On 19 Oct 2016 17:31:17 -0700, Miloch <Miloch_member@newsguy.com>
wrote:
>In article <us1g0c9jmqb1b3tf21g3bnl2lfl1uborbj@4ax.com>, J Three says...
>>
>>
>
>America's F-23 Stealth Fighter vs. the Lethal F-22 Raptor: Who Wins?
>
>http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-f-23-stealth-fighter-vs-the-lethal-f-22-raptor-who-14461
>
>In 1991, Lockheed won the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) competition and went
>on to develop the stealthy world beating F-22 Raptor air superiority fighter.
>
>U.S. Air Force chose the Lockheed aircraft because it believed that company
>Raptor would cost less.
>
>At the time, Northrop was in the doghouse with the Pentagon and the U.S.
>Congress because of massive cost overruns on the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber and
>the ATF, but I can only assume that there was some long-overdue consideration of
>Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) told the LA Times years ago.
>
>But what would an operational F-23 have looked like? And what if General
>
>Even in 1991, in terms of raw performance, the General Electric-powered YF-23
>was acknowledged to have been the best performer even compared to its Pratt &
>Whitney YF119-powered twin. The YF-23 had much better supersonic cruise
>performance, stealth and was only slightly less maneuverable at extremely low
>airspeeds.
>
>YF-23 could do it without thrust vectoring. Those V-tails were very powerful
>an advantage at very, very low airspeeds but neither company had enough time to
>investigate dynamic low speed, high AOA maneuvering. This was a good example of
>how a competition needs to consider the PR value of flight test events. Lockheed
>understood this and did high AOA and shot missiles and pulled 9Gs. All single
>
>The source added that in some ways, it might have cost Northrop the Advanced
>selection.
>
>
>But what would all of that have meant for an operational aircraft? In either
>case, the U.S. Air Force would have received an outstanding air superiority
>fighter that has no equal. But while the Lockheed Martin F-22 is bar none the
>best air superiority fighter the United States has ever produced, an operational
>F-23 might have offered an even greater performance margin over potential
>adversaries than the Raptor currently does.
>
>The final operational version of the F-23 would have offered much better range
>YF120. That would have come in handy over the Pacific. It would also have been
>possibly more so at different speeds and altitudes.
>
>Both the Raptor and a fully operational F-23 would have carried eight air-to-air
>competitors had proposed similar avionics suites. In fact, the Raptor ended up
>with the radar that was originally proposed for the YF-23.
>
>both the YF-22 and YF-23 were outstanding designs. Had Northrop won the
>competition, the F-23 might have been a better overall performer, but it would
>have likely been more expensive. With the F-23, the Air Force would have a
>greater margin of superiority over potential threats like the Chinese J-20 or
>the Russian PAK-FA. But would that have been worth the price differential? Hard
The F-23 certainly wins in the 'looks really cool' dept.
Then again, we could have ended up with the Boeing F-32...
|
|
){kind=link}