I was a teenager during the YF-22/23 fly off and remember the news coverage showing the aircraft. The YF-22 looked like a more modern evolution of existing aircraft like the F-15, while the YF-23 truly looked futuristic to me. I was disappointed when it didn't win.
Really? I'd say they're much more similar between the two than compared to the F-15. The only three design differences an untrained eye would catch are the air intakes, the "diamond" wings, and the YF-23 having slightly sharper angles logitudinally, but I'd say the F-22 air intakes and rounded corners actually look more futuristic. Otherwise they're pretty similar to each other and either of them are very different from the F-15. If anything, the YF-23's sharper corners are more similar to the F-15. The only thing that really makes the YF-23 stand out are the diamond wings, but, to me, the F-22's wings also seem very futuristic compared to the F-15's. I suppose if you're watching low res video, the diamond wings will stand out the most, though.
I worked on the P&W 5000 engines used in the fly-off and one aspect of the thrust vectoring that I've not seen mentioned in video's is how it facilitates Short Take Off performance which was one of the 'desired' specs. During test runs they go full AB then vector up 20 degrees then down 20 degrees with about a second each then back to level thrust. The up vector pushes the tail down before the control surfaces have achieved enough authority then the downward vector pushes the aircraft up and off the tarmac....it's now flying at a positive attitude and having more than 1:1 T/W off it goes. I've not seen a demonstration of this during airshows as it no doubt is more risky than a conventional take-off...but that ability is in there if they ever need it. We were getting regular reports of the Fly-Off and heard that GE guys were phoning back to the plant saying they had it in the bag because they were a bit faster than us....but the AF had changed the fan requirements late and we'd run into problems making the new ones in time so were using the older design which had less performance. The AF knew that it was only a delay and took this into consideration and in reality both engines met EVERY specification and people claiming that GE's were significantly faster are stretching the definition of 'significant'. Slightly is more accurate. Also never mentioned was why the P&W 5000 was chosen over the GE....it was because it was SO much easier to maintain as that had been high on the priority list. Conventional jet engines have so many pipes, wires and fittings that things tend to overlap and lots of things need to be removed to service just one part. That was part of our design that individual components could be replaced with minimal disturbance of others which greatly reduces the time required. The 5000 fastener count of individual part #'s is also very low which simplifies maintenance and the AF really liked this with the maintainers working on both engines universally choosing the P&W as the better engine. Hope this helps add some info.
That is very revealing as to why the Air Force chose the 22 over the 23. Obviously not the only reason but it really clarifies things considering all the opinions as to the 23 being “much faster” and capable. I really like both aircraft and I think both should have been used,22 as a fighter and 23 as a long range fighter/bomber.
That sounds like one of the things the F-15 SMTD was supposed to trial. But it had, although I think added later in the program, those huge honkin' canards to give a little bit of forward uplift. The canards were just F/A-18 tailplanes, if I remember right.
@@troyezell5841 If I remember right, both prototypes were faster in supercruise with the GE YF120 motor, perhaps because of 'variable ratio' features or whathaveyou being trialed by that engine. But as @recoilrob points out, the engines were also prototypes; the production F119-100 might have expanded since then on the initial versions' performance. Also, both prototypes met the Air Force's requirement of "more than 1.5 Mach" without afterburner. As to which aircraft was faster at the top end, I doubt there could be much difference. Heating to the stealthy skin coatings, canopy, etc., is the rate limiting factor for the production F-22A at much above Mach 2, and those same considerations would apply just the same to a hypothetical F-23A.. Also also, the production F-22A is perhaps itself quite a bit quicker than it's prototype. It's publicly demonstrated 1.82 Mach, sans afterburner, and is rumored to be able to do about Mach 2. And then go to burner...this maybe isn't so far fetched. Consider that the Raptor has about as much thrust in military power as an F-15C in full afterburner, and the F-15 is not a slow aircraft. Plus the F119 motors are supposed to preserve a greater proportion of thrust at altitude from the static sea level benchmark.
@@n.w.1803You are right! I got to thinking about it and the tests I witnessed WERE with the STOL/ MTD nozzles which we built before the ATF versions. The STOL/MTD F-15 had the canards in every picture I've ever seen of it and flew the rectangular nozzles to verify their flight characteristics then later a round vectoring nozzle. They got their money's worth out of that test program. I have to admit that my thinking that the same performance would be achieved with the F-22's came from that earlier STOL/MTD experience and while I did have a hand in making the ATF engines and nozzles I can't say that I remember seeing one going through the same test running so that might just be an assumption and figment of old age. Could it have been 34 years ago already? Sucks getting old. :)
I've seen the YF-23 up close, and took many pics of her. She is a beautiful plane, and more so in person (I'm probably using terms that are not popular these days like referring to a plane as "She" but I'm old school that way). I got to touch it, walk beneath the fuselage, took many pics of it when it was temporarily parked behind a local Torrance (Ca) business at the outer edge of Zamperini Field, in Torrance, Ca. The version was the gray version, and of course all the Tech was removed ahead of time, (No engines, and canopy was blacked out)as to not be compromised in a public area where she ultimately was put. I pass by her everyday to and from work, and now she's a part of the Western Museum of Flight, Torrance, California where she is proudly displayed. She still looks beautiful, and awe inspiring.
I've been there a couple of years ago. She's beautiful. I was a little disappointed that she was just parked outside the museum - to me that plane should be indoors. I'm not sure if that's the case now.
@vinylexplorer9817 I agree with you on that. I recently just commented on another video about the flight museum in Dayton, Ohio, where the other YF23 is kept immaculate and indoors. I think that the Museum in Torrance, in keeping this beautiful plane outdoors, exposed to the elements, is disrespectful to this beautiful plane. And it's a shame they can't or won't find a better place to showcase her.
I think its totally acceptable to refer to the YF-23 as a she. Shes deadly and beautiful at the same time and as im sure we are all aware by now only a woman can fit this description
My understanding is that the contract mainly went to Lockheed because Northrop already had won the contract for the B2 over Lockheed and they had poured money into the project ($23 billion between 1981 and 1989, including a billion spent on redesigning the aircraft to be able to operate at low altitude), and military planners wanted to make sure they were not putting their eggs in one basket. Or at least that's the stated reason for going with what was on paper a worse aircraft - in practice I would imagine that Lockheed greasing some of the right palms helped too. Shame though, the YF-23 is still an amazing looking aircraft - it looked futuristic in 1990 and IMO it still looks it now. Will be interesting to see if the rumors of a modernized version of the design being sold to Japan for their next generation fighter are true.
No that's just an excuse, and really weakest of the arguments for YF-22. There is no such thing as "all eggs in one basket" in US military planning and logistics. Factory is a factory, doesn't really matter who own it when fecals hit the fan. Famous WW2 Jeep never was Jeep's - it was designed and built by Willys, but since they didn't have the pproduction capacity for numbers needed, Jeep took over. Same will happen with ANY plant for ANY US military equipment - it will be taken over and/or plans will be given out to build another one. Now, spreading the money around - yeah, no duh, man, spot on and main reason. It is true that in many respects YF-23 seems better than YF-22, but everyone forgets that testing of both concepts went for YEARS. And many of the YF-23's advantages may have been marginal - for example the heat dissipation. NOt saying it was a marketing only, just saying not good enough, for example. The point is that the assesment, where each plane was analyzed, compared and bottom-line'd was never declassified. So the video is a speculation at best and all we have is offcial info, which may very well be fake.
@@gmaacentralfounder The US Air Force clearly stated that the YF-23 was _significantly_ superior in stealth, range, acceleration and top speed, even when using the same engines as the YF-22 as it did in the first prototype. The only real advantage that the YF-22 had was low speed manoeuvrability due to the thrust vectoring. The Air Force themselves said they chose the inferior aircraft in most respects. The reasons they gave were that while both aircraft exceeded their requirements , they thought the F-22 was more likely to be delivered on time, and third that Northrop were going to be heavily loaded delivering the B-2. I don't think any of those are the real reasons, so we're in agreement there. And the differences in speed were considerable; Paul Metz has said that, while he is not allowed to give the numbers, the YF-23 was _much_ faster, not modestly faster. It could supercruise much faster than the YF-22, had better acceleration and had a much better maximum speed. The numbers are classified, those facts aren't, and those statements came from Paul Metz, one of the few people who flew both aircraft. The US Air Force themselves stated that the YF-23 had a significant advantage in stealth, particularly at longer wavelengths. From reasonably reliable, publicly available sources my own view is that the US Air Force clearly chose the wrong aircraft.
in the 43 years since 1981 it hasn't made any difference which plane was better. I'm sure though Yf23 could have shot down that balloon just as well as the F-22 did. Worrying about maneuverability at low air speeds over the ability for a infrared missile to lock on seemed silly.
Well at the time Russia had fighters with very good low speed performance and so I would imagine the airforce would want something that could tangle with them. Reduced IR is great but the advent of all aspect missiles made leaning that direction risky. Russias air to air missiles of that era were nothing to scoff at and their ability to run you down off bore sight was something scary. I would assume they figured the raptor was a good compromise of still having really good stealth while still being able to fight close up if the gap ever got closed. I'm just speculating of course but to me it seems like the airforce wasn't ready to fully embrace the ultimate BVR monster that is the F-23 and leaving a vulnerability of potentially having to face the modern SU fighters in close range with F-15s and F-16s. They needed something to match thrust vectoring the Russians had first before really putting their chips onto a long range stealth BVR fighter. Once the Soviet Union really fell apart we didn't feel the need to fill that roll anymore.
It seems silly but at the time they expected an opposing counterpart. Sure, a 5th generation fighter that's invisible could easily engage 4th generation Su-27s and Mig-29s and J11s while itself being immune to being locked with a weapons-grade solution. But what happens if a 5th generation fighter and another 5th generation fighter meet in combat? AWACs may be able to detect it on SOME frequencies, but can't provide a weapons lock, and neither can the fighters radars. They can merely direct their units towards where the enemy units are. I think the decades of BVR missiles in a world of 3rd and 4th generation fighters has made us think merges are unusual or almost never happen. But when they thought an adversary 5th generation fighter was just around the corner, actual real and genuine dogfights with short range, agile IR missiles and guns was NOT silly. They expected 5th generation fighters to close the distance with one another, because the BVR capabilites could have been non applicable. Now that's not how history played out, but perhaps in the next 2 decades the skies will be full of radar resistant and low observaility craft.
Yeah. The YF 23 would have been replaced by the F -35 just as easily as the F 22 was. Replaced by an aircraft that can't even fly super sonic without melting it's paint off.
Northrop guy here. The YF23 was better than the YF22. The modern F22 is far superior to both. Could the same be said of a F23 of it had happened? Im sure of it.
If you haven't I would encourage you to watch the documentary about the YF23 and its test footage, It seriously blew my mind when I saw the fly by wire systems detecting small bumps in the runway and moving the flight control surfaces accordingly, truly impressive for its time!
Oh yes apologies, I should have mentioned that but I still think even though it was a bug the fact that it could still detect the bumps really says a lot about the technology and its capabilities within the YF23 and I appreciate that you mentioned that :)
Range, stealth, and payload is what is required out of airframe these days. It definitely has the first two. It looks like it would have been able to be designed with greater internal payload than f22.
@@verdebusterAP I don't think it's strange. The airframe design is not the biggest cost of this program. The biggest cost is likely the electronic package. Fluid dynamics software is so good these days they can design a clean sheet design in the computer and have very high confidence of it working.
@@walterpleyer261 It's not about the range, but about the amount of missiles it can carry. Also, I have no doubt that both Su-27/35S and F-15C/EX can fly much longer than F-22
Jack Northrup was always ahead of the curve. YB-49 for example. That creative genius tended to work against him. Until years later the consensus of the experts was that Northrup was right.
@@dr.erikbarrington3621 What I'm hearing you say is that the naysayers couldn't say he was wrong anymore, as he was proven right in front of the world... And the only way to save face was to admit he was right.
I lived out there and never saw the thing fly once. This project was pretty secretive and wasn't being flown out of Palmdale where everyone can see. They probably tested at Area 51. My friend was stationed at Edwards and took me to see the F-22 when it was still not officially acknowledged after they just received their first F-22's. This was in 94.
If I if I remember right in high school when I was at highland high that's where we used to see it the most when it was the YF 23 it was being flight tested out of Edwards Air Force Base I did see The hourglass on the bottom of it from my school hell the sr-72 just got filmed above Palmdale 3 months ago
@@Davivd2 if you look it helps if you look up furthermore secretive or not being part of the advanced tactical fighter program . Being hosted at the Rogers dry lake bed facility otherwise known as Edwards Air Force Base.../ plant42 It was not hard at all to obtain the scheduling of test flights. 99 % of them are during the day because they're not to break the sound barrier after sunset.. My neighbor right next door worked on classified projects for Lockheed.. he never talked about what he did but he would tell us when to go look for the cool planes I got to see an f-117 long before the the Gulf war
Ok. I played a very small part of YF-22. But, the point is, I was there. Watching the flight test programs super closely. After all, my job literally depended on it. Point 1: YF-22 was one of the most ambitious and successful flight test programs ever. We did a lot more than we had to. It demonstrated reduced risk for the AF and the taxpayer. You can also see the risk point play out in the AF selecting the P&W engines vs the GE. The Pratt was an evolutionary engine while the GE was revolutionary. Point 2: The YF-22 was a fighter plane that was very stealthy while the 23 was a stealth plane with fighter capability. The 22 aligned better with the lessons learned from Gulf War 1. All that said, I feel that the 23 is one of the most beautiful fighter aircraft ever and I wish it had been produced for a different customer or role. Just to see them flying. Just gorgeous.
@@nomercyinc6783 : F-22 is much prettier plane than YF-22 was. That said, this is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone describe YF-23 as “uglier than hell”.
I have seen both the YF23 and YF23 prototypes at the US Airforce Museum, both are spectacular. I was surprised you can get so close to them. My read is Lockheed had at the time a much better track record of delivering working aircraft within expected budgets and this was the deciding factor. The USAF did not trust Northrop to deliver the F23 without significant delays and cost overruns.
That is a true statement also McDonnell Douglas just had the totally disastrous A-12 project for the Navy. What 'is' over looked is that Northrop was overcoming the problems on the manufacturing of the B-2. The same management that ended up producing the B-21 ahead of schedule. (Going from memory on that)
The main reason they went with the f-22 over the yf-23 was they could not figure out the contrail problem with the 23. During normal flight, the 23 had a habit of giving off massive contrails that gave away its position. Northrop tried multiple redesigns to try to fix the problem and simply could not. It was a superior craft in many ways, but one of the main goals was stealth. It's hard to be stealthy when you are giving off air show quality contrails just flying into AOE. Edit: I made this comment before actually watching the video and can't believe the contrail issue wasn't mentioned. The AF literally admitted at the time that the contrail issue was the main decider on who won the contract. You can see the issue during the flight sequences in the video alone. This was not held secret in any way. I was a second year Aerospace student when the decision was made and it was even in the scholastic Aerospace magazine we had at the time. Again, the main goal for the RFI was stealth, and the contrails were just too much. And full disclosure, I was fully team YF-23, but understood the decision. Last, the AF liked the YF-23 so much, they had a committee try to find an alternative use for the craft, but the cost per aircraft was too prohibitive.
I read thrust vectoring and orthodox design was the clincher. I've never heard of the contrail problem. The YF 22 had massive rudders and stabilisers unlike the production version. In supercruise top speed was decided by the type of engine. You can just see how manoeuvrable the 22 was compared to 23 which I dont think could pull 9 G just by how long it was. Also 22 was way more stealthier from the rear with fan blade shielding. Northrop was a master of all round stealth and Lockheed focused on X band only. If I was to enter a heavily SAM protected region without support I would choose the F23 but to face another 5 gen fighter, I would choose the F22 every time.
Never heard that. At altitude, pretty much all jet engines make contrails because there is some water in the fuel. Gets vaporized and re-condenses into clouds as it hits the air that’s 100 below zero. Never heard of this even being an issue much less having anything to do with the final decision of the 22 over the 23.
GREAT video!! About twenty years ago I had a conversation with one of the engineers who worked on the YF-23. He told me that the YF-23 beat the YF-22 by ten decibels at the radar range. (No, he did not tell me what angles nor what radar frequencies.) If my math is correct, this would imply a reduction in detection range of about 44 percent.
I first saw the YF-23 as a child in a video game I was playing and it quickly became my favourite aircraft in the game. Already having a love for aircraft. When I found out that it actually existed in real life I was so excited I kept bothering my grandfather (who shared my interest in aircraft) with questions and information about the plane for weeks.
I too first saw the YF23 in a video game, i think one of the big baddies had it and it was ridiculously good and futuristic Then found out years later that it was a real aircraft designed 20 years before my mind was blown Im now in love with it
@@prosto_potomuwto yes it is lmao all designs for the next gen are closer to the 23 than the 22 as the 22 is yes still ahead on stealth but lacking in performance frame wise.
incorrect. the 5th gen yf23 isnt the groundwork for the ngad fighter program at all. civilians that dont work at companies like lockheed dont know any classified information
Both are still classified. To put something into perspective, the Draken J35 had a top of Mach 2.3 and that was during the 50-60's. Imagine what they could do now.
The YF-23 super cruise speed is classified. Neither YF demonstrator ever reached 'top speed'. The top speed of both demonstrators (22/23) is about the same because of materials, thermo limitations and fixed geometry intakes.
And the security was so tight for this other security was lacked....Look at How the China has an aircraft carrier, tanks, destroyers, and planes now.... Using basic college course, the algorithm can calculate the speed😀PS...tactic of diverting the public attentions.
@@DrsharpRothstein Excellent. I really wonder if thrust vectoring, avionics and material science of F-22 could be blended with YF23's Diamond wing shape, what might be possible... Cheers!
I think the real reason why the Northrop YF-23 didn't win the competition was because at that time Northrop had the B-2 contract. As well as huge cost overruns.
It was said below... the YF-22 would have been a better dogfighter. If you're looking for an air dominance fighter, it needs to be able do get into, and dominate, the dogfight. The YF-23 was more stealthy and probably overall faster. Personally, I think BOTH should have been produced. The F-22 would have filled exactly the role it did. A production F-23 would have been a fantastic escort for the B-2 and later B-21 as the F-23 would have been stealthy enough to not give away the presence of a stealth bomber. That's a role and capability that the F-22 probably can't do. Given that some possible designs of the NGAD look like they're derived from the YF-23... this may be what they're going to use the NGAD for.
Better dog fighter is a stretch. Lockheed always uses the term agile, but not more maneuverable. Marketing gimmick. It was never tested against each other but I’d imagine the thrust vector nozzles, at best, compensated for the smaller surface area to match the yf23. Not even going to factor how much energy would be lost doing.
You cant compare YF-23 with an F-22 .. F-22 is far superior in every single aspect to both YF-22 and YF-23, that's the mistake the guy who made this video did as well. He also forgot to mention that the F-22 is a combination of BOTH YF-22 and YF-23 ... Heck, the *F-22 even used the EXACT same Engines of the YF-23.* So yea, you do expect as much power back then, obviously today they have an improved version.
Jesus, unveiling of both in 1990. This goes to [prove] that the US has been working on 6th gen for at least 15 years…do we now think 7th gen is on the drawing board?
Two different airplanes built to requirements that evolved during the competition, but LM was more agile in responding. The YF-23 was a beautiful airplane for what the requirements, but thrust vectoring alone would not solve the high AOA configuration performance in that regime with the tech at the time. The single weapons bay was also a problem in the event they had a hung load. I would have loved to see this navalized in a way different than the NATF configuration proposed. It could have been a formidable replacement for the F-14.
It was not "less capable", it was superior in different areas. Both designs were excellent, the F-22 was simply further along in development at the time of testing. It probably won on the basis of being able to launch weapons during the fight tests. Something the YF-23 demonstrators could not do.
Its not less capable, if anything the YF-22 and YF-23 were superior over in some areas over the other that it basically balances them out The F-22 was more maneuvrable and carried a little more missiles, and the YF-23 was faster and stealthier, you cant say either is more or less capable really
The F-22 was definitely less capable, since the whole purpose of a 5th gen air superiority fighter is to never get into a dogfight in the first place. Northrop understood the true potential, just like they did with the B-2. The USAF still hadn't learned how effective stealth was, and thus both programs were degraded to better accomplish mission sets that were obsolete (F-22 dogfighting and B-2 low-level penetration). Only now with the B-21 and NGAD have they learned and optimized for low RCS missions over kinematic performance.
Not unmatched, just merely hanging on. The entire mess and the truncated program and the current state of “Who's on First? “ because O’bama and SOD Bill Gates. Barack Hussein Obama, cutting the defense budget to the bone. The military was reduced to scavenging parts from other plane for repair and maintenance…among a litany of boondoggles. Trump turned the sorry state of affairs and conditions facing the military, and the Pentagon brass and paper pusher repaid President Trump by betraying him. Conducting secret commissions with the Chinese Military and Xi Jing Ping…they’ll disobey and give them head’s up on any military commands by President Trump. Treacherous rats nest.
I love the sleek design. There's a YF23 on display at the Western Museum of flight at Zamperini Field. I live closeby so I sometimes drive by to take a look at it. Such a beauty.
Very pleased to hear you report the transpiration cooling in the exhaust troughs. That's one way you can always tell the crappy channels from the good ones - the crap ones always say the YF-23 had ceramic tiles in the troughs.
IIRC, one of the determining factors given for selecting the YF-22 was the belief by NAVAIR that the F-22 would be more feasible to adapt a version for carrier use than the YF-23, and there was a thought that (like the F-4 Phantom before it), having the Navy and Air Force use variants of the same basic airframe as the baseline for their primary fighters would be advantageous. Note, theis would have been in addition to the JSF (the program that selexted the F-35). The JSF was going to replace F-16s in the Air Force and F-18s in the Navy, and the ATF/NATF program were going to replace the F-15 and F-14, respectively - this would maintain the planned High/Low mix that had been working so well for both services so far, with a highly capable "top" fighter backed up by a slightly less capable but far more affordable (and, important to the Navy trying to fit the max airframe on a carrier, *smaller* fighter) they could buy and field in larger numbers
@@Gyyghhhhjjjkk Well, bud, no one writing here actually knows the final form. Tail feathers, if it has them, will not include separate rudders. Thematically, it will fully embrace stealth 1st, maneuvering 2nd, like the YF-23. And the variable cycle engine will owe a great deal to the GE one they passed on.
@@ElsinoreRacer If no one writing here knows, then why are you writing here, making objective claims. I agree that it's very likely that the NGAD will focus on stealth over maneuverability. I just hope that it's not over- relied upon to the point where it becomes venerable. Even as an American, I have a hard time believing that every aircraft the US has is the absolute best. Across the internet, time and again I see post after post about how not only is whatever the US fields better than everything else. But also that everything the US has today doesn't quite measure up to what it replaced or had yesterday. There's no shortage of people that argue that the FA18 isn't as good as the F14, that the F35 isn't as good as the F16, with some even saying that the F22 isn't as good as the F15. It's also amusing that in every comparison between the F35 and F16, that the first and last thing mentioned is maneuverability. Yet when the it's the F22 being compared to basically anything, maneuverability apparently isn't so important anymore. We have all our adversaries beat when it comes to stealth, but not so much on maneuverability. I just hope that instead of trying to compete on the maneuverability aspect, that our military industrial complex hasn't simply declared it no longer relevant, deciding to instead cruise along with our current stealth advantage. We've already learned our lesson on dogfighting once during Vietnam. It's baffling to me that so many insist that we learn it again. Furthermore, while maneuverability is (or at least should be by now) a known quantity, stealth really isn't. We really don't know exactly what our adversaries are capable of detecting and targeting, as that's one area the US appears to be behind in. Just food for thought.
@@peteblackburn7850 They picked between stealth and maneuverability. They picked maneuver, events picked stealth, as is the direction of the 6th gen. My only point. So we agree. Extra tidbits: Not entirely sure why, but it is generally agreed that the 23 was more amenable to weapons bay expansion....the great limiting factor of the 22. In all of this, the 23 was compromised by provisions for a thrust reverser (in-flight) that was part of the original requirement. That space and other compromises should have been re-purposed or discounted in the test results.
I've always said the F-23 should have been the F-14 replacement. It's long range would have been perfect for the Navy. Much better option than the short leg Hornet.
Unfortunately, the F-23 would have been too long to fit between the head of the catapult track & the jet blast deflectors on American carriers. Simply wouldn’t fit. As things turned out, there never was a navalized version of the shorter F-22 either.
I fell in love with this plane when I unlocked it in Ace Combat 7. The silhouette of the V-tail and diamond shaped wings just screams "futuristic stealth fighter"
Yf23 looks like its closer to what the Air Force is looking for in the NGAD interms of airframe. Of course the main technology breakthrough of NGAD will be the electronics.
Exactly Which is why I think that the YF-23 is the superior Airframe. The common thing that pilots said that caught them by surprise about going against the F-22 in Training was not its maneuverability but its speed. IF the YF-23 was faster and had a stealthier design, its without a doubt better. Also maneuverability doesnt matter much as dog fighting is for the most part dead.
@@looseygoosey1349 yf23 could be a better airframe for today's needs but f22 could have fit the original requirements better. Both are probably the best fighters ever developed even up to this point.
@@looseygoosey1349 The limitation on sustained speed is the canopy, the sensors, and the RAM coating primarily, and the airframe to some extent, and nothing about the YF-23 would have been able to be better in those aspects than the YF-22/F-22, so it is a distinction without a difference. Dogfighting is not dead, when a stealth plane goes up against another stealth plane their detection and engagement range is greatly reduced, and with closing speeds being what they are, unless they fire and immediately turn away to defeat inbound missiles they are basically at the merge as soon as they get lock on to launch their own missiles. The only reason kinematic performance is less valued in a dog fight is due to the development of high off boresight short range missiles that do not require the launching aircraft to point its nose at the target in order to engage it. But short range fights will most definitely still occur.
@JohnFrumFromAmerica The YF-23 fit the ATF requirements far better than YF-22. The original requirements were to penetrate Soviet air defenses from unexpected direction get behind the Soviet front line and destroy Soviet AWACS and fighter formations as they were forming before they could get the the front line. Everything about the YF-23 design beets the F-22 in those regards.
Your numbers are wrong. F-117s are still flying, B-2s, F-22s, F-35s are all in service, not to mention lots of unmanned systems and several more that the public doesn't know about.
To all the experts in the comment and to the guy who made this video: *You missed 1 CRUCIAL fact, the YF-23 MIGHT have been comparable to the YF-22, but is no where NEAR the tech of an F-22.* Those are 2 different aircrafts, in fact, the F-22 is a combination of BOTH YF-22 and YF-23 which is based on the frame of the YF-22. *F-22 even used the EXACT same Engines of the YF-23.* So yea, you do expect as much power back then, obviously today they have an improved version. You can clearly see that the F-22 is fined and smoothed out as much as the YF-23, opposite to the YF-22 which was not. There is no argue about it even.
It should be noted that the current F-22 is significantly different airframe than the YF-22, and that during its development, it benefited greatly from things learned from the YF-23 program. That being said... Things that played against the YF-23: - There were concerns over its exhaust's heat tiles, which would've required maintenance (and thus longer turn-around times) after each flight (not unlike the space shuttle). - The tail layout also drew concerns with regards to damage/redundancy. The 23's yaw/pitch surfaces are limited to the 2 ruddervators, whereas the 22's yaw/pitch are controlled by the 2 stabs + 2 canted rudders + 2 TVC. - The 23 also had a two-level central missile bay, which meant that if a missile on the lower level misfired, the one above it was also lost; not an issue with the 22, whose missiles were all side by side. - LockMart had a better record with the USAF with regards to cost and delivering on schedule (e.g. F-117), compared to Northrop's less enviable record with the B-2. - Even though neither YF's had radars or a gun during the flyoff, the 22 was nonetheless able to fire missiles (which it did), something the YF-23 was not able to do at the time (first impressions matter).
They were also worried the YF23 would cost too much, which with hindsight of the numerous costly set backs of the F22 is ironic made worse by the fact the YF23 had a parts that were already in service, the landing gear was from the F18 and modified, the nose and cockpit from the F15. I heard another reason but I don't know how true it is, they picked Lockheed and Boeing was because they wanted companies other than Grumman to work on stealth aircraft, which doesn't really make sense since Lockheed made the F117, maybe it meant newer stealth but idk.
The "off the shelf" parts were only for the technology demonstrator. New landing gear would be required because the heavier aircraft needed more powerful breaks than those supplied by the F-18 main landing gear. The cockpit displays for a production F-23 would be a all new glass display to handle the increased information load of a modern fighter.
Paul metz lecture on yf23 and 22 revealed that yf23 could maneuver just as well as yf22 and 23 was quite a bit faster than 22. Watch his lecture. He is the only pilot who flew both yf23 and yf22, he should know.
Since the initial contest, range has become much more important, maneuverability has become somewhat less important, and the importance of stealth has been confirmed. Also, the benefit of thrust vectoring has become less important because F-22 pilots soon realized that vectoring causes enormous energy loss. Thus the YF-23 now compares more favorably. Its advantages (greater range and slightly greater stealth) have increased in importance while its disadvantages (a bit less maneuverable and lack of thrust vectoring) have decreased in importance.
This competition was originally for 600+ aircraft. In hindsight, since less than 200 F-22s were ever produced due to budget cuts, they should have gotten both platforms albeit in reduced numbers.
The YF-23 started out behind because they did not fulfill the requirements of the Request For Proposal. The RFP stipulated that the aircraft was supposed to have thrust vectoring capabilities. The fact that the Air Force picked that design to compete with the YF-22 is a testament to how good the design was. In fact it may have been too advanced for the top brass to feel confident in its abilities.
When they stopped production of the F-22 after 187 were built, it's obvious that too few were built to fulfill its role. The entire production run should have been sold to Japan. The Japanese were crying out for it, and the number produced are just about perfect for that smaller nation.
I worked on the YF-23 project for the partner firm, McDonnell Douglas, in the late 80's, before the competition award. A lot of people felt the choice of the F-22 was as much political as it was operational. Lockeed was having financial troubles at the time and DoD wanted them to stay whole. The cancellation of the YF-23 was a big blow to McDonnell Douglas, because around the same time, the A-12 Avenger got cancelled, although that was because of straight out screw-ups at the company and DoD. McDD got a big consolation prize with a go-ahead for the Super Hornet, which filled the holes left by the discontinuations of the F-14 and A-6. I really think they came out better in the end.
The YF-23 is that one kid that performs better than anyone else in training but nobody notice it and barely gets chosen by the coach to play in a match, and once he gets chosen by the coach to play he screws up and everyone thinks he sucks
The YF-23's shape is dictated by area ruling optimized for about Mach 1.5 cruise. So "filling in" the rear of the aircraft would result a large rise in supersonic wave drag. It is said the YF-23 is the best area ruled aircraft ever to fly.
Both fighters were so far ahead of the Soviet fighters that whichever one was picked would do the job. So it makes sense that they wanted to minimise risk. Some of the technology learnings probably went into the B-2 and B-21. Would be nice if a drone would someday be designed after the YF-23 as it’s such a beautiful looking airframe.
My favorite fighter is the yf23 and while watching this vid i realised that the pav-1 and pav-2 flew together on the nov 29th and that is my bday. this is a really cool coincidence. how many of u are born on nov 29th
By the time testing began the YF-23. Needed months in development. It wasn't capable of firing weapons and was over budget. It would have been great but ultimately it lost the race for the contract.
Superior in stealth (aka better at BVR) but in agility (aka WVR), that goes to the F-22, now need the best of both, maybe NGAD except 3D thrust vectoring instead of F22 2D?
The thrust vectoring is done by the missiles nowadays. With high off boresight missiles the plane no longer needs to be able to point its nose at the target. So NGAD will likely be focused on range, top speed, sensor and EW capability, and payload capacity. It should be basically a large, heavy, strike fighter/medium bomber in design, just packing a boat load of air to air missiles instead of only bombs.
YF-22 was stealthy enough and fast enough. It was better in dogfight and carried more missiles. Northrup was suffering from scandals, among those being cost overruns in the B-2 program. The YF-22 was cheaper... Being just slightly faster and just slightly more stealthy wasn't enough to justify awarding Northrup the ATF win
Looking back at the YF-22 and YF-23, and seeing the production F-22, a lot changed from the initial YF prototype. It looks more similar visually to its YF-23 competitor.
Three issues that weren't really covered here (one has been brought up by other commenters) - 1. Northrop couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag at the time, and were rocked with various scandal. 2. The weapons bay way narrow and tall in the YF23, necessitating ordinance be stacked. A jam or failure in the mechanism could have led to serious consequences. 3. Lockheed and Boeing didn't have an existing fighter or bomber contract at the time, so if Northrop got the ATF contract there would likely be job losses at the other two contractors. From all that I've read or seen online, it was a combination of 1 and 3 which really sealed the YF-23's fate. That likely isn't as a big a deal as many make it out to be. The production F-22 was far superior to the YF-22 in many ways (much improved wing and tail surfaces, improved stealth are the major aspects). Stealth, sensors and avionics have come a long way and today the F-23 would be looking just as dated as the F-22. The most missed feature of the F-23 would be the longer range, which would be greatly appreciated in the Pacific.
I was employed at Boeing during the YF-22/23 competition and the YF-23 was superior. Politics played a heavy hand of which landed the contract. The F-22 is a good aircraft but the YF-23 would have been better.
I've never heard or read anything about the YF-23 being able to do mach 2.6. Officially the to speed is mach 1.8 BUT anybody should see the F-15 has a total 50 000 lbs thrust and can do mach 2.5 clean. The YF-23 would have had 70 000 lbs thrust and far better aerodynamics. Mach 2.6 might actually be conservative I think mach 2.8 might have been possible. A production version was projected to have even better aero due to smaller engine nacelles.
Most fighters (and especially the F-15 and F-22) are engine overpowered so that they have acceleration and energy to sustain repeated agile movements for WVR BFM maneuvering and to kinematically defeat missile threats, so top speed is not limited by engine thrust, it's limited by heating of the canopy, sensors, on board munitions (for those that aren't exclusively internal carriage), RAM coating for stealth platforms, and the airframe to some extent. So in real world use the F-22 and the F-23 would have seen similar top speeds due to the above mentioned factors/technology being the same between them. Only with ceramic RAM coatings and advancements in engine design/intake design will NGAD be able to fly at higher top speeds. As is best known the F-15C was Mach 2.5-2.6 capable, the F-15EX is Mach 2.8-2.9, the F-22 is Mach 2.7-2.8, and the YF-23 was likely the same Mach 2.7-2.8 (while the YF-22 at the time was slower, but the F-22 has improved upon the YF-22's performance and become it's equal at this point).
wow now i know why many people said SU57 is look like YF23 more than F22 what a Beautiful Machine i wish i had a chance to watch them all at some air show but maybe it will never happen 😢
@@looseygoosey1349 i see many people said in many SU57 Vids that SU57 got so many thing adap from YF23 and when i got to see this video and they were right im not looking for debate or anything just want to said this i really like all of this Aircraft Design because i will never got a chance to see this irl because i live in Thailand and the only plane we have is F5 F16 and Griphen E i really jealous USA that have F15 F18 and F22 and Russia have many cool looking like SU35 and SU57
I have heard that The USA allowed Northrop to help Japan with its Gen 5.5 / 6 fighter project. Japan had all the avionics already built and tested but needed a better stealth airframe in a hurry due to pressures from China. There was talk of them adapting the YF-23 designs , but I have not heard anything since. Not even sure if Japan took up Nothrop's offer.
It all comes down to which aircraft did certain people invest in. Like applying for a job, going through the whole process, and the position is already given to someone.
I was a teenager during the YF-22/23 fly off and remember the news coverage showing the aircraft. The YF-22 looked like a more modern evolution of existing aircraft like the F-15, while the YF-23 truly looked futuristic to me. I was disappointed when it didn't win.
Really? I'd say they're much more similar between the two than compared to the F-15. The only three design differences an untrained eye would catch are the air intakes, the "diamond" wings, and the YF-23 having slightly sharper angles logitudinally, but I'd say the F-22 air intakes and rounded corners actually look more futuristic. Otherwise they're pretty similar to each other and either of them are very different from the F-15. If anything, the YF-23's sharper corners are more similar to the F-15. The only thing that really makes the YF-23 stand out are the diamond wings, but, to me, the F-22's wings also seem very futuristic compared to the F-15's.
I suppose if you're watching low res video, the diamond wings will stand out the most, though.
That's probably WHY it didn't win.
@@DrVictorVasconcelosNah. The YF23 is obviously very different in shape and layout to the F22. It literally looks like a sci-fi airplane.
@@Sajuuk "Nah." -is not a word, much less a sentence, but it is an indicator of how far we are ahead of the schedule shown in "Idiocracy."
@@DrVictorVasconcelos flight control surface configuration of the 23 was much more innovative
when i first saw the yf-23, i actually thought it was a 6th gen fighter that US was developing, and then i realised it was a plane of the 1990s...
6th gen won’t have pilots
@drummerdoingstuff5020 6th gen most likely will be a mothership aircraft flying with drones
Probably because of politics the same thing that held up the production of Britians wooden bomber before ww2 and Germans wooden bomber during ww2
imagine what they have now then
@@Shaungaming-ip7oj It basically still is
I worked on the P&W 5000 engines used in the fly-off and one aspect of the thrust vectoring that I've not seen mentioned in video's is how it facilitates Short Take Off performance which was one of the 'desired' specs. During test runs they go full AB then vector up 20 degrees then down 20 degrees with about a second each then back to level thrust. The up vector pushes the tail down before the control surfaces have achieved enough authority then the downward vector pushes the aircraft up and off the tarmac....it's now flying at a positive attitude and having more than 1:1 T/W off it goes. I've not seen a demonstration of this during airshows as it no doubt is more risky than a conventional take-off...but that ability is in there if they ever need it.
We were getting regular reports of the Fly-Off and heard that GE guys were phoning back to the plant saying they had it in the bag because they were a bit faster than us....but the AF had changed the fan requirements late and we'd run into problems making the new ones in time so were using the older design which had less performance. The AF knew that it was only a delay and took this into consideration and in reality both engines met EVERY specification and people claiming that GE's were significantly faster are stretching the definition of 'significant'. Slightly is more accurate.
Also never mentioned was why the P&W 5000 was chosen over the GE....it was because it was SO much easier to maintain as that had been high on the priority list. Conventional jet engines have so many pipes, wires and fittings that things tend to overlap and lots of things need to be removed to service just one part. That was part of our design that individual components could be replaced with minimal disturbance of others which greatly reduces the time required. The 5000 fastener count of individual part #'s is also very low which simplifies maintenance and the AF really liked this with the maintainers working on both engines universally choosing the P&W as the better engine. Hope this helps add some info.
That was very interesting, thank you.
That is very revealing as to why the Air Force chose the 22 over the 23. Obviously not the only reason but it really clarifies things considering all the opinions as to the 23 being “much faster” and capable. I really like both aircraft and I think both should have been used,22 as a fighter and 23 as a long range fighter/bomber.
That sounds like one of the things the F-15 SMTD was supposed to trial. But it had, although I think added later in the program, those huge honkin' canards to give a little bit of forward uplift. The canards were just F/A-18 tailplanes, if I remember right.
@@troyezell5841 If I remember right, both prototypes were faster in supercruise with the GE YF120 motor, perhaps because of 'variable ratio' features or whathaveyou being trialed by that engine. But as @recoilrob points out, the engines were also prototypes; the production F119-100 might have expanded since then on the initial versions' performance.
Also, both prototypes met the Air Force's requirement of "more than 1.5 Mach" without afterburner. As to which aircraft was faster at the top end, I doubt there could be much difference. Heating to the stealthy skin coatings, canopy, etc., is the rate limiting factor for the production F-22A at much above Mach 2, and those same considerations would apply just the same to a hypothetical F-23A..
Also also, the production F-22A is perhaps itself quite a bit quicker than it's prototype. It's publicly demonstrated 1.82 Mach, sans afterburner, and is rumored to be able to do about Mach 2. And then go to burner...this maybe isn't so far fetched. Consider that the Raptor has about as much thrust in military power as an F-15C in full afterburner, and the F-15 is not a slow aircraft. Plus the F119 motors are supposed to preserve a greater proportion of thrust at altitude from the static sea level benchmark.
@@n.w.1803You are right! I got to thinking about it and the tests I witnessed WERE with the STOL/ MTD nozzles which we built before the ATF versions.
The STOL/MTD F-15 had the canards in every picture I've ever seen of it and flew the rectangular nozzles to verify their flight characteristics then later a round vectoring nozzle. They got their money's worth out of that test program.
I have to admit that my thinking that the same performance would be achieved with the F-22's came from that earlier STOL/MTD experience and while I did have a hand in making the ATF engines and nozzles I can't say that I remember seeing one going through the same test running so that might just be an assumption and figment of old age. Could it have been 34 years ago already? Sucks getting old. :)
I really wish the YF-23 and YF-22 shared the same destiny as the F-16 and F/A-18.
Both great planes that were ultimately accepted.
There are some really badass graphics out there showing a navalized YF-23
Now that is a good take on it
@@lucasokeefe7935 too bad the navy got got bankrupt and opted for F/A-18.
Honestly the only way that could have happen is for the Soviet Union continue existing.
Agreed.
I've seen the YF-23 up close, and took many pics of her. She is a beautiful plane, and more so in person (I'm probably using terms that are not popular these days like referring to a plane as "She" but I'm old school that way).
I got to touch it, walk beneath the fuselage, took many pics of it when it was temporarily parked behind a local Torrance (Ca) business at the outer edge of Zamperini Field, in Torrance, Ca.
The version was the gray version, and of course all the Tech was removed ahead of time, (No engines, and canopy was blacked out)as to not be compromised in a public area where she ultimately was put.
I pass by her everyday to and from work, and now she's a part of the Western Museum of Flight, Torrance, California where she is proudly displayed. She still looks beautiful, and awe inspiring.
I've been there a couple of years ago. She's beautiful. I was a little disappointed that she was just parked outside the museum - to me that plane should be indoors. I'm not sure if that's the case now.
@vinylexplorer9817 I agree with you on that. I recently just commented on another video about the flight museum in Dayton, Ohio, where the other YF23 is kept immaculate and indoors.
I think that the Museum in Torrance, in keeping this beautiful plane outdoors, exposed to the elements, is disrespectful to this beautiful plane. And it's a shame they can't or won't find a better place to showcase her.
I think its totally acceptable to refer to the YF-23 as a she. Shes deadly and beautiful at the same time and as im sure we are all aware by now only a woman can fit this description
My understanding is that the contract mainly went to Lockheed because Northrop already had won the contract for the B2 over Lockheed and they had poured money into the project ($23 billion between 1981 and 1989, including a billion spent on redesigning the aircraft to be able to operate at low altitude), and military planners wanted to make sure they were not putting their eggs in one basket. Or at least that's the stated reason for going with what was on paper a worse aircraft - in practice I would imagine that Lockheed greasing some of the right palms helped too.
Shame though, the YF-23 is still an amazing looking aircraft - it looked futuristic in 1990 and IMO it still looks it now. Will be interesting to see if the rumors of a modernized version of the design being sold to Japan for their next generation fighter are true.
You are correct
Yea it was more about spreading the money around and keeping the corps happy over picking the best aircraft.
No that's just an excuse, and really weakest of the arguments for YF-22. There is no such thing as "all eggs in one basket" in US military planning and logistics. Factory is a factory, doesn't really matter who own it when fecals hit the fan. Famous WW2 Jeep never was Jeep's - it was designed and built by Willys, but since they didn't have the pproduction capacity for numbers needed, Jeep took over. Same will happen with ANY plant for ANY US military equipment - it will be taken over and/or plans will be given out to build another one. Now, spreading the money around - yeah, no duh, man, spot on and main reason.
It is true that in many respects YF-23 seems better than YF-22, but everyone forgets that testing of both concepts went for YEARS. And many of the YF-23's advantages may have been marginal - for example the heat dissipation. NOt saying it was a marketing only, just saying not good enough, for example. The point is that the assesment, where each plane was analyzed, compared and bottom-line'd was never declassified. So the video is a speculation at best and all we have is offcial info, which may very well be fake.
@@gmaacentralfounder The US Air Force clearly stated that the YF-23 was _significantly_ superior in stealth, range, acceleration and top speed, even when using the same engines as the YF-22 as it did in the first prototype. The only real advantage that the YF-22 had was low speed manoeuvrability due to the thrust vectoring. The Air Force themselves said they chose the inferior aircraft in most respects.
The reasons they gave were that while both aircraft exceeded their requirements , they thought the F-22 was more likely to be delivered on time, and third that Northrop were going to be heavily loaded delivering the B-2. I don't think any of those are the real reasons, so we're in agreement there.
And the differences in speed were considerable; Paul Metz has said that, while he is not allowed to give the numbers, the YF-23 was _much_ faster, not modestly faster. It could supercruise much faster than the YF-22, had better acceleration and had a much better maximum speed. The numbers are classified, those facts aren't, and those statements came from Paul Metz, one of the few people who flew both aircraft. The US Air Force themselves stated that the YF-23 had a significant advantage in stealth, particularly at longer wavelengths.
From reasonably reliable, publicly available sources my own view is that the US Air Force clearly chose the wrong aircraft.
lockheed is cia cover up company that's why they have most contracts in fascist state of america...
in the 43 years since 1981 it hasn't made any difference which plane was better. I'm sure though Yf23 could have shot down that balloon just as well as the F-22 did. Worrying about maneuverability at low air speeds over the ability for a infrared missile to lock on seemed silly.
Well at the time Russia had fighters with very good low speed performance and so I would imagine the airforce would want something that could tangle with them. Reduced IR is great but the advent of all aspect missiles made leaning that direction risky. Russias air to air missiles of that era were nothing to scoff at and their ability to run you down off bore sight was something scary. I would assume they figured the raptor was a good compromise of still having really good stealth while still being able to fight close up if the gap ever got closed.
I'm just speculating of course but to me it seems like the airforce wasn't ready to fully embrace the ultimate BVR monster that is the F-23 and leaving a vulnerability of potentially having to face the modern SU fighters in close range with F-15s and F-16s. They needed something to match thrust vectoring the Russians had first before really putting their chips onto a long range stealth BVR fighter. Once the Soviet Union really fell apart we didn't feel the need to fill that roll anymore.
@@flotsamike best take I’ve read about the two big dogs. Spot on
Boyd would have taken issue with it.
It seems silly but at the time they expected an opposing counterpart.
Sure, a 5th generation fighter that's invisible could easily engage 4th generation Su-27s and Mig-29s and J11s while itself being immune to being locked with a weapons-grade solution.
But what happens if a 5th generation fighter and another 5th generation fighter meet in combat? AWACs may be able to detect it on SOME frequencies, but can't provide a weapons lock, and neither can the fighters radars.
They can merely direct their units towards where the enemy units are. I think the decades of BVR missiles in a world of 3rd and 4th generation fighters has made us think merges are unusual or almost never happen.
But when they thought an adversary 5th generation fighter was just around the corner, actual real and genuine dogfights with short range, agile IR missiles and guns was NOT silly.
They expected 5th generation fighters to close the distance with one another, because the BVR capabilites could have been non applicable.
Now that's not how history played out, but perhaps in the next 2 decades the skies will be full of radar resistant and low observaility craft.
Yeah. The YF 23 would have been replaced by the F -35 just as easily as the F 22 was. Replaced by an aircraft that can't even fly super sonic without melting it's paint off.
Northrop guy here. The YF23 was better than the YF22. The modern F22 is far superior to both. Could the same be said of a F23 of it had happened? Im sure of it.
If you haven't I would encourage you to watch the documentary about the YF23 and its test footage, It seriously blew my mind when I saw the fly by wire systems detecting small bumps in the runway and moving the flight control surfaces accordingly, truly impressive for its time!
That was considered a bug in the FBW system. The control laws were rewritten to stop that when full weight was detected on the landing gear.
Oh yes apologies, I should have mentioned that but I still think even though it was a bug the fact that it could still detect the bumps really says a lot about the technology and its capabilities within the YF23 and I appreciate that you mentioned that :)
Yeah go watch videos of the YF-16 taxing around. It does the same thing.
One of the only two protypes of the YF-23 is available for public viewing at the Western Museum of Flight in Torrance, CA. Well worth it.
For those on the other side of the country the other prototype is on display at the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.
@@beauwulf I've been to see it, was great.
7:45 saweet JEEZUS what a gorgeous framing!!
It didnt click with me but when you highlighted it i looked again and omg its beautiful photography
Ironically an evolved YF-23 design is what needed now
Range, stealth, and payload is what is required out of airframe these days. It definitely has the first two. It looks like it would have been able to be designed with greater internal payload than f22.
“Ironically” the NGAD is not being based on the YF-23.
I wonder why…..
@@JohnFrumFromAmerica
Modernizing the design with today's tech would easy get the other two
@@peterwebb8732
They have strangely opted for clean sheet design which again leaves the YF-23 as wasted potential
@@verdebusterAP I don't think it's strange. The airframe design is not the biggest cost of this program. The biggest cost is likely the electronic package. Fluid dynamics software is so good these days they can design a clean sheet design in the computer and have very high confidence of it working.
The YF 23 was a damn large beast.
It's actually smaller than the Soviet Flanker series.
exactly what the US needs right now, larger fighter with much greater range
@KiingOfKombat Bigger size does not necessarily mean bigger range. The P51 was smaller than the P 38 or the P 47, but had better range
@@walterpleyer261 It's not about the range, but about the amount of missiles it can carry. Also, I have no doubt that both Su-27/35S and F-15C/EX can fly much longer than F-22
I have seen one in person (in a museum in California). It's not big, to be honest. But by far, my favorite plane.
the yf23 was undoubtedly a stunning looking aircraft
Jack Northrup was always ahead of the curve. YB-49 for example. That creative genius tended to work against him. Until years later the consensus of the experts was that Northrup was right.
Please respect Mr. NorthrOp by spelling his name correctly.
@@dr.erikbarrington3621 What I'm hearing you say is that the naysayers couldn't say he was wrong anymore, as he was proven right in front of the world...
And the only way to save face was to admit he was right.
i see yf-23 video i click and like immediately
Yup. And add it to my -22/-23 playlist.
@@ronjon7942 based
Wicked little machine. Like a perfected eurofighter.
When I was a kid I grew up in Palmdale, California and I was fortunate enough. To see the YF23 in flight many times
I lived out there and never saw the thing fly once. This project was pretty secretive and wasn't being flown out of Palmdale where everyone can see. They probably tested at Area 51. My friend was stationed at Edwards and took me to see the F-22 when it was still not officially acknowledged after they just received their first F-22's. This was in 94.
If I if I remember right in high school when I was at highland high that's where we used to see it the most when it was the YF 23 it was being flight tested out of Edwards Air Force Base I did see The hourglass on the bottom of it from my school hell the sr-72 just got filmed above Palmdale 3 months ago
@@Davivd2 if you look it helps if you look up furthermore secretive or not being part of the advanced tactical fighter program . Being hosted at the Rogers dry lake bed facility otherwise known as Edwards Air Force Base.../ plant42 It was not hard at all to obtain the scheduling of test flights. 99 % of them are during the day because they're not to break the sound barrier after sunset.. My neighbor right next door worked on classified projects for Lockheed.. he never talked about what he did but he would tell us when to go look for the cool planes I got to see an f-117 long before the the Gulf war
Ok. I played a very small part of YF-22. But, the point is, I was there. Watching the flight test programs super closely. After all, my job literally depended on it.
Point 1:
YF-22 was one of the most ambitious and successful flight test programs ever. We did a lot more than we had to. It demonstrated reduced risk for the AF and the taxpayer. You can also see the risk point play out in the AF selecting the P&W engines vs the GE. The Pratt was an evolutionary engine while the GE was revolutionary.
Point 2:
The YF-22 was a fighter plane that was very stealthy while the 23 was a stealth plane with fighter capability. The 22 aligned better with the lessons learned from Gulf War 1.
All that said, I feel that the 23 is one of the most beautiful fighter aircraft ever and I wish it had been produced for a different customer or role. Just to see them flying. Just gorgeous.
Certainly an awe inspiring chapter in aviation history. Can't wait to see what the new 6th Gen fighters will be! Hard to believe the F-22 is this old!
the 23 is ugly as hell. the f22 literally is the sexiest fighter ever built. that diamond body fuselage looks stupid
@@nomercyinc6783 : F-22 is much prettier plane than YF-22 was. That said, this is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone describe YF-23 as “uglier than hell”.
@@nomercyinc6783It does not matter about how a plane looks, it look like what it looks for a reason.
@@gregjennings9442 what's Gulf War? That was like a merry making farmed duck shoot in your backyard pond.
I have seen both the YF23 and YF23 prototypes at the US Airforce Museum, both are spectacular. I was surprised you can get so close to them. My read is Lockheed had at the time a much better track record of delivering working aircraft within expected budgets and this was the deciding factor. The USAF did not trust Northrop to deliver the F23 without significant delays and cost overruns.
That is a true statement also McDonnell Douglas just had the totally disastrous A-12 project for the Navy.
What 'is' over looked is that Northrop was overcoming the problems on the manufacturing of the B-2. The same management that ended up producing the B-21 ahead of schedule. (Going from memory on that)
The main reason they went with the f-22 over the yf-23 was they could not figure out the contrail problem with the 23. During normal flight, the 23 had a habit of giving off massive contrails that gave away its position. Northrop tried multiple redesigns to try to fix the problem and simply could not. It was a superior craft in many ways, but one of the main goals was stealth. It's hard to be stealthy when you are giving off air show quality contrails just flying into AOE.
Edit: I made this comment before actually watching the video and can't believe the contrail issue wasn't mentioned. The AF literally admitted at the time that the contrail issue was the main decider on who won the contract. You can see the issue during the flight sequences in the video alone. This was not held secret in any way. I was a second year Aerospace student when the decision was made and it was even in the scholastic Aerospace magazine we had at the time. Again, the main goal for the RFI was stealth, and the contrails were just too much. And full disclosure, I was fully team YF-23, but understood the decision. Last, the AF liked the YF-23 so much, they had a committee try to find an alternative use for the craft, but the cost per aircraft was too prohibitive.
I read thrust vectoring and orthodox design was the clincher. I've never heard of the contrail problem. The YF 22 had massive rudders and stabilisers unlike the production version. In supercruise top speed was decided by the type of engine. You can just see how manoeuvrable the 22 was compared to 23 which I dont think could pull 9 G just by how long it was. Also 22 was way more stealthier from the rear with fan blade shielding. Northrop was a master of all round stealth and Lockheed focused on X band only.
If I was to enter a heavily SAM protected region without support I would choose the F23 but to face another 5 gen fighter, I would choose the F22 every time.
Never heard that. At altitude, pretty much all jet engines make contrails because there is some water in the fuel. Gets vaporized and re-condenses into clouds as it hits the air that’s 100 below zero. Never heard of this even being an issue much less having anything to do with the final decision of the 22 over the 23.
Wow, fascinating.... I've never heard about this.
GREAT video!! About twenty years ago I had a conversation with one of the engineers who worked on the YF-23. He told me that the YF-23 beat the YF-22 by ten decibels at the radar range. (No, he did not tell me what angles nor what radar frequencies.) If my math is correct, this would imply a reduction in detection range of about 44 percent.
@@dl6519 HOLY SHIT ! #RiggedGame
@@intel2133 it wasn't rigged. It was a choice. The Air Force picked a dogfighting specialist over a BVR specialist.
I first saw the YF-23 as a child in a video game I was playing and it quickly became my favourite aircraft in the game. Already having a love for aircraft. When I found out that it actually existed in real life I was so excited I kept bothering my grandfather (who shared my interest in aircraft) with questions and information about the plane for weeks.
I too first saw the YF23 in a video game, i think one of the big baddies had it and it was ridiculously good and futuristic
Then found out years later that it was a real aircraft designed 20 years before my mind was blown
Im now in love with it
I'm so glad that they didn't scrap the 2 YF-23s, because this design is where future aircraft are headed.
No, it isn't. Quite a useless production line. Hopes they get rid o' them.
@@prosto_potomuwto yes it is lmao all designs for the next gen are closer to the 23 than the 22 as the 22 is yes still ahead on stealth but lacking in performance frame wise.
incorrect. the 5th gen yf23 isnt the groundwork for the ngad fighter program at all. civilians that dont work at companies like lockheed dont know any classified information
@@prosto_potomuwtoI thgouht you said that the YF-23 was superior?
YF-23’s top speed is still classified, and that alone says something.
Both are still classified. To put something into perspective, the Draken J35 had a top of Mach 2.3 and that was during the 50-60's. Imagine what they could do now.
Probably near to mach 3...
The YF-23 super cruise speed is classified. Neither YF demonstrator ever reached 'top speed'. The top speed of both demonstrators (22/23) is about the same because of materials, thermo limitations and fixed geometry intakes.
And the security was so tight for this other security was lacked....Look at How the China has an aircraft carrier, tanks, destroyers, and planes now.... Using basic college course, the algorithm can calculate the speed😀PS...tactic of diverting the public attentions.
@@DrsharpRothstein Excellent. I really wonder if thrust vectoring, avionics and material science of F-22 could be blended with YF23's Diamond wing shape, what might be possible... Cheers!
YF-23 was a beauty
I think the real reason why the Northrop YF-23 didn't win the competition was because at that time Northrop had the B-2 contract. As well as huge cost overruns.
THIS, 100%
It was said below... the YF-22 would have been a better dogfighter. If you're looking for an air dominance fighter, it needs to be able do get into, and dominate, the dogfight. The YF-23 was more stealthy and probably overall faster. Personally, I think BOTH should have been produced. The F-22 would have filled exactly the role it did. A production F-23 would have been a fantastic escort for the B-2 and later B-21 as the F-23 would have been stealthy enough to not give away the presence of a stealth bomber. That's a role and capability that the F-22 probably can't do. Given that some possible designs of the NGAD look like they're derived from the YF-23... this may be what they're going to use the NGAD for.
Better dog fighter is a stretch. Lockheed always uses the term agile, but not more maneuverable. Marketing gimmick. It was never tested against each other but I’d imagine the thrust vector nozzles, at best, compensated for the smaller surface area to match the yf23. Not even going to factor how much energy would be lost doing.
You cant compare YF-23 with an F-22 ..
F-22 is far superior in every single aspect to both YF-22 and YF-23, that's the mistake the guy who made this video did as well.
He also forgot to mention that the F-22 is a combination of BOTH YF-22 and YF-23 ...
Heck, the *F-22 even used the EXACT same Engines of the YF-23.*
So yea, you do expect as much power back then, obviously today they have an improved version.
Jesus, unveiling of both in 1990. This goes to [prove] that the US has been working on 6th gen for at least 15 years…do we now think 7th gen is on the drawing board?
Two different airplanes built to requirements that evolved during the competition, but LM was more agile in responding. The YF-23 was a beautiful airplane for what the requirements, but thrust vectoring alone would not solve the high AOA configuration performance in that regime with the tech at the time. The single weapons bay was also a problem in the event they had a hung load. I would have loved to see this navalized in a way different than the NATF configuration proposed. It could have been a formidable replacement for the F-14.
The F-23 never found a place in the sky but it will always find a place in our hearts.
Pretty crazy to realise that the less-capable plane from that 1990s competition is still unmatched 30-some years down the road
It was not "less capable", it was superior in different areas. Both designs were excellent, the F-22 was simply further along in development at the time of testing. It probably won on the basis of being able to launch weapons during the fight tests. Something the YF-23 demonstrators could not do.
Its not less capable, if anything the YF-22 and YF-23 were superior over in some areas over the other that it basically balances them out
The F-22 was more maneuvrable and carried a little more missiles, and the YF-23 was faster and stealthier, you cant say either is more or less capable really
The F-22 was definitely less capable, since the whole purpose of a 5th gen air superiority fighter is to never get into a dogfight in the first place. Northrop understood the true potential, just like they did with the B-2. The USAF still hadn't learned how effective stealth was, and thus both programs were degraded to better accomplish mission sets that were obsolete (F-22 dogfighting and B-2 low-level penetration). Only now with the B-21 and NGAD have they learned and optimized for low RCS missions over kinematic performance.
Not unmatched, just merely hanging on. The entire mess and the truncated program and the current state of “Who's on First? “ because O’bama and SOD Bill Gates.
Barack Hussein Obama, cutting the defense budget to the bone. The military was reduced to scavenging parts from other plane for repair and maintenance…among a litany of boondoggles.
Trump turned the sorry state of affairs and conditions facing the military, and the Pentagon brass and paper pusher repaid President Trump by betraying him. Conducting secret commissions with the Chinese Military and Xi Jing Ping…they’ll disobey and give them head’s up on any military commands by President Trump. Treacherous rats nest.
Unmatched? What has the F 22 done to prove that position? Thirty years on yet still the best? Time moves on and makes everything old.
In a parellel universe, people are watching this same video and having the same arguements about "what if," just in reverse :-)
yh but the yf23 looks so much better, all universe' agree on that
Wow. those two planes fascinated me since childhood but the quality of this video is equal fascinating!
I love the sleek design. There's a YF23 on display at the Western Museum of flight at Zamperini Field. I live closeby so I sometimes drive by to take a look at it. Such a beauty.
Very pleased to hear you report the transpiration cooling in the exhaust troughs. That's one way you can always tell the crappy channels from the good ones - the crap ones always say the YF-23 had ceramic tiles in the troughs.
IIRC, one of the determining factors given for selecting the YF-22 was the belief by NAVAIR that the F-22 would be more feasible to adapt a version for carrier use than the YF-23, and there was a thought that (like the F-4 Phantom before it), having the Navy and Air Force use variants of the same basic airframe as the baseline for their primary fighters would be advantageous.
Note, theis would have been in addition to the JSF (the program that selexted the F-35). The JSF was going to replace F-16s in the Air Force and F-18s in the Navy, and the ATF/NATF program were going to replace the F-15 and F-14, respectively - this would maintain the planned High/Low mix that had been working so well for both services so far, with a highly capable "top" fighter backed up by a slightly less capable but far more affordable (and, important to the Navy trying to fit the max airframe on a carrier, *smaller* fighter) they could buy and field in larger numbers
f22 was a peace time fighter, now they wind has changed and we need an evolved yf23
What a shame, wish it would have turned out like the F16 - F18 drama story, would have been kool to have the F23 in the toolbox as well.
Best clue: the 6th Gen F-22 replacement is a hell of a lot more similar to the F-23 than the F-22. Same story on the engine chosen for each.
Mmmmhm, signed the old FDA hey?
Huh? No it didn’t bud. They went for a different design for the images currently that the public speculates lmao
@@Gyyghhhhjjjkk Well, bud, no one writing here actually knows the final form. Tail feathers, if it has them, will not include separate rudders. Thematically, it will fully embrace stealth 1st, maneuvering 2nd, like the YF-23. And the variable cycle engine will owe a great deal to the GE one they passed on.
@@ElsinoreRacer If no one writing here knows, then why are you writing here, making objective claims.
I agree that it's very likely that the NGAD will focus on stealth over maneuverability. I just hope that it's not over- relied upon to the point where it becomes venerable.
Even as an American, I have a hard time believing that every aircraft the US has is the absolute best. Across the internet, time and again I see post after post about how not only is whatever the US fields better than everything else. But also that everything the US has today doesn't quite measure up to what it replaced or had yesterday. There's no shortage of people that argue that the FA18 isn't as good as the F14, that the F35 isn't as good as the F16, with some even saying that the F22 isn't as good as the F15. It's also amusing that in every comparison between the F35 and F16, that the first and last thing mentioned is maneuverability. Yet when the it's the F22 being compared to basically anything, maneuverability apparently isn't so important anymore. We have all our adversaries beat when it comes to stealth, but not so much on maneuverability. I just hope that instead of trying to compete on the maneuverability aspect, that our military industrial complex hasn't simply declared it no longer relevant, deciding to instead cruise along with our current stealth advantage. We've already learned our lesson on dogfighting once during Vietnam. It's baffling to me that so many insist that we learn it again. Furthermore, while maneuverability is (or at least should be by now) a known quantity, stealth really isn't. We really don't know exactly what our adversaries are capable of detecting and targeting, as that's one area the US appears to be behind in.
Just food for thought.
@@peteblackburn7850 They picked between stealth and maneuverability. They picked maneuver, events picked stealth, as is the direction of the 6th gen. My only point. So we agree. Extra tidbits: Not entirely sure why, but it is generally agreed that the 23 was more amenable to weapons bay expansion....the great limiting factor of the 22. In all of this, the 23 was compromised by provisions for a thrust reverser (in-flight) that was part of the original requirement. That space and other compromises should have been re-purposed or discounted in the test results.
I've always said the F-23 should have been the F-14 replacement. It's long range would have been perfect for the Navy. Much better option than the short leg Hornet.
Unfortunately, the F-23 would have been too long to fit between the head of the catapult track & the jet blast deflectors on American carriers. Simply wouldn’t fit.
As things turned out, there never was a navalized version of the shorter F-22 either.
@@johnrusac6894 very interesting. Thanks
The YF-22 would have been a better fit for the Navy. The YF-23 was not really suited for carrier operations.
I fell in love with this plane when I unlocked it in Ace Combat 7. The silhouette of the V-tail and diamond shaped wings just screams "futuristic stealth fighter"
Yf23 looks like its closer to what the Air Force is looking for in the NGAD interms of airframe. Of course the main technology breakthrough of NGAD will be the electronics.
Exactly Which is why I think that the YF-23 is the superior Airframe.
The common thing that pilots said that caught them by surprise about going against the F-22 in Training was not its
maneuverability but its speed. IF the YF-23 was faster and had a stealthier design, its without a doubt better.
Also maneuverability doesnt matter much as dog fighting is for the most part dead.
@@looseygoosey1349 yf23 could be a better airframe for today's needs but f22 could have fit the original requirements better. Both are probably the best fighters ever developed even up to this point.
@@looseygoosey1349 The limitation on sustained speed is the canopy, the sensors, and the RAM coating primarily, and the airframe to some extent, and nothing about the YF-23 would have been able to be better in those aspects than the YF-22/F-22, so it is a distinction without a difference. Dogfighting is not dead, when a stealth plane goes up against another stealth plane their detection and engagement range is greatly reduced, and with closing speeds being what they are, unless they fire and immediately turn away to defeat inbound missiles they are basically at the merge as soon as they get lock on to launch their own missiles. The only reason kinematic performance is less valued in a dog fight is due to the development of high off boresight short range missiles that do not require the launching aircraft to point its nose at the target in order to engage it. But short range fights will most definitely still occur.
@JohnFrumFromAmerica
The YF-23 fit the ATF requirements far better than YF-22. The original requirements were to penetrate Soviet air defenses from unexpected direction get behind the Soviet front line and destroy Soviet AWACS and fighter formations as they were forming before they could get the the front line. Everything about the YF-23 design beets the F-22 in those regards.
This is by far my new favorite TH-cam channel
Which is better? It is according to the requirements! The YF-23 was more stealthy, the YF-22 was more maneuverable.
Crazy tech for 1990
So the states have retired one stealth design, rejected at least 4 more that made it to prototype stage and now has 2 in service?
Your numbers are wrong. F-117s are still flying, B-2s, F-22s, F-35s are all in service, not to mention lots of unmanned systems and several more that the public doesn't know about.
@@zacklewis342 we have 4 stealth planes in service. 1 is on the way
You see the benefits of great engineering and the madness of Governments converge.
One of the YF-23's can ce viewed at the Western Museum of Flight in Torrance, CA USA.
To all the experts in the comment and to the guy who made this video:
*You missed 1 CRUCIAL fact, the YF-23 MIGHT have been comparable to the YF-22, but is no where NEAR the tech of an F-22.*
Those are 2 different aircrafts, in fact, the F-22 is a combination of BOTH YF-22 and YF-23 which is based on the frame of the YF-22.
*F-22 even used the EXACT same Engines of the YF-23.*
So yea, you do expect as much power back then, obviously today they have an improved version.
You can clearly see that the F-22 is fined and smoothed out as much as the YF-23, opposite to the YF-22 which was not.
There is no argue about it even.
It should be noted that the current F-22 is significantly different airframe than the YF-22, and that during its development, it benefited greatly from things learned from the YF-23 program.
That being said...
Things that played against the YF-23:
- There were concerns over its exhaust's heat tiles, which would've required maintenance (and thus longer turn-around times) after each flight (not unlike the space shuttle).
- The tail layout also drew concerns with regards to damage/redundancy. The 23's yaw/pitch surfaces are limited to the 2 ruddervators, whereas the 22's yaw/pitch are controlled by the 2 stabs + 2 canted rudders + 2 TVC.
- The 23 also had a two-level central missile bay, which meant that if a missile on the lower level misfired, the one above it was also lost; not an issue with the 22, whose missiles were all side by side.
- LockMart had a better record with the USAF with regards to cost and delivering on schedule (e.g. F-117), compared to Northrop's less enviable record with the B-2.
- Even though neither YF's had radars or a gun during the flyoff, the 22 was nonetheless able to fire missiles (which it did), something the YF-23 was not able to do at the time (first impressions matter).
Imagine an xb-70 being escorted by two YF-23’s all painted black. They would look futuristic even today.
They were also worried the YF23 would cost too much, which with hindsight of the numerous costly set backs of the F22 is ironic made worse by the fact the YF23 had a parts that were already in service, the landing gear was from the F18 and modified, the nose and cockpit from the F15. I heard another reason but I don't know how true it is, they picked Lockheed and Boeing was because they wanted companies other than Grumman to work on stealth aircraft, which doesn't really make sense since Lockheed made the F117, maybe it meant newer stealth but idk.
The "off the shelf" parts were only for the technology demonstrator. New landing gear would be required because the heavier aircraft needed more powerful breaks than those supplied by the F-18 main landing gear.
The cockpit displays for a production F-23 would be a all new glass display to handle the increased information load of a modern fighter.
We need atleast 10 of them in service i still remember that
Excellent stuff bro
Paul metz lecture on yf23 and 22 revealed that yf23 could maneuver just as well as yf22 and 23 was quite a bit faster than 22. Watch his lecture. He is the only pilot who flew both yf23 and yf22, he should know.
imagine both winning contracts seeing both fighter jets flying along side is epic
Since the initial contest, range has become much more important, maneuverability has become somewhat less important, and the importance of stealth has been confirmed. Also, the benefit of thrust vectoring has become less important because F-22 pilots soon realized that vectoring causes enormous energy loss. Thus the YF-23 now compares more favorably. Its advantages (greater range and slightly greater stealth) have increased in importance while its disadvantages (a bit less maneuverable and lack of thrust vectoring) have decreased in importance.
I think they should have bought a small amount of YF23s for super stealth missions along with fleet of F22s
I can’t ever get enough of this beaut
This competition was originally for 600+ aircraft. In hindsight, since less than 200 F-22s were ever produced due to budget cuts, they should have gotten both platforms albeit in reduced numbers.
The only judge should be pilots flying each for comparison and delivery pricetag
The YF-23 started out behind because they did not fulfill the requirements of the Request For Proposal. The RFP stipulated that the aircraft was supposed to have thrust vectoring capabilities. The fact that the Air Force picked that design to compete with the YF-22 is a testament to how good the design was. In fact it may have been too advanced for the top brass to feel confident in its abilities.
100% the reason.
When they stopped production of the F-22 after 187 were built, it's obvious that too few were built to fulfill its role. The entire production run should have been sold to Japan. The Japanese were crying out for it, and the number produced are just about perfect for that smaller nation.
It's the best fighter jet in world today. We should produce a modern version today. Put the avionics in it and the engines and weapons
Sounds like someone sabotaged the fuel to the f-23 to win the contract for the f-22.
Both beautiful birds.
100%. Shame its not in service right now.
I worked on the YF-23 project for the partner firm, McDonnell Douglas, in the late 80's, before the competition award. A lot of people felt the choice of the F-22 was as much political as it was operational. Lockeed was having financial troubles at the time and DoD wanted them to stay whole. The cancellation of the YF-23 was a big blow to McDonnell Douglas, because around the same time, the A-12 Avenger got cancelled, although that was because of straight out screw-ups at the company and DoD. McDD got a big consolation prize with a go-ahead for the Super Hornet, which filled the holes left by the discontinuations of the F-14 and A-6. I really think they came out better in the end.
The YF-23 is that one kid that performs better than anyone else in training but nobody notice it and barely gets chosen by the coach to play in a match, and once he gets chosen by the coach to play he screws up and everyone thinks he sucks
Does anyone know why they didn't smooth out the top of the aircraft? It looks like they could have made more internal volume with no impact on drag?
one possible reason is in the planning stage to account for limited time and material
thes argument was formed in a spur of time
The YF-23's shape is dictated by area ruling optimized for about Mach 1.5 cruise. So "filling in" the rear of the aircraft would result a large rise in supersonic wave drag. It is said the YF-23 is the best area ruled aircraft ever to fly.
@@DrsharpRothstein nice one :)
As they say, all aircraft have four main dimensions: length, width, height and politics. The YF-23 only got the first three right.
Facts
Yu Ping Liu was the chief scientist of the YF 23 program. He was also a stealth engineer of the B2 program.
Awesome video!
Both fighters were so far ahead of the Soviet fighters that whichever one was picked would do the job. So it makes sense that they wanted to minimise risk.
Some of the technology learnings probably went into the B-2 and B-21. Would be nice if a drone would someday be designed after the YF-23 as it’s such a beautiful looking airframe.
My favorite fighter is the yf23 and while watching this vid i realised that the pav-1 and pav-2 flew together on the nov 29th and that is my bday. this is a really cool coincidence. how many of u are born on nov 29th
The B2 had insane cost overruns that definitely played a role
By the time testing began the YF-23. Needed months in development. It wasn't capable of firing weapons and was over budget. It would have been great but ultimately it lost the race for the contract.
"potential purchasers may not be technically astute": you're officially my new diplomatic guru :D
Superior in stealth (aka better at BVR) but in agility (aka WVR), that goes to the F-22, now need the best of both, maybe NGAD except 3D thrust vectoring instead of F22 2D?
The thrust vectoring is done by the missiles nowadays. With high off boresight missiles the plane no longer needs to be able to point its nose at the target. So NGAD will likely be focused on range, top speed, sensor and EW capability, and payload capacity. It should be basically a large, heavy, strike fighter/medium bomber in design, just packing a boat load of air to air missiles instead of only bombs.
I think they should revisit this aircraft today, base the new fxx on the yf23 and just keep upgrading the f22 in its own path to remain dominant
I reckon the YF23 went black and is out there...in a more advanced version that we'll never hear about.
F22 was designed for a near peer fighter that never materialized. Hence having 2 balloons to its name since going into service.
I really hope they start up yf23, it has such an innovative design
1:37 for me those two in the middle and YF-22 were good looking design.. the top looks bigger because of its wing tail..
YF-22 was stealthy enough and fast enough. It was better in dogfight and carried more missiles. Northrup was suffering from scandals, among those being cost overruns in the B-2 program. The YF-22 was cheaper... Being just slightly faster and just slightly more stealthy wasn't enough to justify awarding Northrup the ATF win
I'm a YF-23 fanboy, but you are right. I believe the F-22 had the edge on ease of maintenance as well.
Looking back at the YF-22 and YF-23, and seeing the production F-22, a lot changed from the initial YF prototype. It looks more similar visually to its YF-23 competitor.
Three issues that weren't really covered here (one has been brought up by other commenters) - 1. Northrop couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag at the time, and were rocked with various scandal. 2. The weapons bay way narrow and tall in the YF23, necessitating ordinance be stacked. A jam or failure in the mechanism could have led to serious consequences. 3. Lockheed and Boeing didn't have an existing fighter or bomber contract at the time, so if Northrop got the ATF contract there would likely be job losses at the other two contractors. From all that I've read or seen online, it was a combination of 1 and 3 which really sealed the YF-23's fate.
That likely isn't as a big a deal as many make it out to be. The production F-22 was far superior to the YF-22 in many ways (much improved wing and tail surfaces, improved stealth are the major aspects). Stealth, sensors and avionics have come a long way and today the F-23 would be looking just as dated as the F-22. The most missed feature of the F-23 would be the longer range, which would be greatly appreciated in the Pacific.
Nice video!
I was employed at Boeing during the YF-22/23 competition and the YF-23 was superior. Politics played a heavy hand of which landed the contract. The F-22 is a good aircraft but the YF-23 would have been better.
I've never heard or read anything about the YF-23 being able to do mach 2.6. Officially the to speed is mach 1.8 BUT anybody should see the F-15 has a total 50 000 lbs thrust and can do mach 2.5 clean. The YF-23 would have had 70 000 lbs thrust and far better aerodynamics. Mach 2.6 might actually be conservative I think mach 2.8 might have been possible. A production version was projected to have even better aero due to smaller engine nacelles.
Most fighters (and especially the F-15 and F-22) are engine overpowered so that they have acceleration and energy to sustain repeated agile movements for WVR BFM maneuvering and to kinematically defeat missile threats, so top speed is not limited by engine thrust, it's limited by heating of the canopy, sensors, on board munitions (for those that aren't exclusively internal carriage), RAM coating for stealth platforms, and the airframe to some extent. So in real world use the F-22 and the F-23 would have seen similar top speeds due to the above mentioned factors/technology being the same between them. Only with ceramic RAM coatings and advancements in engine design/intake design will NGAD be able to fly at higher top speeds. As is best known the F-15C was Mach 2.5-2.6 capable, the F-15EX is Mach 2.8-2.9, the F-22 is Mach 2.7-2.8, and the YF-23 was likely the same Mach 2.7-2.8 (while the YF-22 at the time was slower, but the F-22 has improved upon the YF-22's performance and become it's equal at this point).
The YF23 was what the F35 is now. Back then, BVR was just not yet as hot of a topic as it is now
i think it was called black widow not spider, hence the red hourglass that was painted on the bottom
I think the 23 should be remade as a sixth generation fighter. It was ahead of the curve when it was designed.
Along with XF 32/XF 35. This competition that i was followed. Both of my favorite were lost to the competition 😊
X-32 was butt ugly though.
you like that ugly whale plane?
The McDD design that didn't get down-selected was cool though. Kind of a single engined cross between YF-23 and F-35.
wow now i know why many people said SU57 is look like YF23 more than F22 what a Beautiful Machine i wish i had a chance to watch them all at some air show but maybe it will never happen 😢
lol the SU-57 is not like the YF-23. It wishes it was.
@@looseygoosey1349 i see many people said in many SU57 Vids that SU57 got so many thing adap from YF23 and when i got to see this video and they were right im not looking for debate or anything just want to said this i really like all of this Aircraft Design because i will never got a chance to see this irl because i live in Thailand and the only plane we have is F5 F16 and Griphen E i really jealous USA that have F15 F18 and F22 and Russia have many cool looking like SU35 and SU57
@@StarLinx9740you have better planes than Russia as they work as advertised. :)
They would’ve been better off if they made the YF-23 lol.
When I saw the YF 23 in person my first thought was " why is this thing static ?"
MAN if only, LOVETHISPLANE, also check out Macross Plus is kinda the story, but one plane being the SU 47 Berkut the other YF 23
sure looks cooler
I have heard that The USA allowed Northrop to help Japan with its Gen 5.5 / 6 fighter project. Japan had all the avionics already built and tested but needed a better stealth airframe in a hurry due to pressures from China. There was talk of them adapting the YF-23 designs , but I have not heard anything since. Not even sure if Japan took up Nothrop's offer.
It all comes down to which aircraft did certain people invest in. Like applying for a job, going through the whole process, and the position is already given to someone.
Japan has shown great interest in the yf-23, a Japanese fighter based on the 23 it's currently being worked