WI: YF-23 chosen over YF-22

[wolf_brother]

What is says on the tin. What if the Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 was chosen as the US military's replacement for its aging fighter force in the late 80s instead of the Lockheed Martin/Boeing YF-22?

[danwild6]

Its certainly the more attractive design. Despite lacking thrust vectoring its a stealthier design and I believe had considerably greater range as well as better wing-loading and I think greater payload capability. It would be nice to see the FB-22 complement this aircraft and spread the wealth around.

P.S I saw a program that mentioned a YF-23 derivative was developed but can't find any firm sources.

[Mad Missouri]

I would guess that would change the make up of the modern day US defense industry. From what I've read it was the lost in that program that caused McDonnell Douglas to sell itself to Boeing. I am not sure if MD had already given up on the civilian airline market by that time.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by danwild6

Its certainly the more attractive design.

Hell Yes, it just looks way meaner!

[Mako_Leader]

And it was going to be built in the wrong state. Just like the ASPJ for the F/A-18's.

[MUC]

I always thought that the YF-23 was rejected, because it was viewed by some as "too futuristic" and thus associated with more risks in successfully completing the program.

The F-22 has phased strong criticism in the past years and its price tag has risen way beyond what was initially envisioned.

Therefore one possible outcome would have been the scrapping of YF-23, because of the higher technological challenges and costs associated with the project.

Perhaps the USAF then buys some more upgraded F-15s.

[TheMann]

Maybe the YF-23 gets adapted for the NATF project for a naval multirole fighter?

[wolf_brother]

Originally Posted by danwild6

I saw a program that mentioned a YF-23 derivative was developed but can't find any firm sources.

PAV-2 ('Grey Ghost'), the second of the production-sized test aircraft was converted into a bomber in 2004. Northrop Grumman proposed a YF-23 based design for the USAF's interim bomber requirement. The interim bomber requirement though was canceled in favor of a more long-term, bomber replacement requirement. The same YF-23-derived design could possibly be adapted to fulfill this role as well. However, the bomber replacement requirement was canceled in favor of a long-range bomber requirement - something I do not believe the YF-23 can fulfill.

Originally Posted by Mad Missouri

I would guess that would change the make up of the modern day US defense industry. From what I've read it was the lost in that program that caused McDonnell Douglas to sell itself to Boeing. I am not sure if MD had already given up on the civilian airline market by that time.

I'm fairly certain that McDonnell Douglas was the sick man of the industry for most of the 90s after the failure of the YF-23. Their double-deck jumbo-sized aircraft couldn't compete with Boeing and Airbus, and the company itself simply didn't have the industrial or capital resources necessary to compete with either. The final nail in the coffin was Boeing's 1996 acquisition of Rockwell's North American division.

Considering the extent to which the OTL F-22 has sold, even with the US Ban on Raptor Exports, I could easily imagine a TL where McDonnel Douglas is able to remain an industry leader. The butterflies from this would be massive.

Originally Posted by Cook

Hell Yes, it just looks way meaner!

Plus names like 'Black Widow' or 'Grey Ghost' just sound damn'd sexier than 'Lightning' or 'Raptor'

Originally Posted by Mako_Leader

And it was going to be built in the wrong state. Just like the ASPJ for the F/A-18's.

Que?

Originally Posted by MUC

I always thought that the YF-23 was rejected, because it was viewed by some as "too futuristic" and thus associated with more risks in successfully completing the program.

Originally Posted by TheMann

Maybe the YF-23 gets adapted for the NATF project for a naval multirole fighter?

It was my understanding that it was widely appreciated that the YF-23 flew faster and stealthier, but the YF-22 was more agile, and thus more in-line with the Navy's Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF), though as it turned out the US Navy abandoned NATF a few months later.

So a possible POD would be the Navy abandoning NATF just a few months earlier.

[Shogo]

There are some things about it that are better than the Raptor, but going off of appearances I like the Raptor more.

When I compare the two, there's just something about the 23 that makes me think "That thing is ugly.", while the 22 makes me think "It's beautiful.".

[danwild6]

Here's what Mako is talking about.

ASPJ

[FlyingDutchman]

Originally Posted by MUC

I always thought that the YF-23 was rejected, because it was viewed by some as "too futuristic" and thus associated with more risks in successfully completing the program.

The F-22 has phased strong criticism in the past years and its price tag has risen way beyond what was initially envisioned.

Therefore one possible outcome would have been the scrapping of YF-23, because of the higher technological challenges and costs associated with the project.

Perhaps the USAF then buys some more upgraded F-15s.

Agree completely.
The YF-23 is the more radical airframe of the two.
The chances of the F-23 getting scrapped altogether are bigger then they were for the F-22. Considering the F-22 ended up with only 187 build F-22's, it's extremely likely the USAF ends up with no 5th generation aircraft untill the F-35 comes along if they chose the YF-23 instead of the YF-22.

If you take Lockheed's experience with radical designs into account and compare that to Northrop's, the choice historically made becomes even more logical.
Chosing the YF-23 design as a foundation for a bomber would seem even more illogical in that light.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...craft/f-23.htm

Originally Posted by TheMann

Maybe the YF-23 gets adapted for the NATF project for a naval multirole fighter?

Wouldn't be likely IMHO, for reasons mentioned by MUC (see above) in addition to Wolf_brother's last remarks.

[Commissar]

I can't help but be amused at your gushing over projects that don't hold a candle to the YF-12, whose production variants would have eventually been able to track 24 fighters and engage six at once from over 100+ miles with some planned variants being designed to lift a 70,000 pound penetration bomb to 90,000 feet.

Its a sad testament to just how far the USAF fell under McNamara and poor procurement and planning decisions.

[Just Leo]

Commisar, I could not help but be amused at your gushing over a cancelled project such as the YF-12. The weapons system was designed for the F-108, also cancelled. The proposed bomber variant seems to have a higher ceiling than the regular variant, while carrying a load equivalent to the fuel normally carried. Considering that the aircraft could not take off with a full fuel load, and that empty weight and bomb weight already exceed take off weight, there seems to be an enigma. Also, 85,000 ft was only reached with a partial fuel load in the un-weaponed machine. Perhaps a new thread is called for, so you can relate further details.

[Commissar]

Originally Posted by Just Leo

Commisar, I could not help but be amused at your gushing over a cancelled project such as the YF-12. The weapons system was designed for the F-108, also cancelled.

The F-108 was killed due to budget cuts, not due to any design flaws. Had the Navy lost its fight with the USAF and its carriers had been scrapped, the F-108 would have gone into production along with the B-70.

The proposed bomber variant seems to have a higher ceiling than the regular variant, while carrying a load equivalent to the fuel normally carried.

You do realize Planes can carry more ordinance than stated if the center of gravity is properly balanced. An example would be the B-17. Normal load was 2,000 kg to 800 miles. Overload was 7,800 kg to a hundred miles.

The YF-12 has more powerful engines and the capability of In Flight refueling, so even if it sacrificed much of its fuel to lift its 70,000 pound payload, it would then refuel and continue on its mission. Once the ordinance is dropped, the plane is far lighter and consumes less fuel to move about.

Hmm, I seem to have misplaced my handy calculator for mission loads, fuel consumptions, and other factors. In any event, note that the 70,000 pound bomb carry design was a possible design being studied, and may not have actually panned out as I doubt any fighter pilot would want to lug such a monstrosity even if you promised a promotion two grades and a General's daughter.

But still conventional Air Superiority was its main goal, with a possible wild weasel variant for cracking open Soviet Defense Networks.

Considering that the aircraft could not take off with a full fuel load, and that empty weight and bomb weight already exceed take off weight, there seems to be an enigma. Also, 85,000 ft was only reached with a partial fuel load in the un-weaponed machine. Perhaps a new thread is called for, so you can relate further details.

That was standard policy for Blackbird Family of planes and few military combat aircraft take off with full fuel loads anyway due to safety reasons and get the rest once safely off the ground from in flight refueling.

Think about it for a second, if the pilot fucks up on takeoff with a full fuel load, he is not likely to survive and the intense flames poses a hazard to firemen and rescue crew as it can set off the ordinance.

As for the last part, so what, the far heavier SR-71 achieved similar performance at full loads and the faster and lighter it got, the more fuel efficient it became.

[Grimm Reaper]

Commissar, so you believe it would have been a good idea to effectively cripple the US Navy and reduce the number of ICBMs in return for an unspecified number of bombers for whom the Soviets were already designing both SAM and fighter counters to while the B-70 was still in the design phase and which was cancelled because both its cost effectiveness and general effectiveness were in serious question?

[simonbp]

Originally Posted by Commissar

I can't help but be amused at your gushing over projects that don't hold a candle to the YF-12, whose production variants would have eventually been able to track 24 fighters and engage six at once from over 100+ miles with some planned variants being designed to lift a 70,000 pound penetration bomb to 90,000 feet.

And yet had a turning radius equal to that of the Moon, an IR signature like a forest fire, and a cost equal to the GDP of Switzerland. The YF-12 was, frankly, an excellent reconn bird turned into a mediocre, vastly overexpensive fast interceptor. Right as ICBMs were making fast interceptors obsolete. McNamara would have stupid not to cancel it.

[Uxi]

YF-23 was a good deal faster than YF-22 (though for some reason, YF-23's top speed is still classified).

In an ideal scenario, I'd like to say that procurement of F-23A would had had at least as similar run to F-22A (call it just south of 200 birds) and that YF-22 would have been adapted for NATF (probably in similar numbers).

Given that one of YF-22's arguments was cost effectiveness (before it did overruns). Before Northrop merges Grumman, they had a pretty bad rep for delivering on time, though, and YF-23 was considered more radical and the prototype designs still had earlier legacy ATF requirements that would have been removed (thrust reversers, for example) and would have shortened F-23A airframes compared to the YF-23 and imagine reality would have the actual flyaway cost around the same.

[tallwingedgoat]

The YF-23 just don't look like it could roll very well.

[Just Leo]

Originally Posted by tallwingedgoat

The YF-23 just don't look like it could roll very well.

The MiG-21 out-rolled the F-4 Phantom and F-8 Crusader by a wide margin. The Spitfire couldn't roll at all at high speeds.