[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Home]
4chanarchives logo
Why didn't this one have her chance? And what was the type
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.

You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons

Thread replies: 11
Thread images: 2
>>
File: F-35E.jpg (34 KB, 699x551) Image search: [Google]
F-35E.jpg
34 KB, 699x551
>>30041322

There wasn't really any problem with the YF-23. It was just seen as the riskier of the two designs. In retrospect, it might have been better overall, but the Air Force saw the YF-22 as being closer to completion and thus a less risky investment. Don't worry, she'll be back someday.
>>
>>30041322
Shame that it didn't get the same chance the YF-17 got with the Navy
>>
>>30041605
Maybe it was pulled out because of the reminiscent profile of that of the SR-71 wich suffred from several technical issues and crashed a lot.
>>
>>30041678
I think the Y-F17 was aerodynamically much better than the F-18
>>
>>30041322
because it was less complete/ready than the F22 prototype
>>
>>30041777

Being better aerodynamically means shit if the design isn't big enough to carry serious weapons.
>>
>>30041605
More stealthy (but we don't know how much by) but less agile.

Which is fine in a strike fighter, but not for an air superiority fighter.

Then again, we don't really know the fact figures as far as I know.
>>
>>30041322
Had a friend that worked at NG and a number of old timers that worked on the 23. He said it was surprisingly evenly divided whenever a conversation about the competition came up and that any kind of talk about it was pretty much used as a way to get out of working for a day due to the arguments the old timers would have about it.

>>30041605
The USAF supposedly had issues with where the missile bay was and raised issues with how their models showed the airframes would wear out faster than the YF-22 due to longitudinal stress during maneuvers.
>>
>>30041727
>crashed a lot
na

sure 12 seem like a lot but when you consider it was cutting edge tech and had a 30+ year service life and over 50,000 flight hours of which about 20% was above mach 3 i'd say it did ok
>>
>>30041834
It was more than that.

The F-22 was small enough to fit into existing hangars for fighters like the F-15, while the YF-23 wasn't. It also had flaws in the structure of the weapons bays that would have been a structural liability during heavy maneuvering and over the lifetime of the aircraft. Also, IIRC, the YF-22 demonstrated missile firings, while the YF-23 never did.
Thread replies: 11
Thread images: 2

banner
banner
[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at [email protected] with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.
DMCA Content Takedown via dmca.com
All images are hosted on imgur.com, send takedown notices to them.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.