>Better stealth
>Mach 3+ capable
>Greater range
>Greater payload
>Easier to fly, thus cheaper to train pilots
Why the fuck didn't we go with the YF-23 again?
>>30476362
it might break its back when carrying bombs
>>30476362
Fighter mafia
It was more expensive and Lockheed has it's claws so firmly planted into the Pentagon that no one can really compete.
Airframe lifetime issues, lower manouverability.
>>30476368
>Using the most advanced and capable interceptor in history as a low capacity bomb-truck
>>30476362
It would never have been Mach 3+ capable; stealth coatings can't survive those temperatures. It also was little to no more stealthier than the F-22, had a smaller payload than the F-22, would not have been any easier to train pilots and I'm not sure about range.
![yf-23_23_of_51[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/XuI8fht.jpg "yf-23_23_of_51[1].jpg")
>>30476386
In regards to the stealth part - this is down it's intake.
![yf-23_055[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/eIoSpf3.jpg "yf-23_055[1].jpg")
>>30476390
>>30476386
Lower still and to the side:
>>30476386
>not 3+ quick
I concede that it probably would've never been given mission priority for it to burn that fast towards some targets because of RAM issues, but it's main test pilot is on record saying he took the aircraft that fast, and could've gone faster but was ordered not to. Then the AF basically told him to shut up about his experience or lose his wings.
>>30476426
So essentially what you're saying is the F-22 could have exactly the same capability but a less mouthy test pilot.
>>30476386
>all this WRONG in one statement
Fuck off shill. Lockheed went to complete fucking shit when you rat bastards killed Kelly Johnson.
>>30476430
If the F22 would've been half as fucking fast, do you think Lockheed would've had to pull so much bullshit with the Pentagon during the trials?
>>30476452
>Makes claims, with no proof
>Counter-claims are made
>shill
>>30476457
Like what?
>>30476452
>somebody is shilling for a competition that happened three decades ago
Congratulations, the word shill has officially lost all meaning.
>>30476462
Black Widow 2:
Empty weight: 29,000 lb (13,100 kg)
Loaded weight: 51,320 lb (23,327 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 62,000 lb (29,000 kg)
Maximum speed:
At altitude: Mach 2.2+ (1,450+ mph, 2,335+ km/h)
Supercruise: Mach 1.6+ (1,060+ mph, 1,706+ km/h)
Range: over 2,790 mi (over 4,500 km)
Combat radius: 750–800 nmi (865–920 mi, 1,380–1480 km)
Service ceiling: 65,000 ft (19,800 m)
Wing loading: 54 lb/ft2 (265 kg/m2)
Thrust/weight: 1.36
Raptor:
Empty weight: 33,000 lb (14,970 kg)
Loaded weight: 62,000 lb (28,120 kg)
No max weight listed
Maximum speed:
At altitude: Mach 2.2 (1,260 knots, 1,450 mph, 2,335 km/h)
Supercruise: Mach 1.58 (910 knots, 1,040 mph, 1,680 km/h) (military power only)
Combat radius: 696 nmi (800 mi, 1,480 km)
Service ceiling: 65,000 ft (19,800 m)
Maximum g-load: +7.9 g
So while the F22 my possibly have a higher maximum takeoff weight, you're still completely fucking wrong on all other regards.
Shill.
>>30476650
Apart from the fact that if you think thats a "source" (pretty sure thats just fucking wiki) you're a moron, its actually backing that anon up on some points ya cretin
>>30476362
It was more expensive, carried less bombs, the stealth was only *marginally* better, and going that fast is completely useless now.
We didn't need an interceptor, interceptors are pretty much dead in the US because we're so big. Even tiny UK is phasing out their interceptors.
Also, that's not really how training pilots works.
They train the pilots, and then they get in a plane. The time to learn their particular plane is much less than the literal years it takes to become a pilot.
>>30476362
>>30476742
Also, I totally forgot, the Navy was heavily pushing the F-22 because their techs in their evaluation stated that the YF-22 would be easier to convert into a CATOBAR variant.
Yes, yes, I know that there is not CATOBAR F-22, but during the Cold War, the Navy was very heavily pushing for a more advanced air superiority fighter to dominate USSR naval aircraft.
Eventually they just made a fuckton of F/A-18 Superbugs, to be eventually replaced by the inevitable F/A-XX program.
>>30476650
Besides what >>30476670 says (you Northrop shill), there's also the very big point that the "competition" had no challenges or direct comparisons; it was entirely up to the challengers to do what they felt was appropriate, often with little or no information on what the competitor had achieved. Both sets of test pilots had remarked afterwards that they could have pushed their aircraft further. We know today for example that the F-22 can supercruise at over Mach 1.8 with engines that are of the same thrust class as the GE YF120 engines used in each prototype, and that the F-22 could go Mach 2.5+ if it's coatings could handle it.
>>30476362
>tfw you will never live in an alternate universe where both were produced in the hundreds
>>30476852
>tfw you will never live in Strangereal
>>30476362
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYLiMYGBE2Q&index=99&list=WL
vectoring thrust on the F-22 won out. There are people out there today wondering if they should have gone with the black widow.
>>30476362
God damn those are beautiful. Fucking Lockheed shits promise a more rounded fighter but we will never see it. This could have been
>>30477102
Thrust vectoring a shit
>>30476390
>>30476397
I wanted to get suck in there
>>30476362
Dam it, why couldn't of we just had both!
>>30476742
>Even tiny UK is phasing out their interceptors.
The interceptors are already gone, only the strike variant of the Tornado exists in the UK inventory.
>>30476852
We'll survive, buddy
>>30476377
>the most advanced and capable interceptor in history
That would be MiG-31 and it does not carry any bombs.
>>30476373
>It was more expensive and Lockheed has it's claws so firmly planted into the Pentagon that no one can really compete
As a govt. employee about to cash out into the private sector, I can confirm that this is true. They're fuckbuddies using your taxes as lube.
>>30476362
>>Better stealth
Turbine blades visible from low-front aspect. Which is about the biggest no-no in modern VLO features. The only VLO feature in which it was marginally better was IR signature against rear-aspect ground based sensors.
>Mach 3+ capable
Not even close. The RAM coatings alone would have melted, much less actual aircraft geometry making that possible.
>>Greater range
The YF-23 had more range than the YF-22 or F-22, theoretically. It also had smaller munitions bays, and nowhere near the finished avionics/processing/sensors/comms/etc. in it. Not much way to know what final combat radius would have been in a production model. The F-35 combat radii didn't get completely nailed down and published as public info until last year.
>Greater payload
This is just flat untrue.
>>Easier to fly, thus cheaper to train pilots
Who said this? Source?
There are also the small matters that the F-22 had more nose-cone space for radar, single-piece canopy, much, much better maneuverability in the merge, and of course the simple fact that the airframe was designed and built to last.
>>30476650
That's a prototype airframe with very little of the final operational equipment being compared to a line production aircraft in service. If you can't understand why a "by the numbers" comparison is flawed, you're an idiot.
Furthermore, the idea that maximum mach numbers are dependant on t/w ratio and loaded weight numbers is hilarious.
>>30478496
>Furthermore, the idea that maximum mach numbers are dependant on t/w ratio and loaded weight numbers is hilarious.
Not that anon, but an aircraft weighing 20,000lb vs 15,000lb will result in more drag, directly affecting maximum speed.
>>30478748
>will result in more drag
Gross vehicle weight isn't even in the top three most direct drag correlations in design.
And the anon above already pointed out that there's no telling if an actual production version would have still been lighter. You people are comparing a spare, stripped down prototype to a production combat aircraft. Shame.
>>30478748
If that were half as relevant as you think it is, then the SR-71, which was almost three times as heavy with a T/W of only .44 would have totally been only 1/3 as fast as the F-22, amirite?
>>30476362
I just think the YF-23 looks sexier.
>>30478864
>>30478833
Didn't say it was a massive factor, just that it is one. Acting as if its irrelevant is just wrong.
>>30478870
Aesthetic taste is fine and well. I happen to agree in that regard with the YF-23. But cooking false bullshit to try and back what is essentially an interwebs popularity contest because you are so autistic that no one can like or objectively rate higher anything you don't like is retarded.
A good thread that dindu nuffin about whether the katana or longsword was more awesomer died so you could make this bullshit thread.
>>30478882
Stop trying to strawman the argument. For the third time ITT, you are comparing the weight of a prototype without most of the necessary equipment to a fully deployed combat aircraft. Stop being potato.
Beautiful plane. No one knows for sure why it lost the competition with the F22. Rumors range from maneuverability, to maintenance, to cost, to the ability of Northrop to build in on time while doing the B2. Who knows?
I do think that if we find ourselves in a position where building the F22B makes sense, then we should look at building the F23A instead. It has both a better RCS and a better heat signature (not to mention much faster). Those qualities would come in handy if China has a bunch of J-20's. The biggest advantage to a F23A is that Boeing could build it, so it wouldn't disturb the F35 or B-21 production lines.
Regardless, it won't happen. The Air Force doesn't seem to even know if it wants a Sixth Gen fighter and has shot down more F22s. Industry would of course prefer to build a completely new plane.
The problem with restarting the F22 or building the F23 is that it would save time and money, but not that much time and money. Might as well build a whole new plane.
The Navy is still going forward with its 5.5 or 6 generation competition, so that should be interesting.
>>30476362
The biggest reason why the F-22 won was simply because the YF-22 had functioning weapon bays so the USAF was able to perform weapon tests with it that they could not do with the YF-23. So in other words, the Raptor was considered to be the safer bet. Perhaps the Black Widow would have been better as a final product, but hindsight is 20-20.
>>30478911
I'm not doing shit, just correcting disinfo about the effect of weight.
>Third time
I've posted twice. Fuck off.
>>30476362
iirc, the YF-22 was cheaper, more maneuverable and the council thought it looked cooler.
>>30478954
>Adding a completely new plane makes more sense than building more of the in-service model
Wewlad
>>30478954
>a better RCS
Nope. Not from frontal aspect.
>>30478981
>just correcting disinfo about the effect of weight.
What is factually incorrect about >>30478833? Please point out a single inaccuracy.
>>30477951
They're going to update the MiG-31 right?
Better radar, updated avionics, updated engines with better burn and reliability.. right?
(and if there is a God, RAM paint on the parts that don't get friction heated)
>>30479097
I was correcting this post
>>30478496
Calm your fucking autism.
>>30479115
>I was correcting this post
>>>30478496 (You)
But he's correct. Neither of those factors are particularly relevant to top speed or drag. The correlation is just not that strong. Instead of calling people autists, maybe you should listen when people are giving you new information.
Also, you quoted both my and his posts here >>30478882.
its oogly
>>30476467
>no one's shilling for the lightning
>the lightning2 is being eagerly offered for export
>>30476852
>tfw you will never live in an alternate universe where the cold war continued, resulting in the development of the F-22B or F-23B and a new version of the Frogfoot that's even tougher than the A-10
There's not much science to it, people, the US only takes conventional planes into service. The only non-conventional shaped fighter I can think of is the Delta Dagger, and it was an interceptor, not a fighter.
Even the YF-17 was declined in favor of the more conventional-looking YF-16, and they were both vanilla as fuck.
Anyone knows why they always seem to do this? They just HATE innovation when it comes to shape in planes.
>>30483566
Or goofy "innovation" lead to crappy fighter designs. The F-111, F-117, F-14, B-1, and B-2 entered service despite being "unconventional" because they could perform the mission.
And the YF-17, with about as many changes as a navalised F-16 would've had, entered service as the F/A-18 anyways.
>>30476362
They chose the yf22 because lockheed martin could deliver planes on time.(insert F35 joke)
NG had a hard time making B2s and the military didn't want to put them back even further.
>>30483602
The F/A-18 is not the same as the YF-17, it's a way more rugged design.
Still the point stands, they won't even take canards (F-15 ACTIVE) or retrofit old fighters with MATV (F-16 VISTA)
>>30483566
>The only non-conventional shaped fighter I can think of is the Delta Dagger
Then you really aren't thinking too hard. Just off the top of my head:
>Delta Dart (F-106. I mean, come on. You already had the F-102 and couldn't remember this one?)
>F-8/A-7
>F-14
>F-111
>B-1
>B-2
>F-117
>A-5
>SR-71
Yeah, no. The US is pretty much king of "we don't give a fuck how conventional it is if it does the mission".
>>30483636
>they won't even take canards (F-15 ACTIVE)
Because all our new fighters are VLO, dumbass. Canards cause issues with that.
>retrofit old fighters with MATV (F-16 VISTA)
Because that money is far, far more effective being spent on avionics and sensor upgrades along with weapons integration.
Stop being retarded because you posted a stupid idea without thinking it through.
>>30476362
the air force wanted a fighter that was more conventional in its characteristics. the black widow was a little to far into the realm of air superiority b2.
>>30483638
>What is a fighter
>F-14
>F-111
>Not the norm for what a conventional plane design meant for their era
pic related
>>30483671
>Other people build what was initially an unconventional design
>This makes the design conventional
>>30483665
This meme really needs to die a slow, painful death.
/k/ needs to accept that the YF-23 was an inferior design. Period.
>>30483636
>The F/A-18 is not the same as the YF-17, it's a way more rugged design.
And the F-16 isn't the same as a YF-16. It's bigger, longer, wider, has more hard points, A2G capability, and significantly better avionics. Add the navalization package and the YF-17 has similar changes to be the F/A-18.
>>30483976
Anon, you're arguing with the kind of potato that thinks we should be installing TV in all our legacy jets.
>>30479107
There is already an updated MiG-31, the MiG-31BM. As for a successor, there are rumors of one being in development, so we will have to wait and see.
>>30483671
Variable-sweep wings were common, but they were still unconventional.
Considering that everything we know about both the YF-22 and YF-23 performance is confirmed by the designers to be either misinformation or understatements, a by-the-numbers comparison is impossible.
What we do know:
-YF-23 was "much faster."
-YF-23 had better all-aspect stealth
-YF-23 had better IR observables.
-YF-22 had better nose-on stealth.
-YF-23 had longer range.
-Both aircraft exceeded the agility parameters demanded by the USAF.
-YF-22 had better agility.
-YF-22 had a working payload. The 23 as tested did not.
-YF-23 may not have had the internal space for the requested payload.
-YF-23 was more expensive.
-USAF had a hard-on for Lockheed, due to the on-time, within-budget delivery of the F-117 and that aircrafts' excellent performance in the gulf war.
-USN had a hard on for the 22, because YF-22 had a "more developed" design for a naval version.
-Lockheed was seen as having better manufacturing infrastructure.
It was a competition between companies as much as between aircraft. The perception (flawed or not, I don't care, shills go home) that Lockheed was the better company played as much a role as the aircraft performance did.
>>30485378
>-YF-23 was "much faster."
>-YF-23 had better all-aspect stealth
I'd love to see a source for these two.
>>30485378
>-YF-23 had longer range.
and this one.
>>30485460
Both of these points are confirmed by engineers who worked on the YF-23 in this excellent documentary: >>30477102
I recommend watching the whole thing. The documentary does not confirm why the F-22 was chosen. It is stated that it was a mystery. One engineer does mention the YF-22's maneuverability as a possible reason. The YF-23 was incredibly maneuverable and was an excellent dog fighter, which one cannot easily guess by just looking at the thing.
>>30485540
>Both of these points are confirmed by engineers who worked on the YF-23 in this excellent documentary
I've seen that documentary (notice it's almost all people that worked on that project - no outside observations). I don't remember where either of these were said. Do you have a time marker? I just skimmed through and was not able to find it.
>>30485581
I haven't watched in a while. Mach 3+ is indirectly confirmed when the test pilot celebrates breaking the speed record for a fighter plane. I believe the asian engineer, forget his name, says something along the lines of "we saw their numbers, we know we had the lower cross sections".
>>30485616
>Mach 3+ is indirectly confirmed when the test pilot celebrates breaking the speed record for a fighter plane.
Wait. Are you actually suggesting they got that airplane faster than a MiG-25 or MiG-31? Really? C'mon, man. Fuck, the RAM wouldn't even survive at those speeds.
>I believe the asian engineer, forget his name, says something along the lines of "we saw their numbers, we know we had the lower cross sections".
But we know it had a much higher low-frontal aspect return. This doesn't make much sense.
>>30485685
Why doubt it? Many think the thrust-to-weight and aerodynamics are inline with a Mach 3+ plane.
I don't know if it is faster than those MiGs, but those MiG's engines literally get ruined if the airplane reaches their top speeds. Realistically, I don't know if one should consider their top speeds true top speeds since reaching them ruins their engines.
>>30485724
>Many think the thrust-to-weight and aerodynamics are inline with a Mach 3+ plane.
The SR-71 has a .44 t/w ratio. The MiG-25 has a .41. MiG-31 is .85. F-106 is .71.
The point is that thrust to weight has very little to do with top speed as far as correlation.
When it comes to the "aerodynamics", just looking at basic wingtip angle against shock cone. It does not look good for pushing past 2.8, maximum. The F-22 reads only a cunt hair less suited for high-mach travel, and I've never even seen a hint its gone beyond 2.6.
>I don't know if it is faster than those MiGs, but those MiG's engines literally get ruined if the airplane reaches their top speeds. Realistically, I don't know if one should consider their top speeds true top speeds since reaching them ruins their engines.
That's based on continuous engine limit. Regardless if pushing all the way to M3.2 destroyed those engines, they still got it there and kept it there for plenty of time. This was fine for the Soviets back in the day: cheap engines, and plenty of 'em. Slap a new pair in, send the old ones back to depot to rebuild.
what is this meme about the f35 being an interceptor? Wouldn't the f22 be the ideal interceptor and the f35 be the bomber?
>>30486025
You're the first person in this thread to mention it.
>>30485581
41:11 for the speed one
>>30486084
>much faster than the YF-22
>very fast
Those are the two quotes. It certainly doesn't sound like we're talking M3+ here.
>>30476362
>Easier to fly, thus cheaper to train pilots
If the USAF actually gave a shit about the cost of training pilots then they wouldn't require them all to be commissioned officers and would instead use a warrant officer system like the army does.
>>30476376
110% of the experts here at /k/ say F-22 doesn't need to be able to maneuver because stealth invinsible superfighter
>>30483638
>F-111
>F-117
>"fighters"
Nighthawk's F -designation was a ruse to get fighter pilots to volunteer for the program while everything about the plane was still "super secret squirrel" -stuff, they didn't expect the kind of pilots they wanted to volunteer to fly a plane with an A- and even less B -designation
>>30486916
Thats great, but manouverability is still important in BVR.
>>30487100
/k/ experts say maneuverability not important when F-22 or F-35, /k/ experts are always right, /k/ experts said so!
>>30476362
What WAS the actual payload for YF-23?
>>30487574
dragon dildos, *a lot* of them, they wanted to go with MLPs but Pentagon interfered because of the inhumanity of the plan.
>>30487574
It had no weapons bays.
>>30485793
5 minutes is not plenty of time
>>30487786
If you're going mach 3.2 you can get pretty far in just five minutes
>>30487990
And then fall right the fuck out of the sky because you toasted your engines.
The Russians have made a lot of good aircraft, but the MiG-25 and it's successor do not count among them.
>>30487628
http://yf-23.net/galleries/weaponsbay.html
>>30487574
4 AMRAAMs, 2 Sidewinders.
I never thought I'd see the day that /k/ would shit on the YF-23.
You fucking newfags really are retarded scum.
>>30478043
What fucking option do we have? The only remaining companies are Northrop-Grumman and Boeing, the latter of which absorbs every fucking competitor like The Blob.
>>30476362
Because it looked cool.
Only ugly planes are allowed anymore. Americans must feel ashamed of their weaponry. Any aesthetic weapon system is now verboten, in an effort by the elites to demoralize America.
pic VERY related.
>>30476362
lobbying probably
>>30478954
>The biggest advantage to a F23A is that Boeing could build it, so it wouldn't disturb the F35 or B-21 production lines.
>Boeing
>Couldn't win the F-35 contract either
kek
>>30483665
>the black widow was a little to far into the realm of air superiority
What the actual fuck are you smoking, retard? The F-22 was and is intended as a pure air-superiority fighter. They managed to cram a bomb into its weapon bays and that's very nice and fancy and stuff, but it it's air-sup focused all the way.
>>30485793
>The point is that thrust to weight has very little to do with top speed as far as correlation.
This is something the Fighter Mafia loved to forget as much as possible. Thrust/weight determines ACCELERATION and that can be important in a dogfight but if it dictated top speed, the F-4 Phantom wouldn't have been the record breaker it was.
When they say the Phantom proves a brick will fly if you apply enough thrust, they were speaking about the weight, not the aerodynamics.
>>30486025
>Wouldn't the f22 be the ideal interceptor and the f35 be the bomber?
"Ideally" being the key word. The F-35 can sprint in supersonic for a bit without using afterburners however, and as a fighter it certainly has the ability to catch other aircraft and smoke them. I can only assume the manufacturer has been floating shine recently about the F-35s multirole capabilities.
"This fighter can, in fact, catch things and fuck them."
>>30487124
>/k/ experts say maneuverability not important when F-22 or F-35, /k/ experts are always right, /k/ experts said so!
Ironic considering that usually, if /k/ had their way the airforce would use Extra 300s with open cockpits so the pilots could fire 1911s.
And if maneuverability wasn't important we'd be using B-2s optimized as missile trucks, not these aircraft, so. Yeah. Airforce knows.
>>30488738
Bruh
>>30489098
Both the YF22/23 and B-21 competitions were considered to be very close. Boeing has some very, very talented engineers.
>>30489184
>The F-35 can sprint in supersonic for a bit without using afterburners
[Citation needed]
>>30485793
>That's based on continuous engine limit. Regardless if pushing all the way to M3.2 destroyed those engines, they still got it there and kept it there for plenty of time. This was fine for the Soviets back in the day: cheap engines, and plenty of 'em. Slap a new pair in, send the old ones back to depot to rebuild.
this... everyone forgets that replacing a melted engine (or even the fighter and pilot if it crashed) is cheaper than replacing the city that the bomber that fighter intercepted was going to level.... soviet economics are dreadfully simple...
>>30486319
shhh keep talking like that and the fighter knights might lose control of their lesser serfs....
>>30489016
>Marine Fighter Attack - Testing
Why yes, you are retarded.
>F-35
>Fat
>>30489310
Sure.
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx
>The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.
Apparently what it does is, it hits afterburners just long enough to push past supersonic, then it reverts to military power. It can coast a good 150 miles at supersonic before it slows down.
Pretty slick aircraft, in other words.
>>30485724
>MiG's engines literally get ruined if the airplane reaches their top speeds
Nice meme. In real life they only got ruined when the aircraft uncontrollably reached beyond its top speed. The issue with engines going bonkers was fixed but thanks to American propaganda the meme lives on.
>>30490010
>Nice meme. In real life they only got ruined when the aircraft uncontrollably reached beyond its top speed. The issue with engines going bonkers was fixed but thanks to American propaganda the meme lives on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-31#Design
>The wings and airframe of the MiG-31 are stronger than those of the MiG-25, permitting supersonic flight at low altitudes. Its D30-F6 jet engines, each rated at 152 kN thrust, allow a maximum speed of Mach 1.23 at low altitude. High-altitude speed is temperature-redlined to Mach 2.83 – the thrust-to-drag ratio is sufficient for speeds in excess of Mach 3, but such speeds pose unacceptable hazards to engine and airframe life in routine use.[6]
So even the successor design still has the same maximum speed limitations due to shit metallurgy in the engines but "we totally fixed it guys!" Vatnik pls
>>30490068
>a limit of Mach 2.83 had to be imposed as the turbines tended to overspeed and overheat at higher speeds, possibly damaging them beyond repair.
Imbecile fatnik, please.
>>30487574
The YF-23 prototypes had no functional payload capacity. It was intended to have 6 AMRAAMs and 2 SW's when developed.
