Only This Plane Could Beat The F-22 Raptor
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- Only This Plane Could Beat The F-22 Raptor.
Experts and testers claim that the YF-23 outperformed its competitor in many ways. How did it happen that the YF-22 went into the series, which received the F-22 combat index and the name of Raptor? Does the US Air Force brass have a dirty little secret?
Let's figure it out.
Let's start with a little background. In 1981, the Pentagon announced a competition under the ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter) program. The newly elected President of the United States, Ronald Reagan, canceled the detente policy towards the USSR. The money flowed, and the Pentagon revived the program of creating a B-1 bomber capable of carrying nuclear weapons.
For the creation of a new 5th generation fighter, colossal funds of more than 86 billion dollars were allocated from the military budget! This is the most expensive project in the history of military aviation.
#plane #only #f-22 #raptor #daily #aviation
For copyright matters please contact us at:
jad71064223@gmail.com
as the saying goes.... northrup gave the air force what they asked for.... lockheed gave the air force what they wanted
the 22 was cheaper so we paid for it and got japan to buy the 23's and now we have a fleet of 23's that "doesn't exist" until they need to be called on or something like North Korea
"YF-23 was not faster. This is an outright lie, the intake design limited it to mach 2.2 the same as the F22, and neither jet reached their top speed in testing.
The engine which gave the YF-23 better cruise performance was cancelled. The YF23’s cruise performance has been exceeded by the production F22 anyway.
Production F23A was going to use a different intake design. The intakes on the YF23 were not actually stealthy and Northeop knew it.
The production intakes would be similar to those of the F35, but underneath the aircraft, which would limit the top speed even further.
YF23 failed the missile capacity requirements, carrying only three AMRAAMs and two sidewinders. The magazine missile system they had designed was rejected for multiple issues in development, and likely never would have worked, leading to a pitifully weak armament.
The YF23’s stealth advantages would only improve detection range by 5-10% as per the radar equation. However, for this better stealth, it sacrificed a great deal of close range agility. Combined with the lack of more than three BVR missiles, the Black Widow the inferior aircraft as an all-round fighter, though as a technology demonstrator leading on to 6th generation capabilities, it was still very important.
I could debate this with you all day, but the only people who believe the YF-23 should have won are either Northrop employees, or have only been told so by Northrop employees and never questioned it."
Copied from R/aviation
@@SuperCatacata the YF23 was not finished so they went with the 22 being more agile and already up to the task,if the YF23 had been taken to it's full potential such as the F117's level no other aircraft could touch it,OTH missiles nothing could even get close to this think once it's on the global network,it can see you before you ever know it's watching you and you get a missile up the ass
@@SuperCatacata we're talking about the future of gen6-7 here the plane is capable of way more g's because it doesn't require a pilot,an AI on the network or some kid sitting in germany flying drones can fly it
@@SuperCatacata these planes don't need pilots just the like f117 didn't it could avoid AAA fire by itself the "pilot" was just a WSO(weapon's system operator) guiding missiles to higher priorities first like where CNN was broadcast from
Seems like the F23 fills the multi-role better than the F35 does regarding cruise speed, range, and weapon load capacity!
If only vtol wasn't the focus
The Black Widow is a far superior aircraft, but the Air Force had a hard-on for Northrop, because of earlier Aircraft delays 🤬
It would also be significantly more expensive.
The United States built not one but two stealth fighters; the F-22 and the YF-23 either one of which would have been the pride of any air force in the world. And then we simply threw one of them away. Such is the genius of American industry and technology.
Yeah but truthfully it's wasteful and not needed. I'm talking about the retirement of the F-22. The main problem was Donald Rumsfeld cut the F-22 program, resulting in the Airforce never buying anywhere near the original number which if I remember correctly was like 300. They ended up with 50 and half of them aren't even operational.
This very well could be the only fighter ever produced that never saw any meaningful combat. Instead it spent the last 15 years chasing Russian nuclear bombers off the shores of Alaska.
@@sshumkaer There are 197 F22s currently in active service... not 50, or 25 as you claim
The YF-23 has the range and carrying capacity that the F35 SHOULD have. That’s what I don’t understand…it fills the gap better than the plane with a contract.
@@ProfessorSteez Not to mention it was much faster than the F-22. They could still put it into production with the F-35's avionics and tech.
We didn't throw one of them away - it was a competition, and one of the planes was selected over the other. America only had 1 airplane.
I've always utilized the "thrust vector" as well.
lol
1990...that was 31 years ago...imagine what’s being built these days...
Nothing we can afford.
The f-35
@@bleach123abc The F-35 is a giant cluster ****. It's another attempt to build a do everything airplane and that never works well in the long run.
@@chrisbaker2903 Doesn't change that the F-35 is what is built these days
Too much politics to get things done for real. Too much hands to pay off.
Beautiful looking and ahead of it’s time..
That strange moment in a military aircraft video when the narrator goes on a tangent about Swiss banks...
I got to admit that's one beautiful plane it just looks right
Do you expected clickbait?😂
I fell in love with this plane when I saw it for the first time.
@@dailyaviation1828 yet, I'm a bit surprised that several came down in Syria. Do you mean more than 3?. Definitely the future, but a few problems have to be sorted.
Instead of wasting $5T on the F-35 program, the Pentagon should have adopted both the F-22 and F-23 and made the F-23 the flying supercomputer network that the F-35 supposedly is today.
And you know that your idea would have cost less for what reasons?
Similar competition between then YF-16 and YF/A-18. The USAF picked the Fighting Falcon(Viper) but the Hornet became the backbone of Naval aviation to this day. YF-23 would probably require too many reconfigurations for Carrier Ops.....but it's a beautiful aircraft(SU-57 is too!) and i think will be revisited in the future in some variant or OTHER country.
Correction, there was never a YF-18, it was the Northrop YF-17 Cobra. From the YF-17 came the F-18, after collaboration with McDonnell Douglas.
If I were going to build a F-23 today I would start with a F-35. You may not like it's kinematic performance but it has some very good systems and suppliers already exist. So lets start with two F-35 engines. Give the new plane a cockpit from a F-35 too, could shorten training. F-35 radar, eots, flir, irst, distributed aperture, halon free fire systems, hydraulic-free power by wire control surfaces. The goal would be to fit as many F-35 systems into the new F-23 shape as possible.
Some people think the YF-23 lost because it didn't have thrust vectoring. The new plane could adapt the roll posts from the F-35b and have them exit between the engines; using bypass air as thrust vectoring. The new F-23 would stay as close to the shape of the original YF-23 as possible. Code for the fly-by-wire system has already been written and radar testing done. That shape followed the Area-Rule closer than ... almost anything. The reduced wave drag gave the YF-23 great performance from mach 0.8 to 1.3 , a speed that other planes struggle with. With less drag at supersonic speeds, it had great range and great acceleration. Speed was limited to Mach 2.2 to preserve the stealth coating but the YF-23 could have went much faster. The fact that the YF-23 also has a low RCS is a miracle of design.
What else do you want to see on the "NEW" F-23 ?
Tanks for your comment.
@@dailyaviation1828 My panzer. Tanks for your video.
A key factor was that the ATF program had to scale back it's ambition, and HMDS was dropped from the program (though it was revived and included on the JSF program, which produced the F-35). All stealth planes need a synthetic HOBBS targeting solution, since weapons inside an internal bay cannot actively lock onto a target in the traditional 4th gen manner. HOBBS combined with the HMDS tech, would allow for really drastic off-boresight targeting, a combo which makes maneuverability less important, much as swordsmanship is less important in a gunfight. With HOBBS + HMDS, the F-23 would have been 'dominant' in the air to air role. Without that combo though, the F-22 looked pretty attractive with it's low speed agility, and somewhat more traditional approach to air to air engagement. The F-23 had more growth potential though, and better stealth, particularly in the IR aspect, which is proving to be the Achilles heel of stealth.
It’s all about who gets the defense dollars. Not necessarily which product is “better”.
The YF23 was an incredible piece of technology that was years ahead of anything else in the sky on many fronts...
Well, not ahead of the Alien tech we borrowed, but yes about 25-30 years ahead of other countries.
Why they pick the F22 over it for
@@Nathan-ry3yu politics and "thrust vectoring" everything else the YF23 beat the YF22
@@Nathan-ry3yu The YF-23 wasn't as maneuverable as the YF-22.
@@dustinkeim179 I think the YF23 handle just as well (without thurst vectoring) as F22 with it. politics maybe ....$$ on the backend yep.
Damn those M.I.G 29's LOL..I always thought it was Mig
Yeah, it's Mig. I've never heard anyone say "em eye gee"
MiG
This is the plane that should have replaced the F-22. Not the F-35...
"BUILD IT BECAUSE THEY WILL COME"!
It works brother! I built a dog house and yomomma came crawling right in.... 😎
Too nice video with clear explaining of superior characters of YF-23 aircrafts from successful dialy aviation channel 👍👍👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
Thank you very much for your comment.
@@raquelstevens1550 thanks for videos sending 👍👍👍👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
I think a more important factor is simply how Federal contracts work, and what the Request for Proposals said. The rules given to all the competitors said that they would be penalized for how far they fell short of each critical requirement. But they were very ambitious goals for the early 1980s, when the F-117 was still fairly new. It wasn't actually anticipated any plane would actually succeed in meeting all of the performance criteria, much less exceeding them, so there was no reward factored in the scoring for exceeding any of the requirements by greater or lesser amounts. Shockingly, both planes wound up exceeding all the critical requirements, so they were scored equally as *meeting* all the requirements, neither one scoring better than the other, because there was no scoring reward for being better. In the end, the Raptor was a little cheaper because it had more flat surfaces, which are easier to manufacture, and that was the only deciding factor. Had they invented new criteria to reward the better plane after the fact, Lockheed-Martin could have easily tied up the competition in the courts, and probably won anyway. They designed their plane in reliance on the criteria they were told would be used to judge the planes, and the Pentagon was legally obligated to judge the planes by those same criteria. And ultimately, it's fair. Any plane meeting those criteria (much less exceeding them) was more than good enough. Exceeding the performance criteria by more, just because it was possible, wouldn't have resulted in a better than perfect kill ratio. So not a penny more could be justified for an even better plane.
Thanks for your comment.
In November 2009, Dassault and their 4th Generation Rafale made a big splash as the F-22 Raptor only managed to land one shot in 6 matches vs. the 4th Generation Rafale. The YF23 was not chosen because of lower performance compared to the YF22. The question is: Now why is the production of the F22 stopped?
which is the result of the fight between the f22 raptor and the rafale and for you wich is the best fighter jet jet between these two?
But the F-22 had to handicap itself to even have that early test. The F-22's maneuver software hadn't been updated so they couldn't fly aggressive enough.
Buddy news flash it's been stopped for years. Going back over 12 year minimal. They killed the program during Bush.
Not to mention that is completely false.
Production was stopped because it was too expensive. F-22s ended up costing around $150m each. The F35 program was supposed to offer a cheaper alternative...and based on unit cost per aircraft it is at around $90m per plane, but the program as a whole ended up being even costlier.
@@phantomechelon3628 I know, I saw Gates kill it! Now the Super Hornet is quickly catching the F-35 in price! The price of the F-35 is still falling as more are being built. The F-35 B is the only IMHO us worth every penny though.
The argument that the maneuverability won the spot for the f22 makes sense but in practice it doesn't make sense to have the stealthiest fighter in your inventory have the best maneuverability. The two fighters were designed to be so incredibly stealthy that they would be able to just fire missiles at their enemies and then leave whilst being undetected the whole time. The thrust vectoring would be more effective and make more sense on something like the f-16 or f-15 since they both do not have stealth capabilities, it is also more likely for the two of them to get into a legitimate dogfight where the superb maneuverability would be useful and could make the difference between a win or loss. The yf-23 was superior in all ways but that one being maneuverability but the role in which it would serve it could be as maneuverable as a c-130 and still get its job done.
Can you imagine if the Airforce had the F22 and the F23 just those two types would reign supreme in the skies for generations to come!!! USA🇺🇲💪👍
I imagine that if we had both planes, the net impact would be negative. The 2 planes were close in performance, meaning that we'd have the same military capabilities per airframe, only we would have spent much more to develop 2 different airplanes, to manufacture and maintain 2 distinct airplanes - and the costs would have resulted in fewer airframes purchased. About the only awe we'd inspire is the amount of money we spend on defense.
*A "relative" of mine* was an _important engineer_ of the *avionics* of the winning design. I remember "him" talking about how the thrust vectoring was an integral part of their competitive advantage over the NG team. Meanwhile, the combination of 3 different states/regions in which tax dollars could be spread made the F-22 the superior financial and political choice. These 2 teams put out some really, really good designs ... the winner was probably only a few percent better, and it came down to a management and political decision. My personal bias is that the F-22 _avionics_ were superior. But who, in their right mind, thinks that the stupid mechanical flaperon/aileron control surface of the YF-23 fits a 5th generation fighter? Rewind to 10:00 and look at that ridiculous YF-23 and its control surfaces that look like 1960s fighters ... now imagine the complexity and utility of thrust vectoring ... which is likely still classified and has fewer public domain images. The YF-22 stunned in its _hidden_ mechanical aspects. I had numerous unclassified discussions with this "relative" of mine, now retired. "He" worked on the ATF and the F-22 for decades. Yeah, the threat changed before full production numbers were realized once the contract was won. But this plane, and the competition that led to it, are a big part of the reason why the US is what it is in military aviation. 1st.
I'm amazed and stunned that the winning thrust vectoring design has been covered in a TH-cam video. This is, in my opinion, a 100% correct take on the reason why the YF-22 won. The weapons testing was a great positive... probably more than anyone will say so many decades later ... but it was the icing on the cake. Oh, and the best test pilots worked for (one of the 3 companies in the winning team, look it up) so there's that.
Talking to your "relative" who happened to be on the winning team of the F-22 --- a compromised choice made by conservative generals who didn't know shit about future technologies on fighter jets ---- and asserted: "But who, in their right mind, thinks that the stupid mechanical flaperon/aileron control surface of the YF-23 fits a 5th generation fighter?" is complete gibberish.
The fact of the matter is --- in terms of pure engineering ---- there is a REASON why the B-2, with a wingspan almost twice the F-22 registers, on average, an even smaller RCS than the extraordinarily small F-22's RCS: it has NO vertical stabilizers.
(BTW, neither the tested YF-22 nor the YF-23, as first tested, was a finalized product; the current F-22 is quite different from the tested model, with many physical modifications made. If the YF-23 had been chosen, it too would have been decently modified.... Anyway.... saying the F-22 had better avionics & that's partly why it won was as idiotic as any person could be, on these matters. I'm surprised you have had so many "unclassified discussions" with that "relative" of yours for years and still made completely uneducated assertions like that. The "avionics" on a top end US fighter jet, for the USA, is what the PENTAGON wants.... it's what roughly $1T defense spending COULD procure! It's NOT what your "relative" or his team's more clever original ideas that won them the competition! My god... you sound so childish! You know that EACH B-2, produced by the company that lost the fighter jet competition, costs around $2B, right? You think the AVIONICS that go into the B-2 is somewhere INFERIOR to those that go into the F-22, which cost only $250M - $350M?)
Anyway, the F-23 is the only fully working fighter jet in the history of the world that didn't have true vertical stabilizers. It's basically a "bridging" fighter jet between all those that have been built in the short history of fighter jet building up to the F-35 & probably one or two more like it.... and the truly NEXT GENERATION of an entirely new, revolutionary fighter jet, that would come in the next 50 - 80 years... which LIKELY would be in the pure "wing" design of the B-2, given how fast and powerful super computation machines have became the last 15 years.
It doesn't even matter that jets 50 - 80 years from today may not even have human pilots; the STRUCTURAL aspects of a truly "most" stealthy jet will have to one WITHOUT more than ONE major structure coming out of its fuselage in a rotational-90-degree manner. (For example, a "flying saucer" would be the most stealthy; and a flying "wing" is the next most stealthy. But since we can't build "flying saucers" in a reliable way, due to our Bronze Age technologies, compared to the "flying saucers" space-age technologies, "flying wings" of the various designs ---- or, more generally speaking, designs WITHOUT any other major things coming out of the fuselage EXCEPT the primary "wings" --- will have to be the NEXT design for fighter jets.
With hypersonic and other next generation anti-aircraft missiles (with new engine drives) that would easily fly between Mach 5 and March 10 or so being readily available to many nations on earth in the next 15 - 35 years, vector thrusts and other energy draining, airshow mechanical parts are going to be almost completely irrelevant... so the F-23 was and is clearly a superior design to the traditional F-22, today and in the next 50 years...
You either KNOW your enemy hundreds of miles out and AVOID them entirely... or if you think you're going to outrun such missiles --- using fancy vector thrusts during McCain-era dog fight ---- with fighter jets flying between Mach 1.5 and Mach 2.9... then it is clear you don't have the IQ to do any thinking or flying, much less fighting wars...
In actuality, no fighter jets today could even hope of out maneuver or out run TODAY's middle of the road (speed wise) anti-aircraft missiles... so forget about building fighter jets, with "thrust vectors," to out maneuver or out run today's top end missiles or tomorrow's top end missiles.... LABORED POINT HERE is: "vector thrust" is NOT a relevant mechanical thing, beyond pleasing crowds in airshows doing exquisite and VERY SLOW acrobats, which, again, are TOTALLY irrelevant in the battlefield. Anyone who argued thrust vectors are great battle gears just refuse to let go of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. Because by the 1980s and 90s, thrust vectors were NO LONGER relevant, due to superior anti-aircraft technologies (on the guidance, engine, speed & acceleration aspects of things).
The F22 will be a memory while the F15EX is still flying.
In air combat exercises with Indian AF.. F22 was roundly defeated by Russian made Indian SU-30MKI consistently so stated British magazine Flight International and confirmed by Russian air force General. The efficiency ratings were SU-30MKI 59%..F22 37% and F15 -4%.
And yet, in a real fight(BVR) the F22 would knock them all out of the sky 100% of the time.
Bring it back, it would still be the best fighter out there.
There's no chance to bring F-23 back, apparently all the documentation is long gone, destroyed. They won't recreate it.
THAT'S MY BABY! IT IS THE GREY GHOST!
MIG-21: Hold my beer
A claim that the YF-23 was the better aircraft to the F-22 is REALLY OLD, with little to substantiate it. The YF-23 had better stealth but had both performance and operational issues. Plus Northrop had a somewhat troubled track record for meeting commitments
Japan has been working with McDonald Douglas to acquire and build a version of the YF23 as the USA will not share the F22 with Japan. They need a better fighter-interceptor in order to keep air superiority against China and Russia, so since we won't sell them our best, they will build it themselves.
There's no evidence that Japan is working with "McDonald Douglas" or McDonald Douglas (which was acquired by Boeing over 20 years ago) or has any interest in the YF-23. Japan is working on an indigenous design, and collaborating with Lockheed.
@lxIceRaptorzzl 1 "The Government stated that any Japanese aircraft that flys close to a U.S Carrier will be shot down." The "Government" has said that? When? Doesn't Japan already have the F-35, with over hundred on order? Hasn't Japan flown Lockheed planes for years? The F-2 was a joint project with Lockheed.
They should have approved both of them , I believe politics had a big influence in the decision .
Politics was not a big influence in that decision, as USAF buying both aircraft was never considered. It was a competition - that means that there was supposed to be a winner and a loser, and that both sides would work harder to be the former, knowing that they could be the latter.
In a real sense, NEITHER plane won - the original ATF order for 600+ aircraft was never filled. We couldn't even procure 1 of them, let alone two different airframes that would do the same mission.
F=22 RAPTOR IS THE BEST IN THE AIR, KILL ANYTHING, HE MUVE VERY WELL🦅🦅
Hahahahaha what a joke!
_Only Plane that Could Beat The F-22 Raptor_
= The Only Plane to Officially Lose to the F-22 Raptor lmao
Nice design...
YF23 looks (Phenomena) United States 🇺🇸 always keep up with military warfare, ground, water, air combat US got it all.
"The only plane that could beat a Raptor" ...then why is the Black Widow in the museum.
Or... maybe is has been used as the basis for the 6th gen just announced.
Because the Air Farce are a bunch of fucking no load assholes who are like a cliquish bunch of high school cheerleaders. First and foremost, the Air Farce couldn’t get their little pointy heads around how it looked, secondly, they were pissed a Northrop for cost overruns on the B-2.
The F22 looked better than the F23 is one the USAF choose the F22. Also the USAF fall in love with the thrust Victor and politics.
Black widow doesn't fly anymore.. She's preformed with avengers now. 🤣
The American AF made a massive mistake over the F23, they should have made both the F22 and the F23 aircraft.
They should have spent more money to buy an develop and procure an extra airframe to do the same job that the 1st airframe would have done just as well? And they would do that for what reasons?
That was impossible due to budget constraints.
both of them could fly hand in hand in combat being yf23 as precision ground strike penetrating and fighter bomber whil yf22 will be the dog fighter.
It's the only fighter that has NO Space between engine nacelle and fuselage!!!
Of it beat the Raptors then why did not pick it? Cause the raptor did all the tests better. Second reason . Scunk works had more experience at fighters and keeping cost under control.
It was 1990 after working at a relatively small Lockheed division for 2 1/2 yrs.,(best job I ever had) when the budget started tightening up, as cost plus contracts were being eliminated. They began pushing due dates on all projects, when I knew that the good old days were ending.
I abhor with a passion that is bald faced hated of US and Western military complex of offense. But I also on a purely logical and objective principals. And looking into this topic extensively. I am more than confident that the YF23 was the superior fight to the F22.
Thrust vectoring means you can fly a garbage truck like a ballerina dances. The yf23 had the nozzles tucked into the airframe, and could not accept a retrofit. I get it now.
F22 was prettier.
Always love the YF-23
Give the US government a POGO STICK and they would scrap it because it bounces up and down.
This is public knowledge, it’s what is still on the blueprints and minds of other engineers that will be in production if needed.
Nope. Both the USN & USAF have decided on UNMANNED aircraft for the next fighter/attack craft
@@protonneutron9046 That‘s not correct. The 6th Gen Aircraft of both branches will still be manned but with additional drones as a combat air system like the one planned of france, germany & spain and also Tempest of the UK & Italy (& Sweden, who recently joined).
@@kilik407 No, they won't be. Already announced by both Departments.
@@protonneutron9046 There is no announcement, that the 6th Gen Fighters will definitely be unmanned. US Navy‘s F/A-XX & especially the counterpart of the Air Force will be manned & you can read it on every defense news page. They are weighing whether F/A-XX will be manned, unmanned or partially autonomous. But in the end it will be a mixed carrier air wing with 40% drones, which was the last prediction of the DOD. What you mean are the Drones like the MQ-25 tanker drone or X-47b.
@@protonneutron9046 In my opinion, they will release a fighter, which is capable to fly remoted/unmanned for highly dangerous roles, like heavily defended air space, but has still be a seat for a human pilot. You can‘t do some missions without a pilot, who can make decisions on site.
I like the talon. Isn't it better?
YF 23 with a 2 seats in cockpit cabine is beast in the air?
Funny how an ad for Lockheed Martin's F-35 appears before this video!
... build more than this two not needed
6th generation fighter jets built way before their time
Edit:
did the pilots celebrate with a large bottle of vanilla extract or was it tequila ?
Now f22 to be retired soon than planned that means 6th gen fighter is ready. So will it be based on yf23 or new model
Maybe but No also. They have already released photos and it doesn't look anything like this video.
For one if you believe the Airforce They designed and developed and flown it already in 1 year.
The most noticeable thing is the photos released to me was it was tailess no tail. Just thrusters.
The retirement of the F-22 only means that the F-22 is going to be retired, and not necessarily that a replacement is ready.
There's no reason to assume that the US will replace a retired airplane with another airplane that was passed over by the same government, especially when that choice was made decades ago.
The F15 cost 70.000 an hour to maintain can the US afford a new jet,by the time it gets into service 30 years later.
Oddly enough that B-2 bomber has the same wingspan and the same angle of the sweep on the wing as the old YB-35 built to compete with the YB-36 which it also outperformed same as the YF-23 outperformed the YF-22 and yet the contracts were, in both cases, political rather than what is best for the country. The people who made these decisions should be in a dungeon somewhere for the rest of their lives.
31 years ago and designs today keep leaning towards the yf-23 I personally feel both plane’s should’ve went forward.and has clearly been stated the yf-23 was better in stealth and speed also was very maneuverable.they also used a lot of computer equipment in the 22 from the 23
The last thing this video talks about is F-22 lost over Syria. That of course is not true. It's never lost any F-22 apart from training excerises in America. Engine failure or something like that.
Dyson vs Bowman... For all the Macross Plus dudes out there
Ps5!!!!!! 1:27 Ronald’s right
I've been seeing so many videos about the YF-23 Black Widow lately it kinda makes me think the US might secretly have a fleet of the things
In a world of stealth vs stealth, the knife fighter wins. Maneuverability is key. This is why most planes have canards. The US already studied this and chose thrust vectoring for the sake of stealth.
Most planes have canards? Some do, and many don't - including both ATF contenders. Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, J-10 and J-20 have canards, F-35, F-22, MiG-29, Su-27, F-15, F-16 and F-18 do not.
Nope. If you're gong to be detecting the target at closer ranges anyway, then your missiles are going to be far more effective so first shot matters a lot more. Since BVR combat is still the focus, sensors matter most. The F-35 being a good example as it is the only fighter around that can engage targets in any direction without assistance.
@@kresnik_ss 4th gen fighters BVR kill statistics imply the effective engagement range is increasing, thus BVR weapons are becoming more important, not less. There will be a limit to effective range of course, but it will still be BVR even when faced with EW and new forms of countermeasures.
Laser turrets are far more effective against smaller missiles that have no alternative guidance methods. Multi-seeker munitions are becoming more common now (particularly for air to surface weapons), and near future US air to air missiles will also have multiple seekers.
The Su-57 may be built for a knife fight, but it will have to avoid the gun fight first.
It looks like a flying squirrel from above!
No Raptors we’re lost in Syria btw
Only? No... Rafale beat the raptor
ILOVE EGYPT
*The New YF-23 improved could be the 6th Generation Fighter*
F23 A
The title of this video is false.
there are a few jets that could take down the F-22 Raptor. and two of them are Russian Jets. one being the SU-57 and the SU 35 .
the Raptor depends on firing first from miles out before the Russian jets can even see the raptors.
The fact is a Russian SU-35 was in American air space in Syria and 2 f -22 Raptors intercepted the SU-35. the problem was if it came down to a dog fight the SU-35 had the advantage as it was in clear sight of the F-22 raptors , not only is it faster, with a higher ceiling, but it also carries more missiles, it is more maneuverable, as well .
The SU-57 is going to be able to take out multiple F-22's when the Russians figure out the issues with the engines it uses
America needs 6th generation fighter jets that move back to the fundamentals of fighter jets.
Maneuverability, larger Missile capacity, faster, higher ceiling, 3d vectoring, combined with the stealth avionics, and better radar if it wants to produce a dominant fighter jet. all while keeping costs down, maintenance and Maintenance costs down.
it is scary that the F-22 is what we are relying on if war becomes real with Russia some day.
The F-35's are great bombers but would be out done by the Russians in air to air combat.
there is rumors of an F-32 being looked at to replace the aging F-16's as well as a replacement for the aging 1-10 thunderbolts ( warthogs) our country needs to stop playing around and get one of the top 5 contractors to create the next generation air dominance Jet fighter if we are going to have a chance against China's new jet fighter and Russia's SU-35's and SU-57's
and it is not just Jets, we need to create 21st century tanks, Helicopters, etc. the only real area of dominance America has is in its Navy and ground fighting troops training . The Government spends OUTRAGEOUS amounts of our tax dollars coming up with useless things like f-22 raptors and the gimmicks of stealth that only work while engaging in long range dog fights. anything up close and Russia and China have the advantage.
get back to basics , Maneuverability, faster jets with higher ceilings, greater Missile capacity, better radar and avionics, a better range at a cheaper cost to produce and maintain .
also having the ability for all of our jets , tanks, Helicopters, attack helicopters, Navy and ground forces linked together so everyone involved can see the big picture simultaneously.
I agree with most of what you are saying here in that there needs to be a serious overhaul to most american vehicles but I don’t really understand why relying on the Raptors is such a bad idea. Granted, I am only now doing some occasional midnight research into the subject so I won’t pretend to know everything, and do correct me if I’m wrong, but the stealth and long range fighting capabilities of the F-22 should at least in theory keep it a safe distance away from the lethal Russian dogfighters, no? I’ll be honest and say that I don’t know exactly what problems the Russian engines are facing but unless they enlarge infrared signature or something then the planes’ stealth capabilities should remain the same for the foreseeable future and they should still be relatively manageable kills for the Raptors. If I were to critique American air power it’d be for the F-35’s prevalence and relative inferiority when the F-22 seems (at least to me right now) like the better bid
Several problems with your argument...
1. Su-35S is slower and has a lower ceiling than the F-22. It also on a typical air to air mission carries fewer missiles than the F-22. If it carried more then it would be a sitting duck and require escorts. In terms of maneuverability it has an advantage at lower altitudes, but the F-22 has the advantage at higher altitudes.
2. Intercepts do not take place with all aircraft at close range. Usually one or multiple fighters hang back in advantageous positions while another investigates the bogey. This is particularly true of real war scenarios where pilots use tactics that enable them to cover each other if it comes down to a dogfight
3. The main reason for getting a visual is to provide an obvious warning to the target. If the target is already confirmed as hostile then you don't need to get close.
4. These days radar can map the shape of an aircraft to the point of identification, and in an actual war the target is likely to be identified by it's behaviour and formation anyway.
5. Su-57 is more than likely going to disappoint with less than advertised performance and with far fewer aircraft produced than the F-22. So far there is no reason to assume it can take out multiple F-22s, even solely based on Russian propaganda. However it certainly will need to be able to do so considering Russian manufacturing capability is less than impressive.
6. The F-35 is similarly capable as the F-22 in air combat (more so in dense EW environments) and far more difficult to ambush. The Russians certainly won't be able to shoot it down as easily as you think.
7. Maneuverability doesn't matter for most engagements because missiles are simply far too effective. Heck in the F-35's case it doesn't matter what direction the target is in, it can still be engaged. However the F-22 suffers from a lack of funding and hasn't received any notable upgrades in the last decade, which unfortunately leaves the F-22 without off-boresight missile capability... for now.
8. Your last 2 points are what the F-35 is all about... it may not be perfect, but it does have respectable ceiling, high speed, long range, above average maneuverability, decent payload, and extremely good networking and communications. It's just a matter of getting other platforms linked to the F-35 in a practical way.
Find a way to make the yf-23 with controlled vector engines and it’s set.
Too late.
No.. There is another one, SU 57
The shape is so weird
Anybody who played JetFighter 2 back in the day on the Amiga knows full well the YF-23 'Black Widow' was far superior to the F-22.
Actually, the F-22 was added to that game after it was released. Based on my experience with JF1 and 2, I'm going to guess that both planes flew about the same.
I think something was wrong in the design of the YF23 that stopped it performing over the F22. As why the F22 won the bid. But the F22 end up being failure anyway due to expensive cost and few other. Hope they don't make the same mistakes with the 6th generation aircraft's. I spoken to some aircraft engineers. They virtually stated that the YF23 F22 and F35 was basically brought out just a bit too early. As software digital technology they was using was at early stage in a new shift of development.
🇺🇸👍👍👍😎YF 23 Design 👽💪
A lot of inaccuracies about the program
man when lockheed couldnt make any more f-22s we shoulda orderd f-23s the next day in the morning we dont need any more over priced f-35s
Lockheed couldn't make any more F-22's because fucking Obama cancelled it.
Nobama...
Lockheed could make more airplanes - the US didn't want to buy any, because they were expensive, couldn't be exported and the cold war was over. Where did you get the idea that the F-23 would have been cheaper.
@@MrKentaroMotoPI Obama? The original 600+ production plan had been whittled won to under 200 by 2006.
@@winternow2242 Yes, Obama. Communist in Chief.
No wonder the Russian's Su-57 design got some similarity with this plane, just like how they reconsider their fighter doctrine after they tested the captured F-5 from Vietnam which I heard from.
Perhaps they knew a thing or two regarding this prototype fighter plane's positive sides.
SU-57 looks nothing like the F-23.
@@dnate697 In some ways, you might be right although I won't speculate the details.
Believe me, I choose YF-23 if I'm an air force commander because I'm impressed of it's ergonomics and logistic friendly design.
@@mikepowell9439, I liked the F-23 and saw the unclassified shoot-out. Being an old Army guy I know they couldn't give all of the Info. I think this should have been more like the YF-17 becoming the F/A-18. Have the YF-23 become an F-24. Since it was faster than the F-22, it could fill in the Intercepter Role. The deep strike mission is no biggie since it would easily drop or direct more ordinance than the F-35.
@@mikepowell9439 I respect that and on another post, I said we should buy both. Competition breeds innovation and keeps the prices down. F-22 won the fly off but no way in hell F-23 should have been canned like it was. It was too good to get rid of.
@@dnate697 Unfortunately, Lockheed Martin got too much lobby power in D.C.
Lot misinformation here the YF23 was 10 yrs ahead of the F35 program it was a head to head competition between Lockheed Martin YF22 n Boeing Northrop YF23 in all aspects YF22 beat the YF23 because Northrop sent a partial finish aircraft to the competition because of time constraints and got beat
That just a gorgeous airplane ✈fighter
The answer to the question is YES. just watch the news theve talked often about it
yf23 was the true winner.....the b1 was a waste of money
No but the YF-23 first took to the skies in 1990 so yes it probably should have been the winner...
Dacă cabina de pilotaj ar fi în SPATELE structurii ,,,,,,ALTA ar fi controlul structurii !!!!!
When I first heard of the f-22 and f-23 in 1996 the super-cruise was said to be at over Mach 2. Now they're saying mach 2 is the top speed. Lol But I get it.
I remember the 1996 ATF program and never heard supercruise described as being any specific speed other than being supersonic. It's not about a specific speed, it's about being able to fly supersonic, without need for afterburner.
"Could" only one way find out in dogfight
YF 23 has Alien technology, that's why he wasn't approved.
Not to be confused with the video titled "The Only Plane That Could Beat The F-22 Raptor" that was posted 8 months ago and has the same thumbnail. (th-cam.com/video/C5yS6wx-bag/w-d-xo.html)
F-15. Kill ratio what, 102:0? Maybe a missile took one down once or twice. Either way, it is the most successful fighter ever.
better for them to restore and put it in service in the airforce...
It wouldn't be enough to restore it. We'd have to make a production version, then create the manufacturing base to produce it...THEN put it into production.
You know it would of been great if they had given a contact to both aircraft of 250 each. That way we would have a great team
We couldn't afford 250 of even 1 of the planes, but you think we should have developed twice as many planes we could afford, and in twice as many airframes as we, needed to do a job that one of those planes could have done about as well - and we should have made that more expensive decision for what reason?
That plane should have gotten the contract , all Political as always 😟
Who calls the Mig-29 the M I G 29? Is this text to speech? If it is, it's really impressive.
Another stupid computer narration.
@@chrisbaker2903 They're getting ridiculously advanced.
I found a yf-23 at Torrance airport.
F-22 would crush it
Hahahahaha! Good one. :D
Say What !! some kind of information there.. Umm..
I read this was the better fighter, but ss most know, its not what u know, its who u know and the contract went to an "agreed friend"...they design was the only flaw people saw which was radical at the time...better handle and speed but the fuselage being attached as a delta wing did not sway old ways of thinking...and now u want to pay for it next....nahh...
F15 I LOVE IT 🧡💙💚❤️♥️💜💛❤️💚💙💙🧡
F-35 again labeled as F-22. 0:25 Lazy job.
Sure, blame the new round of the Cold War on Reagan.... It was the final round!
The YF-23's is (IMHO) one of the most beautiful fighter designs I've seen. It's visual profile seems slimmer, harder to see.
The story of thrust vectoring makes sense, if its true that the YF-23 wouldn't be able to accommodate them in the future.
I thing it could be accommodated, theoretically the lower surface behind thee nozzles could be "cut off" to match the upper surface' gaps, then slight redesign of the nozzles themselves, adding moveable plates exactly the same the Raptor has. But it would compromise stealth characteristics of YF-23.
Roswell crash
For me the reason is political
And probably back stabbing and money changing hands.
100% You are right
Problem is it didn't beat the F22.
It kinda did in many aspects. Faster supercruise for exemple and even more stealthy than the f22
Total BS !!! I love the F-22 Raptor but, thrust vectoring is worthless at high speeds and I don't think anyone needs a crash course with hmans a -G forces. The YF-23 truly was ahead of it's time !!!!! I don't care what anyone says and could have been reconfigured with more powerful engines. We can only wonder
What I've heard shortly after F-22 won is that YF-23 was TOO ahead of it's time. There was fears that the industry might not cope with the serial production because materials and technologies used to build Black Widow/Grey Ghost were not too common yet and/or too expensive in serial production.
Obviously plus what was told in the video: politics, personal reasons, lobby, and also strategy/warfare rules' changes (which happen all the time).
YF 22 was better in a dog fight, more agile. The YF 23 couldn't beat the YF22.