The F-20 had morphed into the F-18 but lost out to the F-16 as the UASF fighter. However, McD with Northrop’s approval, used the Northrop design F-18 and transformed it into a carrier based navy fighter F-18A/B. Now it’s latest version is the Super Hornet. You can see the profile is still the F-20.
I knew several military pilots back in my day. I always heard from them that the real reason the 16xl and Super Tomcat 21 weren't built was that McDonnell Douglas was way better at politicking than General Dynamics or Grumman. I don't know how true that might be, but I heard it from a lot of them.
Budgets are the biggest enemy our military has to face. Unfortunately the Super Tomcat and many other projects that are casualties of this dreadful fight.
@@dirkusmaximus9268 the F-20 would have been excellent for smaller countries at a lower cost than the F-16...the GE 404 (as in the F-18) boosted power by 60% over the F-5E variants...
As I understand it the biggest issue with the super tom was the titanium box that held the the drive system for the swing wings. It was the main structural member of the F-14 and was considered a none repairable part due to the areas where cracks formed were inaccessible and would have to be replaced to deal with the stresses of combat. And when you considered the additional weight would stress the boxes even worse causing potential loss of wings or one or both wings getting stuck in odd positions leaving it almost impossible to land without alot of luck. That is why they have zero F-14 at David-Monthan AFB. They were considered unserviceable and destroyed due to the box damage and the tooling needed to manufacture new one had been destroyed pursuant to contract's from the Navy. Since the F-111 has the same box and that same issues as the F-14 they two had their airframes destroyed also to ensure none of them made it into private hands and be rebuilt to flying condition since there is no way to check for the cracks or repair them. a few were structurally rebuild in to non repairable condition for use as static models at navy airfields and the same for the Air Force. As I understood it the basically welded the wings in place and added structural members that to be removed required the cutting of the box rendering it unserviceable and un-airworthy although with modern 3D design methods and the ability to simulate the stresses that they could reproduce the boxes today and it would only double the cost of the plane but it would be come repairable and replaceable and made in 4 part structure that any piece would be replaceable But by the time the technology was available it was to late and their destruction for safety reasons a done deal. How much is accurate and true from what little research I've done it appears to be accurate but I've only verified the box cracking, and that they were destroyed due to safety concerns. But I've not looked into the rest if someone knows different let me know I'd like to find out exactly what's was the reason for no super Tomcat, no matter how good the F-18 is won't have the jaw dropping beauty of the F-14 and the wow factor of the swing wings. Some things can't be topped even by better designs. After all no matter what planes they come up with certain planes are heart breakers when they retire them the A-4, A-6, F-8 and obviously the F-14 they each have something that no other plane has provided. Of those the A-6 would be my favorite tied with the Tomcat.
I was heartbroken when they didn't choose the yf-23. I was working on the B-2 in Palmdale at the time and watched the prototype get baked in the sun at the end of a runway. Very sad.
I followed the YF-22/23 race quite closely and was super sad when the YF-23 lost. 5th-gen fighter don't need to be the best dogfighter anymore. The YF-23 is faster, is all-aspect stealthier, can be had without the expensive stealth paint and can be modified structurally to fit thrust vectoring by sacrificing bottom-aspect stealth (against SAMs). The curves themselves diffuse radar returns better than the YF22, and due to its larger wing surface area, can probably fly higher. In the production F-23 model, the 2 enormous humps can be reduced further given more time in simulating airflow. Watching the YF23 documentary and seeing the reaction of the test pilots and the engineers who worked on it when they learnt they lost was heart-breaking. They have the performance data in their hands, including data from the YF22 and they just couldn't believe they could lose with that kind of performance difference between the YF-22 & YF-23. This is why the debate rages on today.
The Soviets inherited F-5E Freedom Fighters when the NVA took over all of South Vietnam. In mock dogfights, Soviet pilots learned the F-5E could quickly get behind a MIG-21 and register a "kill". And it did not matter if the pilot flying the F-5E was an experienced veteran or a brand new novice. The F-5E would win. This was a sobering revelation...when you consider the USAF did not consider the F-5E a suitable combat aircraft for adoption. The F-20 would've been absolute badass.
Pretty sure the US doctrine by then would move to BVR (as we see today) rather than WVR. But yeah, it's interesting how they just up & left the maneuverability component. Then again, NG did implement the tech they have into the Hornets, so maybe it's not a lost cause after all.
@@F22ERaptor from what I understand only the US pilots flew f-4 phantoms and those were out of the country buy that time . The Soviets only got to examine the wreckage that was shot down but that was as far as they got . The South Vietnamese only got to fly the F5 . They did get to examine f-4s from other countries like Iran ! But not sure what the result was that.
YF-23 was a far more interesting, complex and advanced Design than the more conservative Design of the YF-22. Why they couldn't built both? It still looks modern...
From my understanding the f22 and the b2 are just stop gaps and test production planes. I read from an article that many of the stealth designs were never proven in actual usage ( meaning actually in combat, and being used daily) so the military wanted to try them out before going in and replacing them with actual better designs. For example the b2 was actually suppose to look like the b21 raider but had to be revised to fly lower since the military did not know if stealth would work as intended. Fairly sure that new planes are just going to remove all stop gaps for next gen planes which are already indevelopment
Most probably someone bribe somebody to get the contract. I was one of those who were disappointed when F-22 won the contractor. And after I watch the documentary about YF-23 i m pretty sure Lockheed is trying to monopolize the whole stealth jets in USA.
Northrop was also having to demonstrate some of the aircraft’s abilities in a flight simulator instead of with the actual prototypes. And the prototypes were creating contrails off the wingtips in hard turns. The overall impression they gave the Air Force was that their aircraft was riskier and further behind the YF-22 in development and more likely to encounter costly overruns. This was not what the Air Force wanted when they were already facing major budget cuts with the end of the Cold War.
I volunteer at the museum where the F-23 is. It is beautiful. There are a lot of retired Northrop people there who believe the Air Force picked the wrong plane.
Wonder how will the maintenance go since it got moving parts in the wings. With digital tech and FBW that shouldn't be cost much. Maintenance hours always the issue with advanced planes.
Tomcat was always an amazing plane, but its cost per hour flown as well as maintenance hours per hour flown were just too high when compared to the F-18. If the Navy had unlimited funds they certainly would have pursued it, but of course they didn't 😌
They tried resurrecting it with the FB23 concept that had a narrower wing, lower rudderon angles and bigger internal capacity with 8 feet longer fuselage. It would’ve had a super cruise of 1.88 Mach and max speed of almost 3 Mach.
Worked for GE at Edward's Air Force Base and Mojave Civilian Airport from 84 to 94 as an A & P mechanic. The YF23 and the GE YF120 were both superior to the 22 and Pratt engine, politics dictated the winner of both, while the US taxpayer and military lost. During the same period the Tigershark was being tested, what a great gig that was. Also flight tested the first GE90 at Mojave, B1B and B2 programs.
Scram yeah Northrop got shafted in the 90s. But they didn’t invest in lobbyists, instead they though merit would win out. Well in the end great designs are vindicated. The JF17 is basically a tiger shark with bigger leading edge flaps, LEX and a seriously powerful engine. The new 6th gen proposal is supposedly an eerily similar fuselage to the yf23.
The BAC (British Aircraft Corporation) TSR-2 was an aircraft that would have been interesting. It was apparently a very good aircraft but cost and politics played against it.
@@kittyhawk9707 the TSR2 had limited range. From Laarbruch it could only reach the Polish-Russian border on a hi-lo-hi mission profile, whilst the F-111 could get deep into western Russia from Lakenheath (source Aeroplane magazine). GOR309 inspired the design criteria for the F-111.
IAI Levi, Mirage 4000, Commonwealth Kangaroo, Martin Baker MB5, Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger, Lockheed YF-12, Vought XF8U-3 Crusader III, TSR.2, Republic XF-103, A-12 Avenger II, McDonnell Douglas X-36, XF-108 Rapier.....a SUPER presentation. Good work
The Avro Arrow decision was catastrophic. Back then they imagined they could shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles which they couldn't , even today its doubtful they could shoot one down. People assume that because they can now shoot down ballistic missiles that don't exit the atmosphere , that they can do the same for those missiles that do and that simply isn't true. So when they cancelled the Avro Arrow back in the 1950's it was way ahead of its time and with miniaturization could of easily been improved as a design over the coming decades.
My favourite Avro Arrow conspiracy theory is that the "socialist" Canadian government was... ahem, "incentivized" to scrap the Arrow project by the "Commie fighting" US government so as to not be a potential threat to US strategic interests. Soon after, the US and UK absorbed much of the aerospace expertise and talent. Leading to a brain drain that Canada never recovered from. To this day, Canada has little choice but to rely on Uncle Sam and his "Made in the USA" fighter jets.
@@PilotPhotog In the fifties, do you know which company had the most advanced skills in working with titanium? Lockheed? Boeing? Perhaps one of the Russian aircraft designers? Nope. It was Canadian Car & Foundry, working on titanium parts for the Arrow. The CIA later told the Canadian Government that they believed that CC&F had been infiltrated by the Soviets and that the technology should be transferred to the US. Surprise, surprise, a few years later, the SR-71 turns up full of titanium, and Canada is now more dependent on the US for defence tech.
@@PilotPhotog I can't remember the source on this, so you might have to do some more research. It's just a hunch...but would be par for the course for the US defence industry post-war (remember, they got the BAC TSR.2 program shut down as well, on the promise of the F-111).
Best is as best does. You can’t make an accurate assessment of the suitability of something as complex as a fighter aircraft based on such simplistic notions.
THX good stuff. A few other details added to the AVRO Arrow. The Arrow was in fact an incredible engineering feat, one of the most advanced interceptors ever devised at that time. Canceling the program made absolutely no sense, nor the reasons given. It destroyed faith for interested foreign sales and put thousands of people out of work. And it drove some of Canada's top engineers to the USA, 32 disgruntled Avro engineers and technicians joined the ranks of NASA's Space Task Group, to become department heads and leading engineers for Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs.
@@Joshua_N-A That's a hard sell. Most are small Air Forces. So no big sales to justify a production line. The need for Air Defense fighters is mixed and relations vary. To most, we wound up giving them A-37's.
@@WALTERBROADDUS and they can't give it to South Africa due to ongoing Apartheid. Can't give it to Israel due to F-16s. Canada already picked the Hornet, Mexico, like most other Latin Americans don't need a big air force. Austria? Idk if Austria did involved with Eurofighter project in the 80's. Sweden already got their own Tigershark, the Gripen and New Zealand doesn't seems to need fighters. As for Japan, they need something capable of carrying two to four anti ship missiles and the F-20 is too small for that. This leaves SEA countries. TH, MY, SG, ID and PH do operate F-5s but they seems to be happy with it. India always buy Russian stuff. So yeah it's a hard sell across the planet even if lowering the price.
@@emma12345678961 it had high performance too. I think US manufacturers leaned on the US govt to put political pressure on to get the project cancelled.
@@kafeelahmed6439 yes they made successful designs which West Germany bought but the real gem was the arrow, you're right. The video is referring to it
With the YF-22 and YF-23, another factor was the navy. While the navy would not have gotten either of the aircraft, they still had input in the competition, and they did not like the proposed naval variant of the YF-23. It was also precieved to have more challenging maintenance, mostly due to the heat ablating tiles on the back where the engine exhaust came out. Inspecting and replacing the tiles would have been a time consuming chore.
That’s something I had not heard. Well, we’ll ever know all the reasons. I personally like the look of the F-22 better. I think it’s more traditional vertical stabilizers (if they are called that on this aircraft) look better. But, I would love to have seen both developed for a coupe of additional years. I think the F-23, may have been more appealing had it been pushed through a complete test flight program including the kind of combat missions that it would have been asked to perform. I believe the Navy should never be forced to modify an Air Force fighter to work on the flight deck of a carrier. If the Navy evaluates and likes what it sees, then yes by all means, develop it further for Naval use. It will be interesting to see if Congress allows the Navy to fully develop a 6 gen fighter.
That is absolutely wild and incredibly ironic considering here we are 30 years later where a carrier version of the YF-23 arguably could have evolved to meet the Navy's increasing need to fulfill a (currently largely lacking) long-range fleet defense role that in 1990 was assumed to likely not exist for the foreseeable future. But here we are in 2020 where it has become such a concern that the survivability of carriers are in question.
@@npaul4171 It was also to big for the carrier. space is limited. super tomcat would have been a lot better decision for the navy. they gutted a lot of capability with cutting the Tomcat.
THANK YOU for putting the Avro Arrow in there. This Canadian aerospace development is so often overlooked but was revolutionary. It would still outperform some aircraft today.
It wouldn't outperform any modern fighters at all. It was outdone by the F-4 in basically every aspect of combat performance. The Arrow's revolutionary aspects were all in it's ease of use and maintenance.
@@dumdumbinks274 it's not entirely about the plane, it's about the Canadian dream, it's about the innovative revolution it could spark for not just Canadian defense, but Canadian aerospace forever
@@onegoodfurboj Yep that is definitely something to consider, but it isn't a reason to buy the Arrow so much as it is a reason to keep the industry alive. You don't have to sell planes to make a profit in the industry, but as we all know that's not what the Canadian govt decided.
@@dumdumbinks274 First of all, it wasn't a fighter. Second, it wasn't even put into operation, so how was it 'outdone? It flew as fast in test flights with stopgap engines as the F4 ever did. It couldn't possibly have faired any worse than in combat than the insult that is the CF-104, which can't claim a single air superiority kill during its entire service life. How the Arrow ended up being killed for obsolescence only to be replaced by an even less versatile pure interceptor is stupidity of the highest order.
Some of the aircraft you have listed were to good therefore not to be sold. That is why they were not been put into production with the exception of the F-22 Raptor not to be sold to any other military power.
Alton Williams yeah...like the Swedish Gripen today ...to a point! The Gripen is selling though, but is overlooked by too many customers who want the biggest and the most expensive!
F-20 and Gripen are some of the great example of high performance Jets that most likely could keep up with the latest non Stealth Jets of today. Cheap to operate so countries that don't have deep pockets could spend less on defense. Plus their needs are strictly for defense not attacking anyone. Though nowadays most jets can be upgraded to multirole use.
The modest maneurablity of the F-20 Tigershark at medium-to-high altitudes and the lack of a medium range missile in that era ( AIM-120B was only a future concept ), where considerable drawbacks. Equally low cost solutions were available like the Mirage-III NG and the MIrage F-1E. Both were able to turn tighter at higher altitudes in the thin air( due to their lower wing-load ) despite the fact that their G-limit was only 7.5 as compared to the 9G 's capability of the F-20. Moreover they were capable of launching the Matra-530F medium range missile ( 35 kilometres range with high speed to engage much higher flying targets). If one takes into account that the F-20 contenders didn't require the Congres' approval then one can understand that the F-20 had limited chances. When the MiG-29A become available ( early 1987 ), and the Mirage-2000E was competitive even to the F-16C ( being equipped with the medium range Super Matra-530D ), the US government made no demur to release the F-16A or even degraded versions of the F-16C ( see Venesuela ) to foreing buyers making a virtue out of necessity.
@ Interestingly enough, the F-14 is still generally a better dogfighter than even the latest variants of the Super Hornet (talking purely in terms of performance). For the most part, the Super Hornet makes up for it with much much better avionics, but its issues accelerating to high speeds are certainly an issue in BVR engagements too.
Jason.. you sure about that .. A-10 better then the F4 Phantom , F15 , F16 ?... slight bit of delusion there.. would you really want to go head to head with a fully armed F4 in an A10 and expect to beat it... yeah right ok
4 ปีที่แล้ว +1
@@kittyhawk9707 ah yes the brick that flies F-4 Phantom.
@@JasonTeach you said the A-10 and the f14 are the two BEST jets the US have flown.. Really.. THE A10 is the BEST alongside the F14 ( which has been scrapped) ??? REALLY ... The A-10 is arguably the BEST Ground attack aircraft that the US has flown .. BUT one of the BEST JETS they have ever flown .. ?? .. nope anyway .. SINCE WHEN IS THE A10 A FIGHTER.. THE VIDEO WAS ABOUT FIGHTERS , HENCE ME MENTIONING FIGHTERS .. YOU MENTIONED THE FUCKING A10 ... !!!
Looking forward to some more nation specific ones. FB-22 should be a consideration IMO. A stealthy, penetrating sub-nuclear strike aircraft with real range, a proper successor to the F-111 - that's not something that exists anywhere in the world, yet it would be so useful.
I fully agree with this list!! In Brazil, the Brazilian Air Force, together with Embraer have managed to upgrade the old F-5s to gen 4++ standards. We can only wonder what could have been done with the much more flexible F-20 airframes.
Thank you and much appreciated. It looks like Brazil has started getting the excellent Gripen, here is a video all about that aircraft: th-cam.com/video/nYHJ8RWCDRg/w-d-xo.html
@@PilotPhotog We all fell in love with the Gripen, it was by far the better choice for our defense needs, not only for the capabilities of the new system, but also, and mostly because of the partnership with SAAB, a strong, mature and dependable manufacturer who also happens to be in a military neutral country.
I was an OS on the Eisenhower when we transitioned from F-14’s to FA-18’s. The reduction in capabilities and ability n particular range and fleet protection was reduced nearly in half. The F-14 could identity and intercept multiple adversaries faster and much further out from the carrier. The Navy could have avoided the super hornet completely and used tomcats for both ground attack and fleet defense. Unfortunately politics and short sighted bureaucrats have placed us in a position where fleet defense is a joke and carrier combat range reduced significantly without Air Force tankers pre positioned for refueling
First, thank you for your service. I immensely appreciate your feedback from someone who underwent the transition from Tomcats to Super Hornets. The SH is a good airplane but as you say has nowhere near the legs of the F-14. Thanks for commenting!
Your welcome.... truly no need to thank me. I need to thank the tax payers who paid for my college and flight training. I was dead broke working 3 part time jobs trying to stay in college when the Navy offered me a program called Sea College”. I enlisted for 2-years active duty and 3 years of reserves. I couldn’t attend an A school because of the short duration of my enlistment but, believe it or not, I was able to get the books for OS rating and “strike in” or test in to the rating all on my own while working in V-2 on the Eisenhower. Boot camp was 2 months with apprenticeship training as an airman. I was sent to the Ike and immediately requested all of the classroom books for the OS rating. I passed the test after about 2 months time on the carrier and was promoted to E-4. I didn’t take vacation so at 23 months of active duty I took terminal leave (4-weeks vacation) and went back to college. When I finished college, I applied for Naval officers Candidate School but the gulf war had ended and the A-6’s, F-14’s were being retired along with several carriers. My reserve commanding officer told me that a flight slot would exceptionally difficult to get for several years. Several of my friends actually made it through advanced training (fighter path) but ended up in desk jobs or crossing over into other branches or specialists positions not flying. One of my closer friends transferred to the CIA and went through special forces training .... he ended up in Afghanistan chasing Osama in the first weeks after 911. Anyway, the Navy was very, very kind and good to me. I wish I were young, I’d make sure my high school grades were perfect and I’d try for a service academy and of course aviation. Sorry for the long boring life story. I agree about the Super Hornet. It is a good aircraft. It’s just not anywhere near as capable as the F-14D or he proposed last version. When we were told the f-18: were coming to the Eisenhower, it was suppose to replace the A-7 and that the A-6 replacement was nearing final design phase. We never dreamt the f-18 would replace the F-14, A-6, EA-6B, S-3 Anti Submarine warfare 😂🤣 and the A-6 tankers. I’m surprised they didn’t try to replace the COD and E-2 with the 18. I can see the 18 hauling a boxy cargo glider lol.... Well..... getting old and rambling far too long. Keep up the great work on the videos.
George Dang The F-35, from what I’ve heard by those who are flying it is exactly what they hoped the aircraft would be. Remember it was similar to the f-16 -15 relationship and the f-18-f-14 relationship. That is the f-35 was never meant to be the interceptor air dominance platform. It was supposed to have 400 f-22 and some kind of Navy 6 gen interceptor air dominance partner. The f-35 has grown into that interceptor air dominance roll because we simply don’t have anything better for the Navy at this time. You fight with what you got. In this case or at this time, the Navy recognizes it needs something more like the “super” f-14 in performance with stealthy characteristics and the full suite of sensors and electronics warfare capabilities of the F-35 and Growler combined. Until that is available, the Navy will have to develop tactics along with better missiles, loyal wingman, tankers and anything that will increase the f-35’s combat range. I doubt we will see a 6 gen Navy operating on deck sooner than 2030. That being said, It wouldn’t surprise me to find that a 6 gen fighter is nearing flight testing sometime in 2021-2022 time frame. The Navy is nearly 20 years behind in advanced weapons development for fleet defense. I believe they recognize that the fleet is vulnerable today and will grow increasingly vulnerable unless a great deal of investment and a sense of urgency fails to take hold in congress.
Definitely a great list. The YF-23 as your number one pushed me over the top to subscribe. The F-22 is a great plane and a natural evolution from the F-15. I think that resemblance played no small part in its choice. The YF-23 looks like something we'd launch from the Battlestar Galactica to fight off an alien invasion. Sadly, it was from too far in the future for Cold War minded Air Force Brass.
The YF-23 was a joint program between Northrop AND McDonnell Douglas-and no surprise that you can pick up design cues in the -23 that are echoes of those in the F-18 and even F-15. In fact, it was the loss of the ATF shootout that was one of the last nails in Mac's coffin and lead to the eventual purchase by Boeing...the same company that was part of the F-22 development. The politics taking place outside of the actual ATF selection process were insane and filled with a number of "coincidences" that benefitted Boeing greatly.
Another great, in depth video. Theres always something unexpected. As a DCS player, I appreciate that F14 footage. 😂 Always digging deep, and using all resources available. Well done, TOG.
the F-20, the F-23 and the F-16XL should definitely have been built. although im not a fan of single engine a/c, far too often the air force looks to create a quantum leap forward in military a/c fighters. the Israelis kept the F-4 airframe moded it to all digital avionics and F-15 engines and created a damn good a/c !
@@douglasmiller8607 great point, evident in the new autonomous aircraft that can maneuver in ways that a human being's body couldn't handle, nor could their brain. *the real future aircraft do not feature pilots anymore.* With the AI giving computers the ability to literally 'learn' and make adjustments to it's own programs and functions... Only going to get better and better.
I don't see the point of the Super Tomcat, the Tomcat was originally built to take out bombers from 60-70nm away, and that was its niche, it did that very well. But it was also expensive, like REALLY expensive, and by the time the Super Tomcat was being considered, it wouldn't have been very useful for the US and it wouldn't have been worth it with the super high costs for maintenance and just buying the aircraft in general. The Super Hornet on the other hand was a Multi-role fighter that could do just about everything the Tomcat could and more, but it was much cheaper to build and maintain. The Tomcat is great, don't get me wrong, but its just not very useful in a modern battlefield.
@@FlumpFlibbus Except at a fraction of the Range......short range due to low internal fuel storage has dogged the Hornet and Super Hornet since their inception. You would be hard pressed to EVER see a Hornet without 3 Tanks - one centerline and two wing. Due to the F-14's unique blended body design the area between the engines and even under the nacelles could be fitted with ordnance and fuel tanks, with much less drag penalty. The F-14 was a maintenance hog, but damn the capabilities were just so much more.
@@Pwj579 That's what CFTs and Aerial Refueling are for my friend. And I have to add, the Tomcat had a fairly small amount of capabilities compared to the hornet, sure, it was much better at BVR and about equal in a dogfight with flaps up, but the Tomcat is severely limited in A/G, which is a big loss for it.
I give you props for putting the Arrow on the list. Most wouldn't even know that Canada produced military vehicles, let alone fighter jets. Shame Canada's getting the f-35 over a proposed updated version of the Arrow.
@@mrcyde Called a flying turkey. Not really good at anything. And costly. F-16 (and probably the F-18) is a much better aircraft given the missions that are actually flown, as opposed to the theoretical ones against advances Russian and Chinese air defense systems. And the F-35 cannot even decently dogfight decently. With the way they plan to use them, why not just use drones. Drones can fly well behind the forward battle lines and lob cruise missiles just as well as the F-35, in fact why not just build the B-52 and give it a massive cruise missile load..
I'm Canadian therefore I am biased the ARROW all the way. But former AVRO personnel ended up working on the designs for F14 and F15 as well as going to NASA for the space program
The Arrow was a revolutionary design and the team that worked on it were nothing short of genius. I plan a whole video on the Arrow and hope I do it justice. Thanks for commenting!
@@PilotPhotog The Arrow is still one of the biggest mistakes Canada made in its Economic history. Canada would have had a bigger, more developed and advanced technology sector that would have provided 100s of thousands of high paying middle class jobs for people if it went ahead. The Arrow was projected to basically out run, out gun, out fly practically everything in the sky...
@@ChairmanMo you do realize if a country have a high tech aircraft manufacturing capabilities it usually pull the other industry in that country. Components will be made locally therefore increase the local industry technology.
ChairmanMo As a Aircraft enthusiast who does study on physics in certain areas and research on these things that comment is indeed correct. The only thing maybe coming close is probably the delta dart which found gg carry as much, and had possibly worse high alt maintainability, and maneuverability due to the lower aspect wings, higher sweep, higher pylon drag, and less weapon carry.
And, missing here... The F-8U Crusader III, of 1958, and, perhaps (though only a 'mock-up) the N/A XF-108. Both had immense speed potential, with the Crusader only limited by the heat it's wind-screen could take, keeping it just sub-Mach-3, but it had the Power to go there.
If I remember right,when Yeager was spokesperson for northrop and The f-20,he challenged for a fly off between the f-16 and the F-20 ,winner gets contract and he would fly the f-20.
You are so right. I worked with Chuck on the F-20 program. Most people do not know it still holds the record from a cold start to altitude. I have the picture on my wall with all the stats on the back.
@@edwardlinhart316 that is awesome! Thank you so much for sharing and I am honored to have you comment here. If you haven't already please check out my video on the F-20: th-cam.com/video/T-TARYA_YHg/w-d-xo.html
The F-5 is something of an unsung hero, give many airforces a capability it would not normally be able to afford. The F107 would be one I would have liked to have seen. By all accounts it was an excellent aircraft. I understood it lost out to internal USAF politics. Pity really. F-23 was a much better aircraft than the F-22. I did read one of the reason the F-22 won through was because it used manufacturers from some 40 states and those in congress who represented those states wanted the jobs. The F-22 has paid for that because quality control is so poor that many parts have to be finished off before they can be used. And who didn't want to see the F-14 still flying
At the same time, Congress recently complained that the parts are made in so many states and not consolidated somewhere, even though as you said, it was designed to have that aspect as a benefit/feature!
I'm not an american, but I have always wanted to see an F14 Tomcat because at some point during my childhood my dad got a toy F14 which had wings that can actually move, sadly i lost the toy, though it was already discontinued a few years after I was born.
It was more than being in a commercial or an opinion. Gen. Yeager was a test pilot for Northrop after retiring from the US Air Force. He backed up every word, having flown nearly every US fighter aircraft from 1940-1980 and many experimental aircraft not put into full production. I would say his opinion was pretty well supported by 1st hand knowledge and experience of air combat in multiple combat theatres.
@@PilotPhotog Remember, most Crusaders are actually Crusader IIs. The speed limitation on the Crusader III was its windshield melting, and that's before they could put the planned even bigger engine in it.
In 2018 whilst at the Western Museum of Flight in Torrance, L.A., (home of the YF23 and YF17), I randomly met the designer of the F20s leading edge slats.
@@Joshua_N-A Perhaps serving upto, and including, a Sergant Major, or equivalent rank, depending on branch ... Yes, being an officer is great, and all, but most of those I personally met whom served, and/or those whom comment under military videos, who are both serving, and vets, say that really it isn't an irony to say that all branches (including, yes, Uncle Sam's Canoe Club ...) relies on its SNCOs as their backbone, especially in Boot ... Hence that very old joke about how to address a SNCO properly, as they work for a living ...
Though you do mention this to an extent, the 22 was closer to production over the 23. This being the case, the 22 would have less costs for conversion to production. The lack of weapon demonstration from the 23 was likely the killing blow. Given that the F35 is more about stealth than maneuverability, the 22 is indeed the lesser aircraft but not by much.
Good video. The F-20 was a great low cost fighter with all kinds of limitations that the F-16 didn’t have. I never flew the F-16 or F-20 but I have flown with dozens of pilots who have flown the F-16 and F-5’s. The F-5 and T-38 were and are great aircraft that pilots love to fly. However I’ve never met a pilot who has flown both that would have chosen an f-20 over the f-15. Of all the aircraft here that were not produced, the Navy’s decision not to produce the Super Tomcat has had the most negative ramifications for the US Navy. Even today the Super Hornet doesn’t come close to the F-14D, much less the proposed advance Tomcat design that would have been and would still be a phenomenal fleet defense and fighter bomber. Stealth has its advantages but so does speed and capability. Tie that to superior Electronics warfare and data links and you have a 5th gen parity fighter.
@@johnearle1 maybe. I’m not certain it would have. But Israel got its revenge…. It sold the tech from the Lavi to China which modified and turned it into the J-10
The F-14D with updated avionics, Superhornet Helmet controlled Weapon systems, and improved maintenance would have been a lock for the Navy... Especially now as it again needs a fast, gas efficient Fleet Defender.
The Grumman Super Tiger F11F-1F that had the J79 engine should have been included in your list. Only the criminal actions of the Lockheed managers who bribed many overseas military leaders and politicians in the 1960's caused the F-104 to be adopted as a common fighter by many foreign countries.
The F11F-1F would've much more easily adapted to the low-level fighter-bomber role that nations like Germany and Canada shoehorned the F-104 into. Most likely there'd have been quite a few less pilots dying in crashes had they bought the Super Tiger. Turns out that trying to make an already tricky to fly high-altitude interceptor fly at treetop level is a recipe for disaster. Who could've ever guessed?
RedXlV Hello, I understand that a few foreign pilots actually flew the Super Tiger to evaluate it against the other competitors and they were enthusiastic about it and evaluated it as equal or better in all missions compared to the other aircraft. As you wrote, the Super Tiger could have much better performed roles other than just a clear weather day fighter.
One from the UK - and not the two you might think. In the early 60's, De Havilliand (who had just been swallowed into the maw of Hawker-Siddley) presented to the air powers their Violent/Sea Violent upgrade of the Sea Vixen with twin Speys rather than the twin Avons of the Sea Vixen. Basically looking like a slightly bigger Sea Vixen with a supporting canard on the nose, the Violent/Sea Violent was planned not only to break Mach1 but to touch Mach 2. Drawings were made. Models were made. Engine tests were planned. The RAF loved it. The FAA liked it. The Air Chief Marshall said "This could be the best fighter Britain has ever made" And Hawker-Siddley killed it. It was projected to have twice the range of the Lightning - which, as we know, was a fine plane in its own right - and the abilty to carry enough stores to push it into the fighter-bomber class. But, yes, HS killed it. RIP, Violent/Sea Violent.
@@piotrd.4850 no your wrong jas-39 is using delta wing with canard and the wing is place above the fuselage while f20 is using standard wing and place underneath the fuselage same as f4 phantom thereis big difference in control
13:40 looks like a A12 Avenger II. A Super Tomcat would have been great people where pretty upset when it was retired. Having one Aircraft perform multiple roles has its advantages in cost savings though but also negatives. I remember seeing the XL in books as a kid as well as the F15 ACTIVE. The YF23 was pretty awsome.
Damn you didn't include "the F-15 prototype model with canards" and that is called the *F-15S/MTD.* Can you just imagine the _F-15S/MTD_ if it was taken into service through the United States Air Force now they have a worthy opponent against Russia's Sukhoi Flankers with canards. Btw the F-16XL and the YF-23 is awesome to have in USAF but sadly we all know they didn't go into service. Great video my friend.
Thank you and good point - the F-15 with canards and thrust vectoring was a beast. I am working on an F-15 series and have the first two videos out. I will be sure to include the “Super” F-15 in the videos!
to me the F-22 is still old school conventional regardless of fbw or large control surfaces. the internal weapon bays restrict the size and quantity of weapons so still hanging muntions off the wings.
The F-15 STOL/MTD is quite frankly amazing and it only got better once it went on to become the F-15 ACTIVE. The exceedingly low take off speeds of around 45mph, the need for a minimum of 500 metres of runway, and the incredibly high angle of attack it could pull in flight and remain under control for. It's just all levels of ooh. That and also the paint scheme it had when it became the F-15 ACTIVE is just so dammed pretty.
Thanks for including the Avro Arrow in your Top 5. A plane so advanced in it's time. On February 20, 1959, ( know as Black Friday ), Prime Minister John Diefenbaker cancelled the Avro CF-105 Arrow jet-fighter interceptor program. That was the end to our military aircraft industry. Canada's loss, America's benefit.
You are so right but IKE did sell us some well-used F-101 Voodoo and Bomark Missiles for the price of the Arrow program. Maybe we got robed by the US That time?
There was quite a bit of pressure from the USA to have this programme cancelled; anyways the US imported lots of our engineers and the Robertson screwdriver out of the deal and we were and are still happy to cuddle under their wings because they're good folk.
Excellent breakdown. As for the YF-23, at the time of the competition, Northrop had a political dispute with the Air Force and Pentagon decision makers and they brought that beef into the selection process. Also, the YF-23 was more expensive. Nevertheless, the YF-23 was at the time the Ultimate fighter in history. It was far superior to anything else, even today.
Well said and yes it is tragic for the YF-23 that it became a victim of circumstance and politics. I think 6th gen fighters will look very similar to the YF-23
Jebi Se F-22 eventually came to 280 mil a pop. Simply put, at 183 airframes, there just wasn’t enough to spread the cost around and let economy of scale to kick in in comparison, the F-35 has come down to a fly away cost of 80 million per plane with 400 produced.
Hypothetically, if the F-23 went into production, with the increased base cost and complexity, how many do you think would have been in production by the time Defense Secretary Gates dropped the axe?
@@Kelorin 183......Simply put, originally, the ATF program called for a production run of 780 aircraft. Then came 1991and POOOOOOOFFFFFFF! There goes the old USSR! With the ATF’s main opponent gone, the ATF was one of the first programs to suffer. Numbers first dropped to 645, then 548, then 423, 323, before dropping to 183. With each drop, the price for individual airframe went up as there is less to spread fixed costs. At 323 airframes, Lockheed warned there wasn’t enough to allow economy of scale to kick in. Same would’ve happened if the YF-23 would’ve won. Eventual price would’ve been fixed at 280-300 million a pop due to low numbers produced.
Here's my list of fighter aircraft that should have been built. · F-15N-PHX "Sea Eagle": a proposed naval version capable of carrying the AIM-54 Phoenix missile, but with an enhanced version of the AN/APG-63 radar on the F-15A. These featured folding wingtips, reinforced landing gear and a stronger tailhook for shipboard operation. · F-15 SWG: proposed variant of F-15 Eagle with variable geometry wings like the F-14 Tomcat and F-111 Aardvark. · FB-111G Aardvark: Proposed Bomber variant of F-111 with a longer fuselage of 12ft 8.5in, stronger GE F101 Turbofans, redesigned fixed intakes, and rear landing gear placed outward to allow for more payload. F-111B Aardvark: carrier based version with smaller redesigned nose for better carrier landing visibility and capability to use AIM-54 Phoenix missiles. · F-14 Stealth Tomcat: (you did a video on this explaining it's capabilities). · F-4E(F) Phantom: Proposed single-seat simplified version of F-4E for the German Air Force. · F-4T Phantom: Proposed air superiority-only fighter version. · F-4 (FVS) Swing Wing Phantom: Proposed version with variable geometry wings. · F-4X Phantom: Israeli Proposed version with water injection injected to give the aircraft a speed of an excess of Mach 3. The water would be contained in a pair of 2,500 US gal (9,600 L) conformal tanks on the sides of the fuselage spine. · IAI Super Phantom/F-4-2000: A separate Israel Aircraft Industries project was proposed for a PW1120-powered Phantom, and one prototype built. IAI's F-4 "Super Phantom" or F-4-2000, which could exceed Mach 1 without afterburners.
The Hawker Siddeley P.1154, is worth a mention. This British jump jet could do Mach 1.7 rather than the Harrier's 0.92 Mach, but due to squabbling between the RAF, RN and the Wilson government who finally killed it off on the grounds of cost.
Heard Convair tried to make the canopy eject backward and cover the intake so the pilot can get out......But the inherent risk was one of the factors that killed the project.
Great video! But one mention I would have made was the Yakovlev Yak-141, the Soviet Union VTOL that never made large scale production, even though it's ingenious design would later be used in the development of the F-35.
The infamous flying coffins. Ingenious only because the British were able to modify, refine, and make it safe based more on their own jump jet technology. Russians couldn't get it off the ground and had a hard time finding test pilots that were willing to fly it based on how it earned its infamous nickname.
@@vemundr9263 ....the Yak-141, which is not a big step from earlier Yak-38, shared the same problems which where doubled in Yak-141. Hugely unreliable engines, difficulties in sinchronizing power package, very very limited combat load and radius of action. Thereby, the first plane stayed in service for a short time, and then later, the Yak-141 was cancelled mostlikely due to one of the two 'flyable' versions exploding when trying to land on an aircraft carrier. That, in and of itself, made it not worth the risk.
@@jebise1126 a familiar fiction most so-called 'experts' fall for. Sorry to have to tell you this, but just about everything you believe has been made up or is based on misinformation.
@@jebise1126 I have plenty. Well over 15 years worth of research, fact finding, objective comparisons. In many ways, its too complex a topic for you (to look up on Wikipedia), so it's not even worth discussing based on your own recent falsehoods/admissions.
Northrop had two aircraft on your list. Having flown the F-5E I would love to have seen the plane put into production. However, the Pentagon brass were in love with their big expensive fighters.
The real reason the Avro Arrow was junked was US aerospace companies had nothing like it, even on the drawing boards, and couldn't compete. They pressured Eisenhower to put the squeeze on Diefenbaker to shut it down. Why else destroy the prototypes, plans, etc?
Chuck Yeager was highly paid to have that opinion of the F-20. He was literally employed as a spokesman. He had a total of two flights in the aircraft, totaling about an hour.
It seems to me that there should be more input from test pilots and front line pilots in making the choices. All of us have experienced a situation where "the brass" made the decisions that they knew much less than the guys "in the trenches".
FYI- F-14 had 135 Air-to-Air Victories (130 by Iran) vs 102 Kills by F-15 (all nations). Expensive to Build, Expensive to Maintain, Expensive to Fly, but appears to have been cost-effective for it's designed mission. The Upgrade would seem to be justified.
I love how the f20 makes the hornets engine look big😂 it had no limits in AOA and only didnt go into production because it would of taken sales away from the f16
It had the same problem as the f16, no range w out refueling. We should have produced more f5s than f4s. I worked on f4s and they were labor intensive. F5s were easy in comparison. The f20s would have made great alert aircraft. They were f5s on steroids.
Exactly correct Mr. Montgomery. USAF attitude was screw our poor allies. Drive them buy highly complicated and much more expensive F-16s to help reduce the production/acquisition costs for us. Many countries were forced to reduce fleet sizes and struggled to keep them operationally ready. BTW Mr. Kopack the Aggressor Squadrons all wanted the F-20 to replace the mighty F-5 Tiger II (I was there).
@@bualeegrasse2380 The F-20 would have been an excellent Aggressor training aircraft. Most of our Allies that purchased F-16's already had aircraft in service before the F-5G (before it became the F-20) flew for the first time.
@@bualeegrasse2380 it's really sad when politics get in the way of a great plane, I think Australia would of even looked into the F20 either instead of the F/A18 or a mix of the 2 planes F20 for an intercepter and 18's a to do a mix of both ground and fighter work
It would have been interesting if the F20, X29, and X31 projects where integrated into a affordable lightweight fighter. It would have been a modern day Zero at the very least.
Yes was searching for related comment regarding this Israeli fighter.. But in response to F-16 xl as shown here.. Made me immediately think about the Lavi.. Which is a modified F-16 as wel, only with additional canards
We Canadians got really screwed with the Arrow. I can only imagine how a fifth gen would look now (Although there is a graphic artist who designed one-Super Arrow) What a ridiculous sad day in Canadian history. The YF-23.........should absolutely still be built. One of my favorite planes....
Once in the long ago, I was a young Aviation Ordnanceman stationed at NWC China Lake. We had a rather big airshow for various Congress people and such. At one point we had on the flight line an F-4, an F-14, an F-15, an F-16, an F-18, and an F-20. Still amazed no one thought to get the airborne in formation for a photo.
F-20 OMG! that would be a Beast. YF-23 it's a 6th Gen all the way, there's no other Aircraft to compare with, even today. Speaking of today, it's the 30th Anniversary of Grey Ghost 1st flight. Oct-26-1990, Oct-26-2020. I still hope to see this beautiful creation come to life again.
@@tnix80 of course it isn't, it's from 1990. Add electronics, stealth already is, change the engines and the fuselage, those 4 wings, lol i can go on dude, the desing was 30 years ahead, that means, right now. You can see examples of fake desings here in YT for 6th Gen's, they all follow those YF-23 lines but none of them uses those butterfly wings, that is the key and of course the diamond wins too.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
Want an excellent military aviation photo delivered to your inbox each Tuesday? Sign up for my free newsletter here: hangarflyingwithtog.com/
Can you make a video about the Israel developed Us funded LAVI? I think it should have made the honorable mentions.
There should've been thousands of F-20 Tigersharks in the sky and the F-16xl was beyond beautiful.
The F-20 had morphed into the F-18 but lost out to the F-16 as the UASF fighter. However, McD with Northrop’s approval, used the Northrop design F-18 and transformed it into a carrier based navy fighter F-18A/B. Now it’s latest version is the Super Hornet. You can see the profile is still the F-20.
In the end, I'm glad the strike eagle worked out. It is such a beautiful jet and a great continuation of the best modern fighter ever created.
@@leapdrive You mean the YF-17?
@@El_Zanahorios , yes, maybe that was the designation.
I knew several military pilots back in my day. I always heard from them that the real reason the 16xl and Super Tomcat 21 weren't built was that McDonnell Douglas was way better at politicking than General Dynamics or Grumman. I don't know how true that might be, but I heard it from a lot of them.
The Super Tomcat should have gotten same chance to grow as did the Eagle. really liked the F-20 also.
Budgets are the biggest enemy our military has to face. Unfortunately the Super Tomcat and many other projects that are casualties of this dreadful fight.
F-18 was better nevertheless…You can’t keep all beauties flying. And an F-20 next to an F-16. They have to chose…
@@dirkusmaximus9268 the F-20 would have been excellent for smaller countries at a lower cost than the F-16...the GE 404 (as in the F-18) boosted power by 60% over the F-5E variants...
As I understand it the biggest issue with the super tom was the titanium box that held the the drive system for the swing wings. It was the main structural member of the F-14 and was considered a none repairable part due to the areas where cracks formed were inaccessible and would have to be replaced to deal with the stresses of combat. And when you considered the additional weight would stress the boxes even worse causing potential loss of wings or one or both wings getting stuck in odd positions leaving it almost impossible to land without alot of luck. That is why they have zero F-14 at David-Monthan AFB. They were considered unserviceable and destroyed due to the box damage and the tooling needed to manufacture new one had been destroyed pursuant to contract's from the Navy. Since the F-111 has the same box and that same issues as the F-14 they two had their airframes destroyed also to ensure none of them made it into private hands and be rebuilt to flying condition since there is no way to check for the cracks or repair them. a few were structurally rebuild in to non repairable condition for use as static models at navy airfields and the same for the Air Force. As I understood it the basically welded the wings in place and added structural members that to be removed required the cutting of the box rendering it unserviceable and un-airworthy although with modern 3D design methods and the ability to simulate the stresses that they could reproduce the boxes today and it would only double the cost of the plane but it would be come repairable and replaceable and made in 4 part structure that any piece would be replaceable
But by the time the technology was available it was to late and their destruction for safety reasons a done deal. How much is accurate and true from what little research I've done it appears to be accurate but I've only verified the box cracking, and that they were destroyed due to safety concerns. But I've not looked into the rest if someone knows different let me know I'd like to find out exactly what's was the reason for no super Tomcat, no matter how good the F-18 is won't have the jaw dropping beauty of the F-14 and the wow factor of the swing wings. Some things can't be topped even by better designs. After all no matter what planes they come up with certain planes are heart breakers when they retire them the A-4, A-6, F-8 and obviously the F-14 they each have something that no other plane has provided. Of those the A-6 would be my favorite tied with the Tomcat.
@@aaronsanborn4291 it also wasnt built for the g's it could pull, when 2 of your 3 airframes crash killing their pilots, it doesnt look great
So glad you picked YF-23 as #1..
Thank you and thanks for commenting
I opened this video just hoping to see the yf23 as number 1. And was not disappointed
YES! I Was Also Very Glad to see The YF23 as your #1 Pick.....As it Should Be :)
@Inspector Mayhem the project was scrapped over 20 years ago . Are you going through some wishful thinking or are you on some strong drugs???
I was heartbroken when they didn't choose the yf-23. I was working on the B-2 in Palmdale at the time and watched the prototype get baked in the sun at the end of a runway. Very sad.
I followed the YF-22/23 race quite closely and was super sad when the YF-23 lost. 5th-gen fighter don't need to be the best dogfighter anymore. The YF-23 is faster, is all-aspect stealthier, can be had without the expensive stealth paint and can be modified structurally to fit thrust vectoring by sacrificing bottom-aspect stealth (against SAMs). The curves themselves diffuse radar returns better than the YF22, and due to its larger wing surface area, can probably fly higher. In the production F-23 model, the 2 enormous humps can be reduced further given more time in simulating airflow.
Watching the YF23 documentary and seeing the reaction of the test pilots and the engineers who worked on it when they learnt they lost was heart-breaking. They have the performance data in their hands, including data from the YF22 and they just couldn't believe they could lose with that kind of performance difference between the YF-22 & YF-23. This is why the debate rages on today.
Indeed and well said...I am working on a dedicated video on the YF-23
The deciding factor was VTOL. The YF-23 failed miserably on that. Thus we have the F-22 Raptor.
@@davidbrock4736 Pretty sure the Raptor can't take off or land vertically.
@@RSWebery the 16xl looks an awful lot like the sixth gen prototype. The 23 is being looked at by Japan right now.
@@davidbrock4736 Are you joking? There is no VTOL on the F-22
The AVRO Arrow was by far the stealthiest aircraft ever built. So stealthy it hasn't been seen since 1957.
🤣 it surly is!
Yeah because Trudeau f***** up everything
The Soviets inherited F-5E Freedom Fighters when the NVA took over all of South Vietnam. In mock dogfights, Soviet pilots learned the F-5E could quickly get behind a MIG-21 and register a "kill". And it did not matter if the pilot flying the F-5E was an experienced veteran or a brand new novice. The F-5E would win. This was a sobering revelation...when you consider the USAF did not consider the F-5E a suitable combat aircraft for adoption. The F-20 would've been absolute badass.
Agreed and thanks for commenting!
Pretty sure the US doctrine by then would move to BVR (as we see today) rather than WVR. But yeah, it's interesting how they just up & left the maneuverability component.
Then again, NG did implement the tech they have into the Hornets, so maybe it's not a lost cause after all.
Quick question. Did the Soviets get F-4 Phantoms when NVA took over?
@@F22ERaptor from what I understand only the US pilots flew f-4 phantoms and those were out of the country buy that time . The Soviets only got to examine the wreckage that was shot down but that was as far as they got . The South Vietnamese only got to fly the F5 . They did get to examine f-4s from other countries like Iran ! But not sure what the result was that.
And when the US assessed MiG-17 vs US fighters in Vietnam, they made recommendation that dogfights should always be avoided.
Personally, I think the YF-23 should still be built. Except now it could be packed with modern day electronics.
Agreed and imagine what it could do with today’s avionics? Thanks for commenting.
@@shtav That would be incredible
YF-23 was a far more interesting, complex and advanced Design than the more conservative Design of the YF-22. Why they couldn't built both? It still looks modern...
From my understanding the f22 and the b2 are just stop gaps and test production planes. I read from an article that many of the stealth designs were never proven in actual usage ( meaning actually in combat, and being used daily) so the military wanted to try them out before going in and replacing them with actual better designs. For example the b2 was actually suppose to look like the b21 raider but had to be revised to fly lower since the military did not know if stealth would work as intended. Fairly sure that new planes are just going to remove all stop gaps for next gen planes which are already indevelopment
Most probably someone bribe somebody to get the contract. I was one of those who were disappointed when F-22 won the contractor. And after I watch the documentary about YF-23 i m pretty sure Lockheed is trying to monopolize the whole stealth jets in USA.
Another reason the YF-23 wasn't selected was because Northrop was still on the government's $#!% list for their massive cost overruns on the B-2.
@socal rocks I applied for an IT position at GD back in late 2017 and finally got a call back from them a couple of weeks ago in August 2020 lol.
Bingo!
Yeah good one! One might say that was the primary reason. I hadn't considered that.
Northrop was also having to demonstrate some of the aircraft’s abilities in a flight simulator instead of with the actual prototypes. And the prototypes were creating contrails off the wingtips in hard turns. The overall impression they gave the Air Force was that their aircraft was riskier and further behind the YF-22 in development and more likely to encounter costly overruns. This was not what the Air Force wanted when they were already facing major budget cuts with the end of the Cold War.
I seem to recall the YF-23 did a gear up landing as well. Flight control computer issue. Pilot saved the big pieces though.
I volunteer at the museum where the F-23 is. It is beautiful. There are a lot of retired Northrop people there who believe the Air Force picked the wrong plane.
There are a lot of Boeing people that think the X-32 would have been better as well - you'd kind of expect that, wouldn't you?
YF-23 my all time favorite fighter jet till this day!!!
We could have had a Tomcat with supercruise *AND* thrust-vectoring? I'm gonna go cry into my pillow now.
Yep, and AESA radar, longer range...and yep sadness. Thanks for commenting
Wonder how will the maintenance go since it got moving parts in the wings. With digital tech and FBW that shouldn't be cost much. Maintenance hours always the issue with advanced planes.
And it would still be flying today. Its not fair.
Tomcat was always an amazing plane, but its cost per hour flown as well as maintenance hours per hour flown were just too high when compared to the F-18. If the Navy had unlimited funds they certainly would have pursued it, but of course they didn't 😌
@@f.wallace8969 would you like to fix the variable wing mechanism?
Glad to see the YF-23 in the no.1 spot. Couldn't have agreed more.
Thanks!
They tried resurrecting it with the FB23 concept that had a narrower wing, lower rudderon angles and bigger internal capacity with 8 feet longer fuselage. It would’ve had a super cruise of 1.88 Mach and max speed of almost 3 Mach.
Worked for GE at Edward's Air Force Base and Mojave Civilian Airport from 84 to 94 as an A & P mechanic. The YF23 and the GE YF120 were both superior to the 22 and Pratt engine, politics dictated the winner of both, while the US taxpayer and military lost. During the same period the Tigershark was being tested, what a great gig that was. Also flight tested the first GE90 at Mojave, B1B and B2 programs.
Scram yeah Northrop got shafted in the 90s. But they didn’t invest in lobbyists, instead they though merit would win out. Well in the end great designs are vindicated. The JF17 is basically a tiger shark with bigger leading edge flaps, LEX and a seriously powerful engine. The new 6th gen proposal is supposedly an eerily similar fuselage to the yf23.
The yf23 was superior to the f22 in almost every way. Bizarre decision there.
The BAC (British Aircraft Corporation) TSR-2 was an aircraft that would have been interesting. It was apparently a very good aircraft but cost and politics played against it.
Myth vs.. reality. The TSR2 was not that super.
Wasn't a true fighter aircraft .. more of a multi role plane
@@WALTERBROADDUS oh stfu ..you bitter little man. .
@@kittyhawk9707 Not bitter or Little. You perhaps are Cheerleader of a dead project?
@@kittyhawk9707 the TSR2 had limited range. From Laarbruch it could only reach the Polish-Russian border on a hi-lo-hi mission profile, whilst the F-111 could get deep into western Russia from Lakenheath (source Aeroplane magazine). GOR309 inspired the design criteria for the F-111.
IAI Levi, Mirage 4000, Commonwealth Kangaroo, Martin Baker MB5, Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger, Lockheed YF-12, Vought XF8U-3 Crusader III, TSR.2, Republic XF-103, A-12 Avenger II, McDonnell Douglas X-36, XF-108 Rapier.....a SUPER presentation. Good work
The Avro Arrow decision was catastrophic. Back then they imagined they could shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles which they couldn't , even today its doubtful they could shoot one down. People assume that because they can now shoot down ballistic missiles that don't exit the atmosphere , that they can do the same for those missiles that do and that simply isn't true. So when they cancelled the Avro Arrow back in the 1950's it was way ahead of its time and with miniaturization could of easily been improved as a design over the coming decades.
My favourite Avro Arrow conspiracy theory is that the "socialist" Canadian government was... ahem, "incentivized" to scrap the Arrow project by the "Commie fighting" US government so as to not be a potential threat to US strategic interests. Soon after, the US and UK absorbed much of the aerospace expertise and talent. Leading to a brain drain that Canada never recovered from. To this day, Canada has little choice but to rely on Uncle Sam and his "Made in the USA" fighter jets.
Canada's dark day in history proved a big gain for NASA as most of the workers on the Arrow went to NASA and helped them big time.
Indeed and thanks for commenting, I plan a video all about the Arrow.
@@PilotPhotog In the fifties, do you know which company had the most advanced skills in working with titanium? Lockheed? Boeing? Perhaps one of the Russian aircraft designers?
Nope. It was Canadian Car & Foundry, working on titanium parts for the Arrow. The CIA later told the Canadian Government that they believed that CC&F had been infiltrated by the Soviets and that the technology should be transferred to the US. Surprise, surprise, a few years later, the SR-71 turns up full of titanium, and Canada is now more dependent on the US for defence tech.
@@hoilst I had no idea and this is fascinating...thank you for letting me know and I will be sure to include this in the Arrow video.
@@PilotPhotog I can't remember the source on this, so you might have to do some more research. It's just a hunch...but would be par for the course for the US defence industry post-war (remember, they got the BAC TSR.2 program shut down as well, on the promise of the F-111).
Rumour has it that, the Canadian Prime minister was a Soviet Agent. And passed a lot of information to Russia.
Another reason why the yf-23 lost was mostly due to how Northrop had massive price overruns and delays on the b2.
I did hear the same thing from another commenter and it does make sense. Thanks for commenting!
The irony is Lockheed ended having massive price overruns and delays for what many would consider to be the lesser aircraft.
@@joeclaridy ironic... isn’t it? Without those delays the U.S. wouldn’t fielded more than 198 F-22’s.
The best rarely wins. Everything is politics 🙄
And money
Best is as best does. You can’t make an accurate assessment of the suitability of something as complex as a fighter aircraft based on such simplistic notions.
These fighters cannot exist without politics. Sure, they're developed by private companies - to government need and price. No funding, no fighters.
@@contactohn7982 they go hand in hand.
Diefenbaker's scuttling of the Arrow remains one of the greatest act of treason in Canadian history.
@@Grimloxz Yes, many actually.
THX good stuff. A few other details added to the AVRO Arrow. The Arrow was in fact an incredible engineering feat, one of the most advanced interceptors ever devised at that time. Canceling the program made absolutely no sense, nor the reasons given. It destroyed faith for interested foreign sales and put thousands of people out of work. And it drove some of Canada's top engineers to the USA, 32 disgruntled Avro engineers and technicians joined the ranks of NASA's Space Task Group, to become department heads and leading engineers for Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs.
The F-20 would have been a GREAT aircraft... I use to love to see the Thunderbirds when using the T-38
Indeed and I remember those 38 TBirds, thanks for commenting!
The F-20 had no reason for being after the F-16 was made for export.
@@WALTERBROADDUS they could've give it to South America.
@@Joshua_N-A That's a hard sell. Most are small Air Forces. So no big sales to justify a production line. The need for Air Defense fighters is mixed and relations vary. To most, we wound up giving them A-37's.
@@WALTERBROADDUS and they can't give it to South Africa due to ongoing Apartheid. Can't give it to Israel due to F-16s. Canada already picked the Hornet, Mexico, like most other Latin Americans don't need a big air force. Austria? Idk if Austria did involved with Eurofighter project in the 80's. Sweden already got their own Tigershark, the Gripen and New Zealand doesn't seems to need fighters. As for Japan, they need something capable of carrying two to four anti ship missiles and the F-20 is too small for that. This leaves SEA countries. TH, MY, SG, ID and PH do operate F-5s but they seems to be happy with it. India always buy Russian stuff. So yeah it's a hard sell across the planet even if lowering the price.
If war thunder adds the avro as a premium I'm buying it and I'm not even Canadian
That would be amazing and thanks for commenting!
Avro was a manufacturer not a plane. The avro arrow is what I think you meant to say
Well done by Avro. They came so close to come up with the coolest bomber AND the coolest fighter!👍
@@emma12345678961 it had high performance too. I think US manufacturers leaned on the US govt to put political pressure on to get the project cancelled.
@@kafeelahmed6439 yes they made successful designs which West Germany bought but the real gem was the arrow, you're right.
The video is referring to it
With the YF-22 and YF-23, another factor was the navy. While the navy would not have gotten either of the aircraft, they still had input in the competition, and they did not like the proposed naval variant of the YF-23. It was also precieved to have more challenging maintenance, mostly due to the heat ablating tiles on the back where the engine exhaust came out. Inspecting and replacing the tiles would have been a time consuming chore.
Thanks for commenting, ironic that the Navy’s input swayed things and they ultimately did not get a fighter out of it.
That’s something I had not heard. Well, we’ll ever know all the reasons. I personally like the look of the F-22 better. I think it’s more traditional vertical stabilizers (if they are called that on this aircraft) look better. But, I would love to have seen both developed for a coupe of additional years. I think the F-23, may have been more appealing had it been pushed through a complete test flight program including the kind of combat missions that it would have been asked to perform.
I believe the Navy should never be forced to modify an Air Force fighter to work on the flight deck of a carrier. If the Navy evaluates and likes what it sees, then yes by all means, develop it further for Naval use.
It will be interesting to see if Congress allows the Navy to fully develop a 6 gen fighter.
That is absolutely wild and incredibly ironic considering here we are 30 years later where a carrier version of the YF-23 arguably could have evolved to meet the Navy's increasing need to fulfill a (currently largely lacking) long-range fleet defense role that in 1990 was assumed to likely not exist for the foreseeable future. But here we are in 2020 where it has become such a concern that the survivability of carriers are in question.
I think I had heard bout that somewhere before but had completely forgotten it, thanks for reminding me.
@@npaul4171 It was also to big for the carrier. space is limited. super tomcat would have been a lot better decision for the navy. they gutted a lot of capability with cutting the Tomcat.
THANK YOU for putting the Avro Arrow in there. This Canadian aerospace development is so often overlooked but was revolutionary. It would still outperform some aircraft today.
We should go for it instead of the F-35, am i right?
It wouldn't outperform any modern fighters at all. It was outdone by the F-4 in basically every aspect of combat performance. The Arrow's revolutionary aspects were all in it's ease of use and maintenance.
@@dumdumbinks274 it's not entirely about the plane, it's about the Canadian dream, it's about the innovative revolution it could spark for not just Canadian defense, but Canadian aerospace forever
@@onegoodfurboj Yep that is definitely something to consider, but it isn't a reason to buy the Arrow so much as it is a reason to keep the industry alive. You don't have to sell planes to make a profit in the industry, but as we all know that's not what the Canadian govt decided.
@@dumdumbinks274 First of all, it wasn't a fighter. Second, it wasn't even put into operation, so how was it 'outdone? It flew as fast in test flights with stopgap engines as the F4 ever did. It couldn't possibly have faired any worse than in combat than the insult that is the CF-104, which can't claim a single air superiority kill during its entire service life. How the Arrow ended up being killed for obsolescence only to be replaced by an even less versatile pure interceptor is stupidity of the highest order.
► The first 1,000 people to use this link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/pilotphotog07211
Is Super Cruise Tom Cruise's brother?
Some of the aircraft you have listed were to good therefore not to be sold. That is why they were not been put into production with the exception of the F-22 Raptor not to be sold to any other military power.
Make a video of "Bombers that should have gone into production" and please be sure to include the XB-70 Valkyrie
F20 Tigershark? That’s too much like right and common sense. The politicians and defense contractors aren’t interested in that. 😏
Despite Gen. Chuck Yeager being the spokesman for the F-20.
Alton Williams yeah...like the Swedish Gripen today ...to a point!
The Gripen is selling though, but is overlooked by too many customers who want the biggest and the most expensive!
F-20 and Gripen are some of the great example of high performance Jets that most likely could keep up with the latest non Stealth Jets of today. Cheap to operate so countries that don't have deep pockets could spend less on defense. Plus their needs are strictly for defense not attacking anyone. Though nowadays most jets can be upgraded to multirole use.
The modest maneurablity of the F-20 Tigershark at medium-to-high altitudes and the lack of a medium range missile in that era ( AIM-120B was only a future concept ), where considerable drawbacks. Equally low cost solutions were available like the Mirage-III NG and the MIrage F-1E. Both were able to turn tighter at higher altitudes in the thin air( due to their lower wing-load ) despite the fact that their G-limit was only 7.5 as compared to the 9G 's capability of the F-20. Moreover they were capable of launching the Matra-530F medium range missile ( 35 kilometres range with high speed to engage much higher flying targets). If one takes into account that the F-20 contenders didn't require the Congres' approval then one can understand that the F-20 had limited chances. When the MiG-29A become available ( early 1987 ), and the Mirage-2000E was competitive even to the F-16C ( being equipped with the medium range Super Matra-530D ), the US government made no demur to release the F-16A or even degraded versions of the F-16C ( see Venesuela ) to foreing buyers making a virtue out of necessity.
Comment of the century!
The F-14 and the A-10 are the two best jets the USA has ever had. I was really sad when they retired the F-14.
@ Interestingly enough, the F-14 is still generally a better dogfighter than even the latest variants of the Super Hornet (talking purely in terms of performance). For the most part, the Super Hornet makes up for it with much much better avionics, but its issues accelerating to high speeds are certainly an issue in BVR engagements too.
Jason.. you sure about that .. A-10 better then the F4 Phantom , F15 , F16 ?... slight bit of delusion there.. would you really want to go head to head with a fully armed F4 in an A10 and expect to beat it... yeah right ok
@@kittyhawk9707 ah yes the brick that flies F-4 Phantom.
@@kittyhawk9707 Why are you comparing fighter jets to a ground support jet?
@@JasonTeach you said the A-10 and the f14 are the two BEST jets the US have flown.. Really.. THE A10 is the BEST alongside the F14 ( which has been scrapped) ??? REALLY ... The A-10 is arguably the BEST Ground attack aircraft that the US has flown .. BUT one of the BEST JETS they have ever flown .. ?? .. nope anyway .. SINCE WHEN IS THE A10 A FIGHTER.. THE VIDEO WAS ABOUT FIGHTERS , HENCE ME MENTIONING FIGHTERS .. YOU MENTIONED THE FUCKING A10 ... !!!
Looking forward to some more nation specific ones. FB-22 should be a consideration IMO. A stealthy, penetrating sub-nuclear strike aircraft with real range, a proper successor to the F-111 - that's not something that exists anywhere in the world, yet it would be so useful.
Do you (or anyone else) know if LockMart ever flew a demonstrator for the FB-22 or if it was just a “paper” plane?
I fully agree with this list!! In Brazil, the Brazilian Air Force, together with Embraer have managed to upgrade the old F-5s to gen 4++ standards. We can only wonder what could have been done with the much more flexible F-20 airframes.
Thank you and much appreciated. It looks like Brazil has started getting the excellent Gripen, here is a video all about that aircraft: th-cam.com/video/nYHJ8RWCDRg/w-d-xo.html
@@PilotPhotog We all fell in love with the Gripen, it was by far the better choice for our defense needs, not only for the capabilities of the new system, but also, and mostly because of the partnership with SAAB, a strong, mature and dependable manufacturer who also happens to be in a military neutral country.
cries in tigershark
I literally laughed out loud when I read this and sadly agree. Thanks for commenting!
I was an OS on the Eisenhower when we transitioned from F-14’s to FA-18’s. The reduction in capabilities and ability n particular range and fleet protection was reduced nearly in half. The F-14 could identity and intercept multiple adversaries faster and much further out from the carrier.
The Navy could have avoided the super hornet completely and used tomcats for both ground attack and fleet defense. Unfortunately politics and short sighted bureaucrats have placed us in a position where fleet defense is a joke and carrier combat range reduced significantly without Air Force tankers pre positioned for refueling
First, thank you for your service. I immensely appreciate your feedback from someone who underwent the transition from Tomcats to Super Hornets. The SH is a good airplane but as you say has nowhere near the legs of the F-14. Thanks for commenting!
Your welcome.... truly no need to thank me. I need to thank the tax payers who paid for my college and flight training. I was dead broke working 3 part time jobs trying to stay in college when the Navy offered me a program called Sea College”. I enlisted for 2-years active duty and 3 years of reserves. I couldn’t attend an A school because of the short duration of my enlistment but, believe it or not, I was able to get the books for OS rating and “strike in” or test in to the rating all on my own while working in V-2 on the Eisenhower. Boot camp was 2 months with apprenticeship training as an airman. I was sent to the Ike and immediately requested all of the classroom books for the OS rating. I passed the test after about 2 months time on the carrier and was promoted to E-4. I didn’t take vacation so at 23 months of active duty I took terminal leave (4-weeks vacation) and went back to college. When I finished college, I applied for Naval officers Candidate School but the gulf war had ended and the A-6’s, F-14’s were being retired along with several carriers. My reserve commanding officer told me that a flight slot would exceptionally difficult to get for several years. Several of my friends actually made it through advanced training (fighter path) but ended up in desk jobs or crossing over into other branches or specialists positions not flying. One of my closer friends transferred to the CIA and went through special forces training .... he ended up in Afghanistan chasing Osama in the first weeks after 911.
Anyway, the Navy was very, very kind and good to me. I wish I were young, I’d make sure my high school grades were perfect and I’d try for a service academy and of course aviation.
Sorry for the long boring life story.
I agree about the Super Hornet. It is a good aircraft. It’s just not anywhere near as capable as the F-14D or he proposed last version. When we were told the f-18: were coming to the Eisenhower, it was suppose to replace the A-7 and that the A-6 replacement was nearing final design phase. We never dreamt the f-18 would replace the F-14, A-6, EA-6B, S-3 Anti Submarine warfare 😂🤣 and the A-6 tankers. I’m surprised they didn’t try to replace the COD and E-2 with the 18. I can see the 18 hauling a boxy cargo glider lol....
Well..... getting old and rambling far too long. Keep up the great work on the videos.
Bret Thanks for your comments. Indeed the F-18 was never supposed to be able to replace the F-14, but only the light fighters such as A-7.
And now they're pushing the Flying Potato (aka, F-35) to keep the downgrades coming.
George Dang The F-35, from what I’ve heard by those who are flying it is exactly what they hoped the aircraft would be. Remember it was similar to the f-16 -15 relationship and the f-18-f-14 relationship. That is the f-35 was never meant to be the interceptor air dominance platform. It was supposed to have 400 f-22 and some kind of Navy 6 gen interceptor air dominance partner.
The f-35 has grown into that interceptor air dominance roll because we simply don’t have anything better for the Navy at this time. You fight with what you got. In this case or at this time, the Navy recognizes it needs something more like the “super” f-14 in performance with stealthy characteristics and the full suite of sensors and electronics warfare capabilities of the F-35 and Growler combined. Until that is available, the Navy will have to develop tactics along with better missiles, loyal wingman, tankers and anything that will increase the f-35’s combat range.
I doubt we will see a 6 gen Navy operating on deck sooner than 2030. That being said, It wouldn’t surprise me to find that a 6 gen fighter is nearing flight testing sometime in 2021-2022 time frame.
The Navy is nearly 20 years behind in advanced weapons development for fleet defense. I believe they recognize that the fleet is vulnerable today and will grow increasingly vulnerable unless a great deal of investment and a sense of urgency fails to take hold in congress.
Absolutely should have built "SUPER TOMCAT" . Without hesitation.
I agree and thanks for commenting!
Dam democrats
@@jamiemezs9891 lol they just hate fun of all sorts.
@@karldergrosse-333
Yeah Ask Epstein O we can't he clintonside.
F14 was far too expensive to operate
Definitely a great list. The YF-23 as your number one pushed me over the top to subscribe.
The F-22 is a great plane and a natural evolution from the F-15. I think that resemblance played no small part in its choice.
The YF-23 looks like something we'd launch from the Battlestar Galactica to fight off an alien invasion. Sadly, it was from too far in the future for Cold War minded Air Force Brass.
Thanks for subscribing! If you haven't already seen it, here is the video all about the YF-23: th-cam.com/video/iKeZdX1JLmw/w-d-xo.html
The YF-23 was a joint program between Northrop AND McDonnell Douglas-and no surprise that you can pick up design cues in the -23 that are echoes of those in the F-18 and even F-15. In fact, it was the loss of the ATF shootout that was one of the last nails in Mac's coffin and lead to the eventual purchase by Boeing...the same company that was part of the F-22 development. The politics taking place outside of the actual ATF selection process were insane and filled with a number of "coincidences" that benefitted Boeing greatly.
Considering I worked at Boeing from 1977-2014, I would love for you to enlighten us on all the "coincidences that benefitted Boeing greatly"
Just me or is the F-5 family of fighters the sexiest looking planes?
I’d agree wish that statement - they are timeless classics!
Prettiest fighters ever built, in my opinion.
@@hobbyhermit66 I know we're not supposed to objectify planes but DAMN!! Like Russian Supermodel sexy!
Absolutely. They are so maneuverable they are used to dogfight against the F22 (and often win) which costs 100 times more
Right up there with the Mirage F1 in the looks department
Another great, in depth video. Theres always something unexpected. As a DCS player, I appreciate that F14 footage. 😂 Always digging deep, and using all resources available. Well done, TOG.
Thanks Six! I appreciate your continued support. We fly on Wednesday!
the F-20, the F-23 and the F-16XL should definitely have been built. although im not a fan of single engine a/c, far too often the air force looks to create a quantum leap forward in military a/c fighters. the Israelis kept the F-4 airframe moded it to all digital avionics and F-15 engines and created a damn good a/c !
It's not the plane it's the pilot that counts.
@@curtiscarpenter9881 the pilot is always the limited physical factor when developing a advanced fighter. G stresses on the body.
@@douglasmiller8607 great point, evident in the new autonomous aircraft that can maneuver in ways that a human being's body couldn't handle, nor could their brain.
*the real future aircraft do not feature pilots anymore.*
With the AI giving computers the ability to literally 'learn' and make adjustments to it's own programs and functions...
Only going to get better and better.
The Grumman F14 Super Tomcat~21 was the most painful to loose the contract for further development to lenghten its lifespan! ... 🌷🕯
Agreed and thanks for commenting
I don't see the point of the Super Tomcat, the Tomcat was originally built to take out bombers from 60-70nm away, and that was its niche, it did that very well. But it was also expensive, like REALLY expensive, and by the time the Super Tomcat was being considered, it wouldn't have been very useful for the US and it wouldn't have been worth it with the super high costs for maintenance and just buying the aircraft in general. The Super Hornet on the other hand was a Multi-role fighter that could do just about everything the Tomcat could and more, but it was much cheaper to build and maintain. The Tomcat is great, don't get me wrong, but its just not very useful in a modern battlefield.
@@FlumpFlibbus Except at a fraction of the Range......short range due to low internal fuel storage has dogged the Hornet and Super Hornet since their inception.
You would be hard pressed to EVER see a Hornet without 3 Tanks - one centerline and two wing.
Due to the F-14's unique blended body design the area between the engines and even under the nacelles could be fitted with ordnance and fuel tanks, with much less drag penalty. The F-14 was a maintenance hog, but damn the capabilities were just so much more.
@@Pwj579 That's what CFTs and Aerial Refueling are for my friend. And I have to add, the Tomcat had a fairly small amount of capabilities compared to the hornet, sure, it was much better at BVR and about equal in a dogfight with flaps up, but the Tomcat is severely limited in A/G, which is a big loss for it.
other honourable mentions...F-108, Mirage 4000, P.1154 (Supersonic Harrier), and MiG 1.44
I give you props for putting the Arrow on the list. Most wouldn't even know that Canada produced military vehicles, let alone fighter jets.
Shame Canada's getting the f-35 over a proposed updated version of the Arrow.
I think it would be interesting to see a list of fighters that shouldn't have been produced.
Great point and I will start working on a list
Some of my friends on base tell me the F-35, as a platform, isn't worth the time and money the govt. is throwing at it.
@@mrcyde Called a flying turkey. Not really good at anything. And costly. F-16 (and probably the F-18) is a much better aircraft given the missions that are actually flown, as opposed to the theoretical ones against advances Russian and Chinese air defense systems. And the F-35 cannot even decently dogfight decently. With the way they plan to use them, why not just use drones. Drones can fly well behind the forward battle lines and lob cruise missiles just as well as the F-35, in fact why not just build the B-52 and give it a massive cruise missile load..
On a trip to Edwards AFB back in the 80s, I had a chance to sit in both the F-16XL and F-20...both were beautiful aircraft!
I'm Canadian therefore I am biased the ARROW all the way. But former AVRO personnel ended up working on the designs for F14 and F15 as well as going to NASA for the space program
The Arrow was a revolutionary design and the team that worked on it were nothing short of genius. I plan a whole video on the Arrow and hope I do it justice. Thanks for commenting!
@@PilotPhotog The Arrow is still one of the biggest mistakes Canada made in its Economic history. Canada would have had a bigger, more developed and advanced technology sector that would have provided 100s of thousands of high paying middle class jobs for people if it went ahead. The Arrow was projected to basically out run, out gun, out fly practically everything in the sky...
@@ChairmanMo you do realize if a country have a high tech aircraft manufacturing capabilities it usually pull the other industry in that country. Components will be made locally therefore increase the local industry technology.
ChairmanMo As a Aircraft enthusiast who does study on physics in certain areas and research on these things that comment is indeed correct.
The only thing maybe coming close is probably the delta dart which found gg carry as much, and had possibly worse high alt maintainability, and maneuverability due to the lower aspect wings, higher sweep, higher pylon drag, and less weapon carry.
You could also do a top 5 french aircraft with :
Super Mirage ACF
The Mirage G8
The Mirage 4000
The Breguet SIrocco
The Durandal
And, missing here... The F-8U Crusader III, of 1958, and, perhaps (though only a 'mock-up) the N/A XF-108. Both had immense speed potential, with the Crusader only limited by the heat it's wind-screen could take, keeping it just sub-Mach-3, but it had the Power to go there.
Great video. I agree 100% with your assessment. Especially the F-20 Tiger Shark.
Thank you and thanks for commenting
If I remember right,when Yeager was spokesperson for northrop and The f-20,he challenged for a fly off
between the f-16 and the F-20 ,winner gets contract and he would fly the f-20.
Did not know that and thanks for commenting!
You are so right. I worked with Chuck on the F-20 program. Most people do not know it still holds the record from a cold start to altitude. I have the picture on my wall with all the stats on the back.
@@edwardlinhart316 that is awesome! Thank you so much for sharing and I am honored to have you comment here. If you haven't already please check out my video on the F-20: th-cam.com/video/T-TARYA_YHg/w-d-xo.html
The F-5 is something of an unsung hero, give many airforces a capability it would not normally be able to afford.
The F107 would be one I would have liked to have seen. By all accounts it was an excellent aircraft. I understood it lost out to internal USAF politics. Pity really.
F-23 was a much better aircraft than the F-22. I did read one of the reason the F-22 won through was because it used manufacturers from some 40 states and those in congress who represented those states wanted the jobs. The F-22 has paid for that because quality control is so poor that many parts have to be finished off before they can be used.
And who didn't want to see the F-14 still flying
At the same time, Congress recently complained that the parts are made in so many states and not consolidated somewhere, even though as you said, it was designed to have that aspect as a benefit/feature!
I'm not an american, but I have always wanted to see an F14 Tomcat because at some point during my childhood my dad got a toy F14 which had wings that can actually move, sadly i lost the toy, though it was already discontinued a few years after I was born.
General Chuck Yeager was a big fan of the F-20 and is even featured in a commercial back in the 90's piloting one.
It was more than being in a commercial or an opinion. Gen. Yeager was a test pilot for Northrop after retiring from the US Air Force.
He backed up every word, having flown nearly every US fighter aircraft from 1940-1980 and many experimental aircraft not put into full production.
I would say his opinion was pretty well supported by 1st hand knowledge and experience of air combat in multiple combat theatres.
F-20 not going into production is almost a sin.
Nice video! I would also add the Vought F-8X to this list. It lost out to the Phantom, but was a fantastic fighter in it's own right.
I actually had the F-8X in consideration and plan to do a whole video on the Crusader series. Thanks for commenting!
The last gunfighter.
The F-108 Rapier was another one...
@@PilotPhotog Remember, most Crusaders are actually Crusader IIs. The speed limitation on the Crusader III was its windshield melting, and that's before they could put the planned even bigger engine in it.
In 2018 whilst at the Western Museum of Flight in Torrance, L.A., (home of the YF23 and YF17), I randomly met the designer of the F20s leading edge slats.
Very cool and thanks for sharing!
A lot of this comes down to politics..
Sadly you are not wrong. Thanks for commenting!
Serve as a grunt for 5 years should be a prerequisite for holding public office.
Built by the lowest bidder ring any bells? Also, kick backs are a bitch.
@@Joshua_N-A
Perhaps serving upto, and including, a Sergant Major, or equivalent rank, depending on branch ...
Yes, being an officer is great, and all, but most of those I personally met whom served, and/or those whom comment under military videos, who are both serving, and vets, say that really it isn't an irony to say that all branches (including, yes, Uncle Sam's Canoe Club ...) relies on its SNCOs as their backbone, especially in Boot ...
Hence that very old joke about how to address a SNCO properly, as they work for a living ...
Though you do mention this to an extent, the 22 was closer to production over the 23. This being the case, the 22 would have less costs for conversion to production. The lack of weapon demonstration from the 23 was likely the killing blow.
Given that the F35 is more about stealth than maneuverability, the 22 is indeed the lesser aircraft but not by much.
Good video. The F-20 was a great low cost fighter with all kinds of limitations that the F-16 didn’t have. I never flew the F-16 or F-20 but I have flown with dozens of pilots who have flown the F-16 and F-5’s. The F-5 and T-38 were and are great aircraft that pilots love to fly. However I’ve never met a pilot who has flown both that would have chosen an f-20 over the f-15.
Of all the aircraft here that were not produced, the Navy’s decision not to produce the Super Tomcat has had the most negative ramifications for the US Navy. Even today the Super Hornet doesn’t come close to the F-14D, much less the proposed advance Tomcat design that would have been and would still be a phenomenal fleet defense and fighter bomber. Stealth has its advantages but so does speed and capability. Tie that to superior Electronics warfare and data links and you have a 5th gen parity fighter.
Well said and thanks for commenting
The IAI Lavi should have made the list. It was buried because it would have competed with the F-16 in international markets.
@@johnearle1 maybe. I’m not certain it would have. But Israel got its revenge…. It sold the tech from the Lavi to China which modified and turned it into the J-10
Chuck Yeager says he felt it was better
The F-14D with updated avionics, Superhornet Helmet controlled Weapon systems, and improved maintenance would have been a lock for the Navy... Especially now as it again needs a fast, gas efficient Fleet Defender.
Agreed and thanks for commenting
The Grumman Super Tiger F11F-1F that had the J79 engine should have been included in your list. Only the criminal actions of the Lockheed managers who bribed many overseas military leaders and politicians in the 1960's caused the F-104 to be adopted as a common fighter by many foreign countries.
Yes! Thank you.
The F11F-1F would've much more easily adapted to the low-level fighter-bomber role that nations like Germany and Canada shoehorned the F-104 into. Most likely there'd have been quite a few less pilots dying in crashes had they bought the Super Tiger.
Turns out that trying to make an already tricky to fly high-altitude interceptor fly at treetop level is a recipe for disaster. Who could've ever guessed?
RedXlV Hello, I understand that a few foreign pilots actually flew the Super Tiger to evaluate it against the other competitors and they were enthusiastic about it and evaluated it as equal or better in all missions compared to the other aircraft. As you wrote, the Super Tiger could have much better performed roles other than just a clear weather day fighter.
Ah as usual the same Lockheed folks doing their usual thing again.
Agreed. Too bad Lockheed had and still has so much influence on the state of affairs.
The F-20 should have been built and the F-23 was the better plane.
Taiwan would be flying Tigersharks instead of Falcons.
hi F...
'
come on american company can makeing many more better both F-20 / F-23 airplanes...
also make F-14, tooo
I loved the F-20 and YF-23. Glad to see them as your top 2 choices.
One from the UK - and not the two you might think. In the early 60's, De Havilliand (who had just been swallowed into the maw of Hawker-Siddley) presented to the air powers their Violent/Sea Violent upgrade of the Sea Vixen with twin Speys rather than the twin Avons of the Sea Vixen. Basically looking like a slightly bigger Sea Vixen with a supporting canard on the nose, the Violent/Sea Violent was planned not only to break Mach1 but to touch Mach 2. Drawings were made. Models were made. Engine tests were planned. The RAF loved it. The FAA liked it. The Air Chief Marshall said "This could be the best fighter Britain has ever made" And Hawker-Siddley killed it. It was projected to have twice the range of the Lightning - which, as we know, was a fine plane in its own right - and the abilty to carry enough stores to push it into the fighter-bomber class. But, yes, HS killed it. RIP, Violent/Sea Violent.
Very good list. I can't find anything that I personally would disagree with. All outstanding aircraft.
Thank you much appreciated!
The F-20 Tiger Shark lives today as the FA-50!!!! Same engine, same concept, cheap, light, super sonic, and can do multirole mission.
The Fa-50 appears to be bigger and less elegant if a design. I wonder how it would fare against the F-20.
Noticed that Korea also used to operate alot of F-5 in the past.
Also: look at JAS-39 Gripen, especially from the side - same engine, same concept, same profile ;)
But it's not coooooooool like the Tigershark.
@@piotrd.4850 no your wrong jas-39 is using delta wing with canard and the wing is place above the fuselage while f20 is using standard wing and place underneath the fuselage same as f4 phantom thereis big difference in control
This was a great analysis .. and you're correct , YF-23 (and F-20) are better aircraft than some front-line planes that serve today
Thank you much appreciated, more videos on the way!
13:40 looks like a A12 Avenger II. A Super Tomcat would have been great people where pretty upset when it was retired. Having one Aircraft perform multiple roles has its advantages in cost savings though but also negatives. I remember seeing the XL in books as a kid as well as the F15 ACTIVE. The YF23 was pretty awsome.
I, too, thought it looked more like the McD A-12 rather than a derivative of the YF-23.
Your #1 was dead on. I still think the YF 23 should be produced today with as a 5th gen + or even as the airframe for a 6th design.
Damn you didn't include "the F-15 prototype model with canards" and that is called the *F-15S/MTD.* Can you just imagine the _F-15S/MTD_ if it was taken into service through the United States Air Force now they have a worthy opponent against Russia's Sukhoi Flankers with canards. Btw the F-16XL and the YF-23 is awesome to have in USAF but sadly we all know they didn't go into service. Great video my friend.
Thank you and good point - the F-15 with canards and thrust vectoring was a beast. I am working on an F-15 series and have the first two videos out. I will be sure to include the “Super” F-15 in the videos!
to me the F-22 is still old school conventional regardless of fbw or large control surfaces. the internal weapon bays restrict the size and quantity of weapons so still hanging muntions off the wings.
The F-15 STOL/MTD is quite frankly amazing and it only got better once it went on to become the F-15 ACTIVE.
The exceedingly low take off speeds of around 45mph, the need for a minimum of 500 metres of runway, and the incredibly high angle of attack it could pull in flight and remain under control for.
It's just all levels of ooh.
That and also the paint scheme it had when it became the F-15 ACTIVE is just so dammed pretty.
@@xxrockraiderxx problem with he F15 active is i's radar signature, it would be massive like the SU 30
Well... those "canards" were literally F-18 elevons...
In 1959 Canada built the most advanced jet fighter in the world. Today we can't even make N95 masks.
The avro arrow was also canceled because the us was trying to press they're aircraft on everyone else.
Righto
It was cancelled because Diefenbaker was a simpleton.
@Richard Roe You always have a choice. Diefenbaker was a coward.
@Richard Roe They didn't shut down Bae, SAAB, Thales, Leonardo, or Airbus. All NATO, all in defense.
@Richard Roe I see no basis for your argument in your statement. Why the "need" to defend Diefenbaker?
Amazing video.
YF23 would have been insane if it were built.
Thanks for including the Avro Arrow in your Top 5. A plane so advanced in it's time. On February 20, 1959, ( know as Black Friday ), Prime Minister John Diefenbaker cancelled the Avro CF-105 Arrow jet-fighter interceptor program. That was the end to our military aircraft industry. Canada's loss, America's benefit.
You are so right but IKE did sell us some well-used F-101 Voodoo and Bomark Missiles for the price of the Arrow program. Maybe we got robed by the US That time?
There was quite a bit of pressure from the USA to have this programme cancelled; anyways the US imported lots of our engineers and the Robertson screwdriver out of the deal and we were and are still happy to cuddle under their wings because they're good folk.
hey the tomcat is my faverite plane and my sisters, thanks!
Excellent breakdown. As for the YF-23, at the time of the competition, Northrop had a political dispute with the Air Force and Pentagon decision makers and they brought that beef into the selection process. Also, the YF-23 was more expensive. Nevertheless, the YF-23 was at the time the Ultimate fighter in history. It was far superior to anything else, even today.
Well said and yes it is tragic for the YF-23 that it became a victim of circumstance and politics. I think 6th gen fighters will look very similar to the YF-23
Jebi Se F-22 eventually came to 280 mil a pop. Simply put, at 183 airframes, there just wasn’t enough to spread the cost around and let economy of scale to kick in in comparison, the F-35 has come down to a fly away cost of 80 million per plane with 400 produced.
Hypothetically, if the F-23 went into production, with the increased base cost and complexity, how many do you think would have been in production by the time Defense Secretary Gates dropped the axe?
@@Kelorin 183......Simply put, originally, the ATF program called for a production run of 780 aircraft. Then came 1991and POOOOOOOFFFFFFF! There goes the old USSR! With the ATF’s main opponent gone, the ATF was one of the first programs to suffer. Numbers first dropped to 645, then 548, then 423, 323, before dropping to 183. With each drop, the price for individual airframe went up as there is less to spread fixed costs. At 323 airframes, Lockheed warned there wasn’t enough to allow economy of scale to kick in. Same would’ve happened if the YF-23 would’ve won. Eventual price would’ve been fixed at 280-300 million a pop due to low numbers produced.
One other hardly mentioned by anybody: F-108 rapier. It was supposed to be the long range escort of the B70 valkyrie, but got axed due to sheer cost.
Never flew.
F-108 never got beyond a mockup. It would have been UNDENIABLY cool but it never flew.
Not to mention that the Valkyrie got canceled.
Here's my list of fighter aircraft that should have been built.
· F-15N-PHX "Sea Eagle": a proposed naval version capable of carrying the AIM-54 Phoenix missile, but with an enhanced version of the AN/APG-63 radar on the F-15A. These featured folding wingtips, reinforced landing gear and a stronger tailhook for shipboard operation.
· F-15 SWG: proposed variant of F-15 Eagle with variable geometry wings like the F-14 Tomcat and F-111 Aardvark.
· FB-111G Aardvark: Proposed Bomber variant of F-111 with a longer fuselage of 12ft 8.5in, stronger GE F101 Turbofans, redesigned fixed intakes, and rear landing gear placed outward to allow for more payload.
F-111B Aardvark: carrier based version with smaller redesigned nose for better carrier landing visibility and capability to use AIM-54 Phoenix missiles.
· F-14 Stealth Tomcat: (you did a video on this explaining it's capabilities).
· F-4E(F) Phantom: Proposed single-seat simplified version of F-4E for the German Air Force.
· F-4T Phantom: Proposed air superiority-only fighter version.
· F-4 (FVS) Swing Wing Phantom: Proposed version with variable geometry wings.
· F-4X Phantom: Israeli Proposed version with water injection injected to give the aircraft a speed of an excess of Mach 3. The water would be contained in a pair of 2,500 US gal (9,600 L) conformal tanks on the sides of the fuselage spine.
· IAI Super Phantom/F-4-2000: A separate Israel Aircraft Industries project was proposed for a PW1120-powered Phantom, and one prototype built. IAI's F-4 "Super Phantom" or F-4-2000, which could exceed Mach 1 without afterburners.
Japan is rumored to be doing some varient of the YF-23 as a new fighter.
The cancellation of the Super Tomcat is truly a mistake.
The Hawker Siddeley P.1154, is worth a mention. This British jump jet could do Mach 1.7 rather than the Harrier's 0.92 Mach, but due to squabbling between the RAF, RN and the Wilson government who finally killed it off on the grounds of cost.
I love that the Ace Combat series keep some of those alive
Indeed! I have always admired (and play) the Ace Combat series for exactly this reason. Thanks for commenting.
13:30 yes those sketches look familiar. Remind me very much of the Horten Ho 229 (Gotha Go 229) prototypes of 1944!
F-107 - for when you need to eject out of your aircraft straight into the engines so you can parachute down as hamburger.
I can’t unsee this now lol. Thanks for commenting!
Heard Convair tried to make the canopy eject backward and cover the intake so the pilot can get out......But the inherent risk was one of the factors that killed the project.
Not true
@Andrew Hogan And you are still alive....
At least one US plane has downward ejection out the bottom of the fuselage. Not to be used at low altitude unless inverted. ;)
Great video! But one mention I would have made was the Yakovlev Yak-141, the Soviet Union VTOL that never made large scale production, even though it's ingenious design would later be used in the development of the F-35.
The infamous flying coffins. Ingenious only because the British were able to modify, refine, and make it safe based more on their own jump jet technology. Russians couldn't get it off the ground and had a hard time finding test pilots that were willing to fly it based on how it earned its infamous nickname.
@@vemundr9263 ....the Yak-141, which is not a big step from earlier Yak-38, shared the same problems which where doubled in Yak-141. Hugely unreliable engines, difficulties in sinchronizing power package, very very limited combat load and radius of action. Thereby, the first plane stayed in service for a short time, and then later, the Yak-141 was cancelled mostlikely due to one of the two 'flyable' versions exploding when trying to land on an aircraft carrier. That, in and of itself, made it not worth the risk.
@@jebise1126 a familiar fiction most so-called 'experts' fall for. Sorry to have to tell you this, but just about everything you believe has been made up or is based on misinformation.
@@jebise1126 I have plenty. Well over 15 years worth of research, fact finding, objective comparisons. In many ways, its too complex a topic for you (to look up on Wikipedia), so it's not even worth discussing based on your own recent falsehoods/admissions.
Northrop had two aircraft on your list. Having flown the F-5E I would love to have seen the plane put into production. However, the Pentagon brass were in love with their big expensive fighters.
BIG EXPENSIV FIGHTERS !!??.. AND YET THE YF 23 LOST OUT WHEN THE TIE CAME TO PUT THE WAD WHERE THE MOUTH IS !!????? . :-/
Con: they were uneconomical, redundant or obsolete. Pro: they would have been fken cool :D~
The avro was killed because of the competition to us aircraft companies:. It was simply better. Often these things are political.
@@tnix80 that would fall into the uneconomical category then ;-)
Also, the Arrow program had been infiltrated with spies
7:45
The F20 is always been a favorite for me. it would have been a great update.
Agreed, and thanks for commenting!
The real reason the Avro Arrow was junked was US aerospace companies had nothing like it, even on the drawing boards, and couldn't compete. They pressured Eisenhower to put the squeeze on Diefenbaker to shut it down. Why else destroy the prototypes, plans, etc?
What about the Soviet's infiltration of the program?
What about the xf108? The f4 phantom? The f106 which already was in service?
Tiger shark was amazing. It's one of my favorite fighters I suppose the closest thing to it today is the JF17.
Northrop Grumman was initially a partner in JF-17 project
That MiG-29 from the thumbnail...no-one's ever seen one that close before.
You mean MiG-28, right?
The MiG-29 is a whole other aircraft
General Chuck Yeager was an avid fan of the F-20 Tiger Shark. 👍
Indeed and he knew a thing or two about flying 😎 Thanks for commenting!
It even served as a backdrop for an AC/DELCO commercial he did.
Well, he was paid to be a avid fan.
Chuck Yeager was highly paid to have that opinion of the F-20. He was literally employed as a spokesman. He had a total of two flights in the aircraft, totaling about an hour.
It seems to me that there should be more input from test pilots and front line pilots in making the choices. All of us have experienced a situation where "the brass" made the decisions that they knew much less than the guys "in the trenches".
FYI-
F-14 had 135 Air-to-Air Victories (130 by Iran) vs 102 Kills by F-15 (all nations).
Expensive to Build, Expensive to Maintain, Expensive to Fly, but appears to have been cost-effective for it's designed mission.
The Upgrade would seem to be justified.
I love how the f20 makes the hornets engine look big😂 it had no limits in AOA and only didnt go into production because it would of taken sales away from the f16
That and no one wanted it.
It had the same problem as the f16, no range w out refueling. We should have produced more f5s than f4s. I worked on f4s and they were labor intensive. F5s were easy in comparison. The f20s would have made great alert aircraft. They were f5s on steroids.
Exactly correct Mr. Montgomery. USAF attitude was screw our poor allies. Drive them buy highly complicated and much more expensive F-16s to help reduce the production/acquisition costs for us. Many countries were forced to reduce fleet sizes and struggled to keep them operationally ready. BTW Mr. Kopack the Aggressor Squadrons all wanted the F-20 to replace the mighty F-5 Tiger II (I was there).
@@bualeegrasse2380 The F-20 would have been an excellent Aggressor training aircraft. Most of our Allies that purchased F-16's already had aircraft in service before the F-5G (before it became the F-20) flew for the first time.
@@bualeegrasse2380 it's really sad when politics get in the way of a great plane, I think Australia would of even looked into the F20 either instead of the F/A18 or a mix of the 2 planes F20 for an intercepter and 18's a to do a mix of both ground and fighter work
It would have been interesting if the F20, X29, and X31 projects where integrated into a affordable lightweight fighter. It would have been a modern day Zero at the very least.
That would be a super maneuverable airplane! Thanks for commenting
The IAI Lavi would have been a nice addition to the list...
Yes was searching for related comment regarding this Israeli fighter..
But in response to F-16 xl as shown here..
Made me immediately think about the Lavi..
Which is a modified F-16 as wel, only with additional canards
We Canadians got really screwed with the Arrow. I can only imagine how a fifth gen would look now (Although there is a graphic artist who designed one-Super Arrow) What a ridiculous sad day in Canadian history. The YF-23.........should absolutely still be built. One of my favorite planes....
Once in the long ago, I was a young Aviation Ordnanceman stationed at NWC China Lake. We had a rather big airshow for various Congress people and such.
At one point we had on the flight line an F-4, an F-14, an F-15, an F-16, an F-18, and an F-20. Still amazed no one thought to get the airborne in formation for a photo.
F-20 OMG! that would be a Beast. YF-23 it's a 6th Gen all the way, there's no other Aircraft to compare with, even today. Speaking of today, it's the 30th Anniversary of Grey Ghost 1st flight. Oct-26-1990, Oct-26-2020. I still hope to see this beautiful creation come to life again.
I love the 23 but it's not 6 gen
Many countries working on that, should see some soon.
@@tnix80 of course it isn't, it's from 1990. Add electronics, stealth already is, change the engines and the fuselage, those 4 wings, lol i can go on dude, the desing was 30 years ahead, that means, right now. You can see examples of fake desings here in YT for 6th Gen's, they all follow those YF-23 lines but none of them uses those butterfly wings, that is the key and of course the diamond wins too.
The F-16XL was already built, it was called the Saab J35 Draken.
the wing planform may have been REALLY similar but thats mostly where the similarities end as far as I know.
@@likwidchris Of course, there are after all 50+ years between them.
@@Merecir goes to show how ahead of its time the Draken was really. The double delta is not easy to get right
F20 Northrop was best .
Indeed and thanks for commenting
Would have loved to see a manned HiMAT. I was in love with it as a kid.