DBWI: F-22

I was looking around on the 'net and found a couple of images of the Lockheed YF-22, the aircraft that lost the bid to become the current USAF air superiority fighter.

How does it look? What would be the effects if it was accepted instead of the F-23 - was it better? Worse? Would it have avoided the cost overruns?

Saphroneth said:

I was looking around on the 'net and found a couple of images of the Lockheed YF-22, the aircraft that lost the bid to become the current USAF air superiority fighter.
How does it look? What would be the effects if it was accepted instead of the F-23 - was it better? Worse? Would it have avoided the cost overruns?

Click to expand...

Well, I gotta be honest; that was one badass fighter. It was one of my favorite combat aircraft in Jane's Fighters Anthology when I was younger. But unfortunately, it had some teething issues that never could quite be worked out.

F-23

F-23 was better choice. We would not get FB-23
Which proved them self as essential in strike missions over Pacific.

F-23

Not to mention that it lead to adoption of F-36 *instead mediocre F-35 or F-32




And for sure NATF would not get funding so Super Tomcat was really good spin off from ATF competition.




I can not imagine that USAF would adopt so mediocre aircraft like proposed F-18 E/F or F-35.

* Since F-23 and FB 23 was so good their was not preasure for adopting JSF so quickly which broth F-36 to service

About the cost overruns, no the YF-22 program wouldn't have avoided cost overruns, those are more-or-less a given in the US military-industry complex.

I do think it's possible that Northrop would have gotten into trouble, they were banking a lot on this, and if it hadn't come off...

I wonder if the loss here would have had an effect of the development of the MD-12, I hope not because that is one aircraft I'd hate to lose.

MattII said:

About the cost overruns, no the YF-22 program wouldn't have avoided cost overruns, those are more-or-less a given in the US military-industry complex.

Click to expand...

Suppose. How much, though? I'm wondering if they'd have managed to build their target numbers if they went with the F-22, instead of having to compromise.

Saphroneth said:

Suppose. How much, though? I'm wondering if they'd have managed to build their target numbers if they went with the F-22, instead of having to compromise.

Click to expand...

Well compromise was not that bad after all, 350 pieces was still good number to go around. And 120 FB-23 is no insignificant number either...

Some would complain that JSF started in FY of 06 but technology was not their to begin with and money saved proved essential elsewhere..

One thing I notice is that the YF-22 had rather terrible range. That could have proved a problem if they tried to use it on a carrier, because of course the more range a carrier aircraft has the further out to sea the carrier can loiter.

Pft. All I remember is the "Fifth Generation" talk coming back to bite the US aircraft makers. Basically, the Russians threw a ridiculous amount effort into getting the MiG-35 (OC: OTL MiG 1.42/44) into production, and then advertised it to customers around the world as being a cheaper "Fifth-Gen" fighter. And it worked. The investment paid off, and the newcomers to capitalism beat the military-industrial complex at its own game-over a thousand of them have been built.

Coiler said:

Pft. All I remember is the "Fifth Generation" talk coming back to bite the US aircraft makers. Basically, the Russians threw a ridiculous amount effort into getting the MiG-35 (OC: OTL MiG 1.42/44) into production, and then advertised it to customers around the world as being a cheaper "Fifth-Gen" fighter. And it worked. The investment paid off, and the newcomers to capitalism beat the military-industrial complex at its own game-over a thousand of them have been built.

Click to expand...

Well, the question there is:
1) Which is actually better? (Would the YF-22 have been better against the MiG-35 than the F-23?)
2) Is it a good thing if people all over the world have examples of your top hardware (Iranian F-14s, hint hint.)

Saphroneth said:

Well, the question there is:
1) Which is actually better? (Would the YF-22 have been better against the MiG-35 than the F-23?)
2) Is it a good thing if people all over the world have examples of your top hardware (Iranian F-14s, hint hint.)

Click to expand...

I must concur!

Silenth Eagles or Super Tomacts were more then match!
And as far I know lines for F-36 are full!
I mean it is JSF for reason! Joint meanig that all ervices use same aircraft!
Who would thought that Idea about replacable lift fan would work?
Just imagine pain in developing aircraft for 3 services but with distinct features. MDD have made right choice
These talks about A,B,C Version are pointless
A and C version were similiar to bwgin with. So removal of A version was no brainer. Does realy USAF comlain about added corostion resistance or sturdy lading gear? No
And for B Version idea about "Poded lift fan" was great each of those pods could be repalced with weapons pod or fuel tank pod....

Panica said:

I must concur!

Silenth Eagles or Super Tomacts were more then match!

Click to expand...

If you have a good pilot. The MiG-35 has the same long-range missile capacity as the Super Tomcat in a much more maneuverable plane. (The same capacity which gives USAF planners nightmares.) And it's not just the question of being 1 on 1 "better"-it's still dangerous regardless of laboratory on-paper matchups, and the funds from it were enough to rejuvenate Russia's aircraft industry.

And as far I know lines for F-36 are full!

Click to expand...

Because the USAF is still ordering its fill, and the foreign customers which it's been delivered to aren't the kinds of people who'd buy anything Russian anyway (what, you'd think the Brits would purchase anything written in Cyrillic?). Meanwhile, Chile of all countries got three dozen super-MiGs.

Coiler said:

If you have a good pilot. The MiG-35 has the same long-range missile capacity as the Super Tomcat in a much more maneuverable plane. (The same capacity which gives USAF planners nightmares.) And it's not just the question of being 1 on 1 "better"-it's still dangerous regardless of laboratory on-paper matchups, and the funds from it were enough to rejuvenate Russia's aircraft industry. Because the USAF is still ordering its fill, and the foreign customers which it's been delivered to aren't the kinds of people who'd buy anything Russian anyway (what, you'd think the Brits would purchase anything written in Cyrillic?). Meanwhile, Chile of all countries got three dozen super-MiGs.

Click to expand...

But at price of What? MDD mamaged to cut price to 40 Milions with spare parts (*)and few missiles as bonus. Russians once know for chepa aircraft whats 80M) per piece! So what do you take one Mig-35 or two F-36?

*Yes federal Goverment payed for new manufacruring tech... But still under 55M per jet)


And besides? Money saved o procuring F-36 later were invested well.
Super Bone:


And fully digitaly linked B-52 wih new engines?



"off we go"....."Nothing can stop the US air force..."

You know, I bet the poor old Harrier feels kind of inadequate with all this shiny tech around. Well, it still saw good service in '99.

I doubt the YF-22 would've been that much better, and it probably wouldn't be any cheaper. Cost overruns are inevitable with American Defense contractors.

Coiler said:

Pft. All I remember is the "Fifth Generation" talk coming back to bite the US aircraft makers. Basically, the Russians threw a ridiculous amount effort into getting the MiG-35 (OC: OTL MiG 1.42/44) into production, and then advertised it to customers around the world as being a cheaper "Fifth-Gen" fighter. And it worked. The investment paid off, and the newcomers to capitalism beat the military-industrial complex at its own game-over a thousand of them have been built.

Click to expand...

Well, yeah. That's easy considering that the MiG-35 and the Su-35 are both cheap and primitive compared to the F-23 (which is banned from exportation,) or the Dassault Rafale, which is the best selling western fighter of this generation (with six hundred on order between the various export buyers, plus the three hundred for France.)

The MiG-35's advantage is that it's a solid airsuperiority fighter, and a decent interceptor, while being fairly cheap. That said, it's pretty overhyped given that Russia only bought enough to replace the third generation fighters and early Su-27s then in service with the VVS, while buying the MiG-31M, Su-30SM, Su-35 and Su-34 in much larger numbers.
Hell, the MiG-35 was eliminated in the first round of competition for India's latest fighter competition, and then bought more Rafales than France. This when India is Russia's closest ally and usual development partner, and essentially paid for the entire development cycle of the Su-30SM (and the HAL produced Su-30MKI, with it's absurd electronics fit.)

What was interesting was that the it was recently revealed the new F-23C version that just replaced the F-23A in production was a much faster than people originally realized. The top speed of the F-23C running on supercruise was Mach 2.1 (thanks to the new F119-PW-300 engine) and with the afterburner running, around Mach 2.8! And a change in the materials of the aircraft's skin has made the plane even more stealthy.

MX 2 Program

Does anyone kow status of MX-2 Missile program?
I know that trains and mobile version is funded with Silos but what is Capabilit of such MX-2 Missile?