a Phantom shaved off like 500 pounds of weight.
>>27959212
>>27959409
>When was the last time a plane was shot down by cannon fire.
1970 is the case that comes to mind immediately:
> Salmon had already fired a missile that failed to cause any damage, when Spector's 101 Squadron Mirage joined the fight and fired another pair at the MiG. Although at least one struck home, these too failed to bring the aircraft down, and it continued to fly away to the northwest. Salmon continued to give chase to the vicinity of Helwan, where he managed to close the distance to the MiG and emptied his cannon into the aircraft. With both his ammunition and fuel exhausted, he departed the scene. Only years later (see below) was it revealed that Zhuravlev's aircraft had in fact crashed and its pilot killed.
From Operation Rimon. If you get bored and read the article, you will notice that the engagements came to "cannon range" quite a few times. I would bet this wasn't the last instance by far either.
>>27961260
Unless you remove the swing wings and replace them with fixed ones? No. Its greatest strength is also its greatest weakness, and in wartime, it's logistics that win a war, not having a slightly better vehicle or gun than the other guy. Even with modern materials to replace those titanium pins, they'll still be the points on the aircraft subject to the most stress and therefore result in more maintenance. Even then, just accommodating the swing wings makes it more mechanically complex, requiring even more maintenance.
It's not just the swing wings, but everything that allows them to even be on the plane and work properly. The F-14 is a hanger queen.
So no. No swing wings.
>>27961442
fuck you
>>27961474
You. You just made my day.
>>27961386
>On 19 April 1974, Captain al-Masry, flying a MiG-23MS on a weapons test mission, spotted a group of IAF F-4Es and shot two of them down after firing three missiles. He was about to attack another F-4 with cannon fire, but was shot down by friendly fire from a SAM battery.
>was about to attack another F-4 with cannon fire, but was shot down by friendly fire from a SAM battery.
Trollololol.
>>27958964
yall niggas dont even fuck KNOW how good this coulda been. With the yf120 it woulda been a mach 3 plane and with the tbcc it could have taken off and gotten to mach 4.1 ant 56000 ft in 8 minutes. It also would have been even more efficient then the 5 35 at subsonic cruising and better than any plane at super cruising
>>27958964
I couldn't and I can't.
I blame the Fighter Mafia and their preconceived notions of fighter planes all needing to be all sleek and aerodynamic and aesthetically pleasing and stuff.
>>27963197
Mate, let's think about this for a moment. Nobody knew how far stealth would go. Nobody knew when an adversary would make a stealth aircraft. All that is known for certain is that when both sides have stealth aircraft, engagement distances drop. Nobody knows exactly how far that means, but people have had trouble locking on to the F-22 when they're right on its tail in mock dogfights... If an adversary had an aircraft that had similar stealth levels, any battles would be fought very close in. A regular old knife fight in a phone booth.
>>27963197
Go to the National Museum of the Air Force
Go see this plane
Tell me it isn't sleek and sexy as fuck in person
>>27959692
Irony at its finest
>YF-23 was designed and built before the F-22
>YF-23 had more flight hours than the F-22
>YF-23 had only one issue in its entire testing phase (landing gear didn't deploy)
>>27959692
>From what I have heard and read it was mostly issues with manoeuvrability as the Russians were going all-in on highly unstable and very manoeuvrable designs with the Su-27 type fighters. Since Russia and Russian type fighters would have been the most likely adversaries against the USAF in every modern combat scenario, the YF-22 design was chosen. Whether I'm right or your right in the Pentagon's justification, we will never know for certain.
This was a very likely reasoning. Remember that the F-22/F-23 were being designed before HOBS missiles like AIM-9X were fully developed.
I always heard that F-22 was a more conservative design, Lockheed had a more coherent plan for producing and maintaining the fighters, and the F-22 had less structural issues.
can the raptor even fucking datalink with non raptors yet?
>>27959212
Falklands I think
>>27963485
We've got an SR-71 in Oregon at the Evergreen Museum and it is quite badass.
We also have the Hughes H-4 Hercules, aka The Spruce Goose. It's absurdly massive.
>>27960950
>Do you understand just how fuckin baller the Tomcat was?
I do.
>>27958964
It was designed by the Chinese
>>27963465
You're forgetting about IRST. Engagement will stay in BVR but only just barely.
>>27966402
There's such a thing as IR reduction. It's worth noting that even IR missiles were used to attempt to lock onto the F-22, and they still are far from a good solution.
Further, if you've got a Rafale within gun range and its radar STILL can't get a firm lock on the F-22, I seem to doubt that the small radar on a missile is going to do much better.
>>27968535
I don't think the Rafale was going for a IR lock brah.
>>27968589
You misunderstand. Those are two separate points. The IR comes from Red Flag 07, when it was first used in an international exercise. Even those IR missiles were having trouble getting locks.
The point about the Rafale is to illustrate that even IRST-cued radar guided missiles are unlikely to achieve a lock, as the radar in a missile is substantially less powerful than the one in a Rafale.
>>27959212
Falklands. The Israelis also had at least one gun kill in the late 1970's or earlu 1980's.
