Thanks for watching everyone. Several people have commented on the name of PAV-2. Inside the nose landing wheel well, you'll see the name 'SPIDER' printed and this can be seen in numerous photos and videos. Here's a photo from Wikipaedia: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/YF-23_PAV-2_%22Spider%22_Static.jpg
Sad to see the poor girl sitting out in the sun, while the other ship sits in glorious company in Dayton. Has anyone described how the Black Widow name came about? That there are two orange/red danger signs painted on the belly that turned out to look like an hourglass
The F22 is an incredible bit of kit and it still looks like something 20 years ahead of its time. But the YF23 looks like something aliens left behind. It’s jaw dropping.
The YF-23 actually outperformed the F-22 on various metrics, which many people are unaware of. It was actually faster than the F-22 in supercruise and with afterburners. It had a smaller radar cross-section from all but one direction. The military chose the F-22 because of Lockheed consistency, previous experience with stealth, and because the design was more conservative and traditional. With Northrop's successful but massively over budget B-2 program that experienced cost overruns and time delays, the military opted for the lockheed model.
@@thomasbarrack1384 In addition northrop was going thru some issues in the 80s and any government project is all about how well you pay the politicians. The f22 barely got off the ground the day of testing.
@@thomasbarrack1384 not to me tonight that the USAF had a grudge going way back against Jack Northop, the company founder, due to his original flying wing bomber concept that started back after WWII and the many issues (budget, delays, etc.) so that did not help either. Add in the fact that the F-23 didn't have thrust vectoring engines and that it fell behind in demonstrations (such as the F-22 early on demonstrating its weapon firing ability from the internal bays whi h the F-23 never actually demonstrated whereas the F-22 did this VERY early on in testing) and with everything combined hurt and eventually ended the chances of Northrop winning the USAF contract. Personally, while I understand why, at the end. the F-22 was chosen, I personally wish the F-23 would have been chosen as it is still an amazing aircraft and is just BEYOND a beautiful design. I won't take anything away from the F-22 as it too is an AMAZING aircraft and is king of the skies and most likely will be for sometime. At the very least, China has a cheap dollar store knock off that may soon be flying the skies AND Japan has seemingly taken an interest in the design so much that a future Japaneae craft will most likely resemble one as well.
@@CONSOLETRUTH2 too much to respond to. The delays and cost overruns actually make sense as to why they happened. They build a giant bomber that is more stealthy than even the F-22 raptor, and started designing it earlier. Computing power wasn't enough back in those days to use for figuring out how to manufacture and produce all the parts and equipment. The B-2 was the most advanced, stealthiest, and capable bomber, and possible aircraft the world had ever seen. And they had no one else's work to draw off of. Innovating isn't always timely. Regarding the f-23, its own designers stated that they went without thrust vectoring because it wasn't needed to achieve desired maneuvering capabilities, the futuristic design of the aircraft in tandem with it's superior thrust to the F-22 made it just as capable if not more. The military has a pattern of favoring Lockheed, some of which is due to the deep state and politicians trying to keep jobs in their states for constituants, and the other was that the F-22 was viewed as a natural progression of the f-15 where the f-23 was futuristic and would be harder to sell to the public. At bottom the f-22 won becsuse of politics and bureaucracy, not solely on it's merit as an ATF
People forget that the competition was for an air superiority fighter and the f-22 with its thrust vectoring was better for that role. In hindsight the YF-23 might have been the better choice for the fighters needed today. But the truth is if it had been an F-23 today there would been videos and people talking about the YF-22 and how it was better and should have been selected. Both these planes are amazing with different strengths and weaknesses and probably both should have been made.
Literally the only thing the F-22 had over the yf-23 was politics. The YF-23 was faster, stealthier, and had greater weapons options. In an air superiority role in this modern day thrust vectoring means nothing on a stealth jet, if a stealth fighter is in dogfight distance it's made many mistakes to find itself there.
feel like the yf23's higher preference given to stealth would have aged better with what missiles are able to do and the fact that su57 is basically maxxed out on anti stealth tech and j20 is no where near stealthy. im bothered that china realizes stuff could pop off soon and started production on their j35 competitor model even though it lost to j20. kinda feel like were putting all our eggs in 1 basket with f35 but atleast were making them way faster than china can for way cheaper. especially f16 legacy models that theyre starting to mass produce in india. with a potential fly away cost of 10-15m per f16, it might cost russia more in s400 missiles to shoot one down that it will for the US to make lol
The YF-23 Designed and Silhouette is so far-ahead of it's time that it basically looks like an actual 6th gen on a 5th gen Air Force project of that time.
It still does. I saw the one prototype at the Western Museum of Flight and it's amazing how sleek it looks in real life. It looks stretched and flattened comparted to pictures. Very impressive and futuristic. Also terrible what kind of shape this particular prototype is in. It is just sitting outside off in a far part of the air field.
@@Ian4bis Sure, this was also well before the F-35s time, even before the Super Hornet. As was the case of the Classic Hornet being developed out of a competition for a USAF aircraft, the production F-23 (or what ever it would have become had it been developed further) could have been a replacement for the Classic Hornets and the Tomcats. But as we know from the F-22, there was just no where near enough money for that to happen with the cost of either of these machines, hence the Super Hornet and now the F-35.
@@omarhossam789 The chief reason for selecting the LM project was that the government was more assured that LM could manage the program. Their faith in NG at the time was quite shakey. The LM project at the time of testing was quite a bit more mature than the NG project. While I’m not sold on the USAF wanting an aircraft because it would have been an easier conversion for the Navy, the US did look briefly at a version of the Raptor to replace the F-14. The idea was that the Navy could leverage the F-22 program and the USAF could leverage the A-12 program to create a replacement for the F-111. However with the cancellation of the A-12 this never happened. The F-22 proposed for carrier ops was swing wing (obviously with a bunch of other major changes to the platform to make it suitable) and was finally judged to be too difficult and expensive to complete or justify generally due to the projections that this would not provide any advantage over the current fleet that the Navy operated nor lessen the cost burden on the F-22 program (at the time a production Raptor had not even flown and already cost estimates were blown out and procurement numbers were coming down). Anyway, we know the Navy got Super Hornets and the USAF got naff all Raptors. The Raptors may get upgrades to prolong their service into the future out of the NGAD program however that program looks likely to go in a different direction to current platforms.
Love the YF-23. Great video and thank you. I remember carefully following the selection process and when the YF 22 was announced as the winner I was thinking “oh, I wanted the cool looking one!”
Fun Fact: For a short time, the Black Widow II had a red hourglass marking on it's underside, until Northrop management (killjoys that they are) had it removed. Another Fun Fact: The other nickname of the "Gray Ghost" was "Spider". So you were only kinda wrong.
My dad had a professional model of this on his desk for years. He lead a team at Garrett Airesearch that helped design the leading edge flaps for this plane and many others. Miss you dad. 😢
YF23's diverterless supersonic inlet was truly ahead of its time. It had many engineering characteristics that were superior to a more "conservative" YF22's design.
Agreed. The choice between the YF22 and the Y23 was probably also about conservative vs. innovative, and they probably wanted to avoid the risk of the more innovative stuff having problems and increasing the cost. The F22 already turned out to be pretty expensive, now imagine the F23 having problems with any of the unconventional stuff. Not saying that it would, just that there is always the risk
Yes but just before they selected the winner USSR collapsed, with that USAF lost the only near-pear adversry capable to present any challenge and financing of the program collapsed as well. The best performance options was considered YF-23 with GE engines and the cheapest combination was YF-22 with PW engines. They practically had to select the cheapest YF-22/PW combination still barely saving the program at all. Additionally USAF was forced to reduce the program from initial 700 airframes to 190.
It's a sham, the Air Force knew the YF-23 was the better option but because of politics the F-22 got the nod. Northrop shot themselves in the foot due to controversies involving previous programs like the B-2 that went way over budget. The Pentagon possibly believed this was going to be another fiasco were they over pay for a new fighter.
@@joeclaridy The biggest issue was the YF23 was just a mockup with placeholder electronics/software, while the YF22, although early stage, had a working proof of concept. Military tend to be conservative with their projects, and understandably, they went with a more certain option.
The chines also avoid creeping waves. This is where radar waves coming in from abeam "stick" to the circular cross section of the fuselage, wrap around it and are then sent back in the direction of the receiver - like doing a 180 on a roundabout. Instead they spill off the fuselage at the chines and away from the radar.
They both should have been put into production. They both are unique and could serve different mission roles. YF23 and 22 compliment each other for the perfect high profile strike mission.
@@elgoog7830 well if you really take into consideration most pilots do about 6-8hrs give or take a week flying so 60 hrs flight time that like maybe 8-9 test flights, probably less since some tests they most likely did extended runs to see how long it could go things like that
@@elgoog7830 Hi I cannot remember how many hours the YF-22 did before winning the contract as I cannot find my book but I think it was similar 60ish hrs. Their was no direct fly-off as popular belief has it.
As a Northrop employee I am biased, but I suspect that F23 would have had less problems in introduction and operation than the F22, and definitely had more room for mission growth. The stealth was much better on the F23.
One thing of note, during the flight test competition the YF-23 suffered a software "hiccup" and the plane oscillated just above the runway until the pilot forced it down into a hard belly landing. The plane still flew an excellent test profile against the YF-22, just that event probably looked bad. Still a great airplane. I will say we still got a great airplane with the F-22 Raptor though.
That is false. After award, the Air Force and Lockheed conducted further testing with the YF-22 and that is the aircraft that suffered the belly landing. The software hiccup with the YF-23 was during taxi. If you watch early taxi tests, the flight control surfaces are moving as the flight control system reacts to bumps on the runway. The software was updated to eliminate that annoyance.
Its so good we should build it today. We missed a great opportunity because half the battle is in the mind of people today and everyone knows this is the shit! Its a work of art.
Great video Paul. Great looking aircraft. The shaking like a shopping trolley is called "shimmy" and something you can encounter on small GA aircraft a bit. The Cessna nosewheels are well known for it as they get older.
The race between Lockheed Martin and Northrop to build the F22/23, the fact that only the engineers knew about it and spen years designing and putting it together, but what's more amazing than anything is that this all happened in the early 90's !
Such a cool wasted aircraft design. Much better looking than the aircraft that went into production, although F22 Is still a beautiful aircraft. Great video again Paul.
The YF-22 was a weird, oddly proportioned aircraft. That ugly duckling really turned into a swan with the production model though. Weirdly, supposed renders (best guess) of what would have been the F23 show a far less attractive machine than the gorgeous YF-23.
It's not really a "wasted" design. They learned a lot making it and can still incorporate the best features of it in future designs. But I get what you're saying, it's a very cool design. I would say that the only thing cooler looking than the F-22 Raptor is the YF-23.
Beyond maneuvering, thrust vectoring gives the F-22 more efficient cruise and supercruise trim that allows its aerodynamic control surfaces to mostly remain in their stealthiest neutral positions. The decision was made to save the weight instead on the F-23, which is also a valid option, although it does give up some pitch authority at extremely slow and high (supersonic) speeds, as a consequence.
Details in your narration are spot on - thank you for doing the research. Northrop/MD already had a developed configuration for the production F-23A which would have split the weapons bay into two bays, reprofiled the "bread loaves" over the engines to be smaller to reflect the deletion of a thrust reverser requirement, and replaced the boundary-layer plates in the intake with diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI) design.
Yeah, the bay was split into a forward bay for the 2 Sidewinders and an aft main bay carrying 4 AMRAAMs stacked in a 2x2 configuration. I've always wondered about the change in the type of intake, and have to think that this represented quite a bit of risk that could have been reduced by the demonstration but obviously was not. The F-23 ended up being more different from the YF-23 than the F-22 was different from the YF-22.
A belated hi to you Paul. I predict ( June 2024) that the to be revealed new air superior fighter for the US Airforce will look very similar to the YF 23. Most would agree that this craft looks absolutely futuristic.
Paul, another Home Run! This may be one of the most informative vids I have seen on this aircraft (and I have seen A LOT!). I am particularly glad you mentioned the fact that the Japanese are looking into this aircraft for their indigenous fighter, I was going to add that. Many people have said that the YF-23 was actually superior in most ways to the F-22, I lack the expertise to make that determination. Looks like I'm going to have to plan another trip to the NMUSAF.
It's interesting the YF-23 seemed to be the better design overall. Great video - thank you for the detail. I have loved military planes since I was a little boy, and have been to Dayton several times. However, I've learned more watching your videos than I have anywhere else. Appreciate the detail!
I worked on the YF23 and it was supposed to be a competition from drawing board to first flight, which the YF23 did in 44 months, six months before the YF22! It was built stealthy, not like the YF22. The first 22 crashed on its first flight!
cool it crashed welcome to the 20th century. a crash doesnt show a the quality of a aircraft. if we worked off that metric the f-15 is a coffin. YF-23 suffered from no thrustvectoring. sure it had similar agility to the yf-22 at low alt but as soon as the airdensity lowered the yf-22 could do rings around the yf-23... why? the yf-22 doesnt need to worry about air flow over the wings. Not only that the Vtail design would be an enherent issue due to the larger area of force being put on it. Now the weapons bay. due to its large nature and the fact you needed to stack the missiles it actually meant the yf-23 wouldnt be able to preform certain menuveruors due to G forces damaging weapons. oh and it was capped to 4 aim120s if it wanted to take 2 sidewinders unlike the 6+2 on the YF-22. the only beifit was it could carry other weapon types which sadly was not what the navy or airforce were looking for.
6:50 The cleavage was probably there to satisfy an aerodynamic design criteria of having a smooth cross sectional area profile. What that means is, if you were to take station-line cuts along the length of the plane, then calculate the area for each slice, then plot that area on a graph as a function of length, that curve should look smooth.
Paul, the reason for the trough between the engines is to preserve the AREA RULE. Look at a chart of the area rule for the F22 and F23.....The F22s has a peak in the center, where its belly is. The F23s is a smooth hill from tail to nose. Smoother area rule = more efficient drag = better gas milage = larger range.
This is the most beautiful aircraft to ever fly, bar none. It's tragic that only two ever flew. Northrup should resurrect the design for a future fighter!
Best Video I've Seen About The Plane. Direct & To The Point Without A-lot Of BS. Performance Notwithstanding, It's Certainly The Best Looking Fighter Ever & Thanks Very Much.
Concept art typically borrows from existing aircraft. Before the F-117 was revealed, concept art of the "F-19" showed aircraft looking like kitbashes of the F-16 and SR-71. The MiG-31 from the novel "Firefox" was based on the MiG-25, but the movie clearly showed inspiration from the XB-70A.
The design choices for the YF-23 would translate better to modern combat. The catch is that when the choice was being made between the F-22 and the YF-23, the F-22 was a far more finished and polished product. Northrop still hadn't figured out how to put together the weapons bay and the test aircraft were built with 2 different engines because a final decision hadn't been made. Meanwhile, the F-22 showed up to the final fly off and where the YF-23 couldn't even carry a weapon, the F-22 was shooting at drones with live Fox 3's and Fox 2's.
Great video except someone's seems to have put the wrong name on the wrong plane, tail number 0800 in your video is Pav-1 (Blackwidow) with the PW engines piloted by Paul Metz, Gray ghost is Pav-2 0801 with GE engines which was piloted by Jim Sandberg
And also an aeroplane of great beauty! I seem to recall a view expressed that Northrop's marketing of their product to the USAF was amiss, meaning that the best plane, their's, didn't win the competition. A boundary-layer-sucking-thingy? Nope, I wouldn't have thought of that.
They also had the issue that the tooling used to build the prototypes wasn’t suitable for production numbers. They’d have a higher cost and longer order time due to having to make all the equipment necessary. The F-22 was ready to go into production as soon as the contract was signed, which was a big selling point for them
The F-4 and a few other aircraft had what is called "BLC" or "boundary layer control" systems which helped control the boundary layer by taking bleed air from the engines and blowing it across the leading edge of the wings to provide lift and prevent boundary layer separation and other issues. If the BLC warning light went on and stayed on after the bold-face procedure was performed and you were below 10,000 feet, that was an ejection event... That's because of the higher wing loading, combined with low speeds can lead to boundary layer separation, which will immediately cause depression to set in.....
As an Air Force fighter pilot I can tell you with great certainty, that the Air Force is sorry they didn't choose the F-23 Black Widow 2! What you're not aware of, if they resurrected the F-23 an upgraded the software with today's technology, it would be a 6th generation fighter, let me repeat, it would be a 6th generation fighter! That's incredible and that's how far advanced this aircraft was, just look how futuristic it looks, even by today's standards, the F-22 looks dated in comparison! I'm glad he mentioned the speed on this aircraft is still classified to this day and from what I've heard, it came in close to Mach 3! If it was Mach 2.5 like the F-15 they would have told you, because there's no secret on the speed of the F-15, but there is on the F-23 which means it was faster, otherwise they wouldn't keep it a secret! I hope Japan doesn't change a thing on the F-23, just bring the software technology up to speed and that's all they would have to do to it! It's ready to go! The good news out of all this is, that they're building brand new F-15EXs that are more powerful and deadlier than before and I mean deadlier and they will be around for approximately another 50 years for a grand total of 100 years! That's incredible! The F-15 first took to the skies on July 27th 1972 and it just celebrated it's 50th anniversary on July 27th 2022! Thank you Boeing for giving me the opportunity to fly the greatest air superiority fighter in the world! I would also like to thank Fairchild Republic for giving me the opportunity to fly the A-10 Thunderbolt 2, affectionately called, the Warthog which I currently fly and it's one tough bird and always gets you home safely! Our troops love it when we show up, flying around the battlefield and protecting them and killing the bad guys and does a real good job of that! Thanks again to both of you and may the hand of God be with you forever!
it's not just a matter of software. in order to be sixth gen it would also need upgraded sensors and avionics. it doesn't have anything remotely comparable to the f35's DAS or helmet mounted displays and it's doubtful its old computers could even run the f35's combat software. would also need an aesa radar which didn't even exist in 1992.
@@craig4867 That is easy to say but a vast over simplification. One of my best friends is involved in BAEs Tempest program, the computers and sensor systems are by far the defining characteristic of a 6th gen fighter. Made for extreme BVR and drone control the airframe design is basically there to serve as a stealthy platform to mount the systems they will use to fight. Its not just a case of stuffing in the new generation computers, you need power and cooling systems sufficient to run them, advanced sensor and communication systems to link to all battlespace assets. The F23 was a good design, arguably better on paper than the F22. But to call it a 6th gen capable platform is laughable.
Great video with lots of info. Just one bit of clarification. I believe the displayed engine is actually the non-selected General Electric YF-120. I don't know a great deal about aircraft but engines are all I have done for 40 years and I have seen early YF119 engines. That is a YF-120. Again great video just an attempt to correct one small point.
It's easy to romanticize the -23 because it's the fighter not chosen. It certainly one sexy plane, looking like a 6th gen fighter when it really was a 5th gen. But was it better? From what we know it was a close competition. Both the -22 and -23 met or exceeded all expectations. Each one had some slight advantages over the other. But had it gone into production would things have been smooth, or would there have been delays and cost overruns? We'll never know. Still, it may have created some legacies. The Russian Su-57 looks to have taken many influences from the -23. And if Northrop partners with Japan on their 6th gen fighter, we will undoubtedly see developments that began with the -23.
Thanks Paul for another interesting video. I really do reckon that the F22 and YF23 are two absolutely beautiful airframes, and it is a shame that this model is virtually wasted, tho I guess they learnt lots from this sort of prototype. But seriously, the lines on these models are just gorgeous, and packed with tech. Cheers mate.
I remember being so freaking disappointed when the F22 was chosen. This is the most fantastic looking fighter we've ever came close to adopting. Still looks like it's from the future today, just like it did then.
The deeper weapon bay would be an asset as the F-22 cannot carry anything larger than a GBU-32 1000lbs bomb. One drawback that the YF-23 had was that the short range missiles were in the main bay and that meant the flight envelope for opening those bigger doors would tough to do in a dogfight. Basically it means you have either unload G's, or slow down, or both. Weapons bay doors are a challenge for designers. The bigger they are and the further they protrude into the airstream, the more effect they have on the how the aircraft flies. I bet that could have been one of the show stoppers for -23.
Our YF-23 isn't inside a nice hangar like this one is. Instead the one at Zamperini Field @ Torrance, Ca is (Seemingly) tucked away at the South/East corner of the airfield, out in the open elements, kinda carelessly if you ask me..Along with an F-14 Tomcat, and another fighter of which I can't remember at the moment. Sad that ours her in Torrance isn't well presented inside a hangar like this one in Dayton, OH is.
Some great video footage and detailed commentary as usual from you Paul about a very impressive aircraft. Amazing design and engineering helping to reduce "radar returns" and "heat signature". There are so many issues to consider in designing a new aircraft. Well done Paul and looking forward to the next aircraft review.
The weapon bay on the YF-23 was indeed deeper, but also narrower, and stacked weapons were frowned upon for a fighhter that has to withstand 9 g or sometimes even greater acceleration force. Additionally, its capacity was only 4 AMRAAMs compared to 6 on the F-22. And the YF-23/F-23's bay lacked the flexibility of the F-22's bays. I doubt, for example, that the GBU-39/53 racks could be accomodated, and it couldn't carry a mix of those and the GBU-32 like the F-22 could. The F-22's single-layer bays had many advantages over the YF-23/F-23's design (the F-23 is actually a little different from the YF-23 because the main bay was smaller and there was a second bay that carried the 2 Sidewinders).
Excellent Narration. Extremely thorough yet efficient description. I wonder if Active Flow Control would ever be considered for this Aircraft. Might make all the difference in the world in terms of Stealth and Maneuverability. Perhaps in a Sixth Generation Model. Superb video.
Glad I got to watch this video. You covered several interesting facts about it, and did a very informative and intelligent review of the YF23! Thank you!
It has been known that politics and bureaucracy killed the aircraft. The YF-23 was and still is one of the most advanced jet designs ever. If they ever decide to bring it back today, it would still be relevant to today's threat environment. Nice to see this beauty up close! 👍👍
You mentioned japan which wanted the f22 but couldn't get because of the import ban, but you gotta wonder why they didnt just buy this model from northrop instead since it was near production ready. Maybe it was also banned?
Thanks for adding to the mystique of the YF23. I prefer it to the YF22. The F22 is way more refined than the YF22 and I always wonder how a real F23 would look like. Also thanks for showing all the nitty gritty details, it's one thing to read about it, it's another to see it on the airframe.
I found it looking like that "Darkstar" in the beginning of Top Gun: Maverick, that "Darkstar" looks like the combination of this YF-23 and SR-71...do you think??
I remember I used to see this plane outside of the air museum by the Northrop plant in Hawthorne CA, and always wondered “why are they letting it rot?” It’s an awesome looking plane. Thanks for this video because I know now it’s in good hands.
This was the rare competition where both entries were really worthy of a contract. As it turns out, in the last 20 years we haven’t had a lot of need for a stealthy supersonic attack aircraft, but if we had . . .
There will be less structural reduction than you suggest. The V-tail has to be large enough to provide the same forces as the tail plane and fin. The supporting structure will, have to be strong as the airframe that would be needed to support the tailplane and fin of a normal design.
Thanks for watching everyone. Several people have commented on the name of PAV-2. Inside the nose landing wheel well, you'll see the name 'SPIDER' printed and this can be seen in numerous photos and videos. Here's a photo from Wikipaedia: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/YF-23_PAV-2_%22Spider%22_Static.jpg
Sad to see the poor girl sitting out in the sun, while the other ship sits in glorious company in Dayton. Has anyone described how the Black Widow name came about? That there are two orange/red danger signs painted on the belly that turned out to look like an hourglass
The F22 is an incredible bit of kit and it still looks like something 20 years ahead of its time. But the YF23 looks like something aliens left behind. It’s jaw dropping.
The YF-23 actually outperformed the F-22 on various metrics, which many people are unaware of. It was actually faster than the F-22 in supercruise and with afterburners. It had a smaller radar cross-section from all but one direction. The military chose the F-22 because of Lockheed consistency, previous experience with stealth, and because the design was more conservative and traditional. With Northrop's successful but massively over budget B-2 program that experienced cost overruns and time delays, the military opted for the lockheed model.
@@thomasbarrack1384 does yf 23 really had longer range than f22
@@thomasbarrack1384 In addition northrop was going thru some issues in the 80s and any government project is all about how well you pay the politicians. The f22 barely got off the ground the day of testing.
@@thomasbarrack1384 not to me tonight that the USAF had a grudge going way back against Jack Northop, the company founder, due to his original flying wing bomber concept that started back after WWII and the many issues (budget, delays, etc.) so that did not help either.
Add in the fact that the F-23 didn't have thrust vectoring engines and that it fell behind in demonstrations (such as the F-22 early on demonstrating its weapon firing ability from the internal bays whi h the F-23 never actually demonstrated whereas the F-22 did this VERY early on in testing) and with everything combined hurt and eventually ended the chances of Northrop winning the USAF contract.
Personally, while I understand why, at the end. the F-22 was chosen, I personally wish the F-23 would have been chosen as it is still an amazing aircraft and is just BEYOND a beautiful design. I won't take anything away from the F-22 as it too is an AMAZING aircraft and is king of the skies and most likely will be for sometime.
At the very least, China has a cheap dollar store knock off that may soon be flying the skies AND Japan has seemingly taken an interest in the design so much that a future Japaneae craft will most likely resemble one as well.
@@CONSOLETRUTH2 too much to respond to. The delays and cost overruns actually make sense as to why they happened. They build a giant bomber that is more stealthy than even the F-22 raptor, and started designing it earlier. Computing power wasn't enough back in those days to use for figuring out how to manufacture and produce all the parts and equipment. The B-2 was the most advanced, stealthiest, and capable bomber, and possible aircraft the world had ever seen. And they had no one else's work to draw off of. Innovating isn't always timely.
Regarding the f-23, its own designers stated that they went without thrust vectoring because it wasn't needed to achieve desired maneuvering capabilities, the futuristic design of the aircraft in tandem with it's superior thrust to the F-22 made it just as capable if not more. The military has a pattern of favoring Lockheed, some of which is due to the deep state and politicians trying to keep jobs in their states for constituants, and the other was that the F-22 was viewed as a natural progression of the f-15 where the f-23 was futuristic and would be harder to sell to the public. At bottom the f-22 won becsuse of politics and bureaucracy, not solely on it's merit as an ATF
People forget that the competition was for an air superiority fighter and the f-22 with its thrust vectoring was better for that role. In hindsight the YF-23 might have been the better choice for the fighters needed today. But the truth is if it had been an F-23 today there would been videos and people talking about the YF-22 and how it was better and should have been selected. Both these planes are amazing with different strengths and weaknesses and probably both should have been made.
Exactly!
Agreed.. we should add 360 trust vectoring to the YF-23 and build them 😂🇺🇸🦅
Literally the only thing the F-22 had over the yf-23 was politics.
The YF-23 was faster, stealthier, and had greater weapons options.
In an air superiority role in this modern day thrust vectoring means nothing on a stealth jet, if a stealth fighter is in dogfight distance it's made many mistakes to find itself there.
feel like the yf23's higher preference given to stealth would have aged better with what missiles are able to do and the fact that su57 is basically maxxed out on anti stealth tech and j20 is no where near stealthy. im bothered that china realizes stuff could pop off soon and started production on their j35 competitor model even though it lost to j20. kinda feel like were putting all our eggs in 1 basket with f35 but atleast were making them way faster than china can for way cheaper.
especially f16 legacy models that theyre starting to mass produce in india. with a potential fly away cost of 10-15m per f16, it might cost russia more in s400 missiles to shoot one down that it will for the US to make lol
@@ltcuddles685 can’t argue with that 👍
The YF-23 Designed and Silhouette is so far-ahead of it's time that it basically looks like an actual 6th gen on a 5th gen Air Force project of that time.
It still does. I saw the one prototype at the Western Museum of Flight and it's amazing how sleek it looks in real life. It looks stretched and flattened comparted to pictures. Very impressive and futuristic. Also terrible what kind of shape this particular prototype is in. It is just sitting outside off in a far part of the air field.
How great would it have been to see a fleet of F-23s flying off of carriers.
But it was a usaf concept so it would never have flown off of carriers plus the navy already has the f35
@@Ian4bis Sure, this was also well before the F-35s time, even before the Super Hornet. As was the case of the Classic Hornet being developed out of a competition for a USAF aircraft, the production F-23 (or what ever it would have become had it been developed further) could have been a replacement for the Classic Hornets and the Tomcats. But as we know from the F-22, there was just no where near enough money for that to happen with the cost of either of these machines, hence the Super Hornet and now the F-35.
@@omarhossam789 The chief reason for selecting the LM project was that the government was more assured that LM could manage the program. Their faith in NG at the time was quite shakey. The LM project at the time of testing was quite a bit more mature than the NG project.
While I’m not sold on the USAF wanting an aircraft because it would have been an easier conversion for the Navy, the US did look briefly at a version of the Raptor to replace the F-14. The idea was that the Navy could leverage the F-22 program and the USAF could leverage the A-12 program to create a replacement for the F-111. However with the cancellation of the A-12 this never happened. The F-22 proposed for carrier ops was swing wing (obviously with a bunch of other major changes to the platform to make it suitable) and was finally judged to be too difficult and expensive to complete or justify generally due to the projections that this would not provide any advantage over the current fleet that the Navy operated nor lessen the cost burden on the F-22 program (at the time a production Raptor had not even flown and already cost estimates were blown out and procurement numbers were coming down).
Anyway, we know the Navy got Super Hornets and the USAF got naff all Raptors. The Raptors may get upgrades to prolong their service into the future out of the NGAD program however that program looks likely to go in a different direction to current platforms.
@@omarhossam789 That is not true. Either version would've been expensive, but possible, to convert for Naval operation.
@@Ian4bis actually it was also competing for the NATF program concurrently and there were already plans to build a navalized F-23
Love the YF-23. Great video and thank you. I remember carefully following the selection process and when the YF 22 was announced as the winner I was thinking “oh, I wanted the cool looking one!”
Glad you enjoyed it
Me, too.
Ikr? I was just going to make the same comment. ☺️
Its the cooler plane, easily
Me too. I was so disappointed when they selected the “safe” pick. The F22 is pretty awesome but the F23 was something special
I grew up in Cincinnati, just 30 min south of Dayton. I regret never going to this museum.
I am filming there in a week and plan more filming so you can live vicariously through my videos :)
@@PaulStewartAviation thank you 👍
Thanks for watching everyone. I made a mistake with the name of the other prototype YF-23. It was actually called the "Black Widow II"
No worries, you did a great job! Thank you, It's one of the best YF23 videos!
Yes, and anyone can view it at the Western Museum of Flight at Zamperini Field in Torrance, California.
Fun fact: The F22 Raptor was once called "The Rapier".
Is that a tipjet Hiller helicopter on the ceiling? And the other ones are what exactly?
Fun Fact: For a short time, the Black Widow II had a red hourglass marking on it's underside, until Northrop management (killjoys that they are) had it removed.
Another Fun Fact: The other nickname of the "Gray Ghost" was "Spider". So you were only kinda wrong.
My dad had a professional model of this on his desk for years. He lead a team at Garrett Airesearch that helped design the leading edge flaps for this plane and many others. Miss you dad. 😢
YF23's diverterless supersonic inlet was truly ahead of its time. It had many engineering characteristics that were superior to a more "conservative" YF22's design.
Agreed. The choice between the YF22 and the Y23 was probably also about conservative vs. innovative, and they probably wanted to avoid the risk of the more innovative stuff having problems and increasing the cost. The F22 already turned out to be pretty expensive, now imagine the F23 having problems with any of the unconventional stuff. Not saying that it would, just that there is always the risk
Yes but just before they selected the winner USSR collapsed, with that USAF lost the only near-pear adversry capable to present any challenge and financing of the program collapsed as well. The best performance options was considered YF-23 with GE engines and the cheapest combination was YF-22 with PW engines. They practically had to select the cheapest YF-22/PW combination still barely saving the program at all. Additionally USAF was forced to reduce the program from initial 700 airframes to 190.
thats just says that both aircraft were truly ahead of its time.
It's a sham, the Air Force knew the YF-23 was the better option but because of politics the F-22 got the nod. Northrop shot themselves in the foot due to controversies involving previous programs like the B-2 that went way over budget. The Pentagon possibly believed this was going to be another fiasco were they over pay for a new fighter.
@@joeclaridy The biggest issue was the YF23 was just a mockup with placeholder electronics/software, while the YF22, although early stage, had a working proof of concept. Military tend to be conservative with their projects, and understandably, they went with a more certain option.
coolest aircraft ever built hands down. can't wait to see the new NGAD and F/A XX and see what similarities it will have to the yf 23
The chines also avoid creeping waves. This is where radar waves coming in from abeam "stick" to the circular cross section of the fuselage, wrap around it and are then sent back in the direction of the receiver - like doing a 180 on a roundabout. Instead they spill off the fuselage at the chines and away from the radar.
They both should have been put into production. They both are unique and could serve different mission roles. YF23 and 22 compliment each other for the perfect high profile strike mission.
yes not affordable just dont.....i know.
Expensive to build both
The 23 was way ahead of its time
The saddest part is we will never know how good it really was because both YF-23s did less than 60hrs flight time.
Why does that seem so minimal?
Any idea how long they ran the f22, compared to the yf23?
@@elgoog7830 well if you really take into consideration most pilots do about 6-8hrs give or take a week flying so 60 hrs flight time that like maybe 8-9 test flights, probably less since some tests they most likely did extended runs to see how long it could go things like that
@@elgoog7830 Hi I cannot remember how many hours the YF-22 did before winning the contract as I cannot find my book but I think it was similar 60ish hrs. Their was no direct fly-off as popular belief has it.
As a Northrop employee I am biased, but I suspect that F23 would have had less problems in introduction and operation than the F22, and definitely had more room for mission growth. The stealth was much better on the F23.
@@saltyroe3179 you got it right.
Hi Paul. Such an interesting ( and different) design to other aircraft of that time. I love the curves
Glad you enjoyed it
One thing of note, during the flight test competition the YF-23 suffered a software "hiccup" and the plane oscillated just above the runway until the pilot forced it down into a hard belly landing. The plane still flew an excellent test profile against the YF-22, just that event probably looked bad. Still a great airplane. I will say we still got a great airplane with the F-22 Raptor though.
That is false. After award, the Air Force and Lockheed conducted further testing with the YF-22 and that is the aircraft that suffered the belly landing. The software hiccup with the YF-23 was during taxi. If you watch early taxi tests, the flight control surfaces are moving as the flight control system reacts to bumps on the runway. The software was updated to eliminate that annoyance.
Everything Jim M said is correct.
Yeah, that was the -22.
That was the YF22 that had that accident. The pilot stated it was his fault.
You are spreading FALSE INFORMATION. The F-22 crashed. Dont come in here trying to sound smart. Youre definitely a Wanna Be.
Was the YF-23 recently put on display at the National Air Force Museum? I don’t remember seeing it before! Awesome plane.
Same, it wasnt there in 2014 either
@@jrk098 I was there a few month ago and I don’t remember seeing it. Must just be that stealthy haha
There's one on display at the Western Museum of Flight, at the Torrance, Ca airport.
@@Paul51178Yeah - I see it most times I go to the grocery store - I often can't resist stopping in to say hello!
Same. I went there probably every month for years but haven’t been since 2019 and I don’t remember it
Its so good we should build it today. We missed a great opportunity because half the battle is in the mind of people today and everyone knows this is the shit! Its a work of art.
Such a beauty. I mean the Raptor is an aesthetic masterpiece no doubt, but the Widow is something special to me.
Seems like perforated titanium plates are a common theme with US stealth jets. Interesting!
Great video Paul. Great looking aircraft. The shaking like a shopping trolley is called "shimmy" and something you can encounter on small GA aircraft a bit. The Cessna nosewheels are well known for it as they get older.
Or on a certain aircraft that had its launch bar equipment removed because it wouldn’t be operated from a carrier. 😒
Thanks Paul, I always loved The Grey Ghost. I remember when the YF-22 and YF-23 first flew and were in completion. Nice to see her up close.
Glad you enjoy it. I'm off to Dayton again later this month for more filming.
The race between Lockheed Martin and Northrop to build the F22/23, the fact that only the engineers knew about it and spen years designing and putting it together, but what's more amazing than anything is that this all happened in the early 90's !
The contract mod to add the PAVs....Prototype Air Vehicles....was in late1985/early 1986. The jets flew in 1990 with down-select shortly thereafter
3:09. That's pure genius.
it's a fascinating design
Such a cool wasted aircraft design. Much better looking than the aircraft that went into production, although F22 Is still a beautiful aircraft. Great video again Paul.
The YF-22 was a weird, oddly proportioned aircraft. That ugly duckling really turned into a swan with the production model though. Weirdly, supposed renders (best guess) of what would have been the F23 show a far less attractive machine than the gorgeous YF-23.
It's not really a "wasted" design. They learned a lot making it and can still incorporate the best features of it in future designs. But I get what you're saying, it's a very cool design. I would say that the only thing cooler looking than the F-22 Raptor is the YF-23.
@@patrickdaly5988where I can find them?
An absolute tragedy that this lost to the raptor. Absolutely adore the 22, but god damn the 23 was on another level.
One of my favorite jets that never made it to production. Great example of form following function
Beyond maneuvering, thrust vectoring gives the F-22 more efficient cruise and supercruise trim that allows its aerodynamic control surfaces to mostly remain in their stealthiest neutral positions.
The decision was made to save the weight instead on the F-23, which is also a valid option, although it does give up some pitch authority at extremely slow and high (supersonic) speeds, as a consequence.
Thanks Paul, another great video of a plane I had no idea existed. Wonderful looking titanium tiles...
Glad you enjoyed it
@@PaulStewartAviation Are those titanium troughs not built with vertical sidewalls? They appear to be very near to 90deg intersections.
My favorite jet design ever. It's just beautiful. Shame they didn't win the contract.
Details in your narration are spot on - thank you for doing the research. Northrop/MD already had a developed configuration for the production F-23A which would have split the weapons bay into two bays, reprofiled the "bread loaves" over the engines to be smaller to reflect the deletion of a thrust reverser requirement, and replaced the boundary-layer plates in the intake with diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI) design.
Glad you enjoyed it. I'm off to Dayton later this month for more filming
Yeah, the bay was split into a forward bay for the 2 Sidewinders and an aft main bay carrying 4 AMRAAMs stacked in a 2x2 configuration.
I've always wondered about the change in the type of intake, and have to think that this represented quite a bit of risk that could have been reduced by the demonstration but obviously was not. The F-23 ended up being more different from the YF-23 than the F-22 was different from the YF-22.
A belated hi to you Paul. I predict ( June 2024) that the to be revealed new air superior fighter for the US Airforce will look very similar to the YF 23. Most would agree that this craft looks absolutely futuristic.
Paul, another Home Run! This may be one of the most informative vids I have seen on this aircraft (and I have seen A LOT!). I am particularly glad you mentioned the fact that the Japanese are looking into this aircraft for their indigenous fighter, I was going to add that. Many people have said that the YF-23 was actually superior in most ways to the F-22, I lack the expertise to make that determination.
Looks like I'm going to have to plan another trip to the NMUSAF.
It's interesting the YF-23 seemed to be the better design overall. Great video - thank you for the detail. I have loved military planes since I was a little boy, and have been to Dayton several times. However, I've learned more watching your videos than I have anywhere else. Appreciate the detail!
Glad you enjoyed it
Imagine having those large tail fins and thrust vectoring
I worked on the YF23 and it was supposed to be a competition from drawing board to first flight, which the YF23 did in 44 months, six months before the YF22! It was built stealthy, not like the YF22. The first 22 crashed on its first flight!
cool it crashed welcome to the 20th century. a crash doesnt show a the quality of a aircraft. if we worked off that metric the f-15 is a coffin.
YF-23 suffered from no thrustvectoring. sure it had similar agility to the yf-22 at low alt but as soon as the airdensity lowered the yf-22 could do rings around the yf-23... why? the yf-22 doesnt need to worry about air flow over the wings. Not only that the Vtail design would be an enherent issue due to the larger area of force being put on it.
Now the weapons bay. due to its large nature and the fact you needed to stack the missiles it actually meant the yf-23 wouldnt be able to preform certain menuveruors due to G forces damaging weapons. oh and it was capped to 4 aim120s if it wanted to take 2 sidewinders unlike the 6+2 on the YF-22. the only beifit was it could carry other weapon types which sadly was not what the navy or airforce were looking for.
One of my favorite jets.
Great video! I remember the flyoff between the two aircraft, and at the time, both looked like spaceships, or something out of an anime.
Another awesome documentary you have made, Paul.
Thank you very much for sharing your wonderful documentary with us.
My favorite aircraft of all!!!! Thank you so much for that super close up!!!!!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Up there in the best-never-built aircraft list. Terrific YF-23 video. Thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it!
6:50 The cleavage was probably there to satisfy an aerodynamic design criteria of having a smooth cross sectional area profile. What that means is, if you were to take station-line cuts along the length of the plane, then calculate the area for each slice, then plot that area on a graph as a function of length, that curve should look smooth.
Fair comments
Paul, the reason for the trough between the engines is to preserve the AREA RULE.
Look at a chart of the area rule for the F22 and F23.....The F22s has a peak in the center, where its belly is.
The F23s is a smooth hill from tail to nose.
Smoother area rule = more efficient drag = better gas milage = larger range.
Excellent break down and coverage of this fighter. Well done. SIR!
Cheers!
This is the most beautiful aircraft to ever fly, bar none. It's tragic that only two ever flew. Northrup should resurrect the design for a future fighter!
One of the biggest shames in aviation history was that this plane did not go into production.
That thing had a ceiling of 62,000'??? That is wild!
Best Video I've Seen About The Plane. Direct & To The Point Without A-lot Of BS. Performance Notwithstanding, It's Certainly The Best Looking Fighter Ever & Thanks Very Much.
It looks sooooooo sick and the military I already know is gonna bring it back
You might not knew what the YF-23 was until or unless you have played the Ace Combat games. That is how I first got introduced to the fighter jet!
Goodness at least yours are loaded with facts, TY ! !
Some of the concept art for the proposed 6th Generation fighters do slightly resemble the YF-23. The Mitsubishi F-X has a very similar layout.
Concept art typically borrows from existing aircraft. Before the F-117 was revealed, concept art of the "F-19" showed aircraft looking like kitbashes of the F-16 and SR-71. The MiG-31 from the novel "Firefox" was based on the MiG-25, but the movie clearly showed inspiration from the XB-70A.
Paul great vlog as always
Such a gorgeous jet. NG did a great job on making a sexy functional jet with the YF23.
The design choices for the YF-23 would translate better to modern combat. The catch is that when the choice was being made between the F-22 and the YF-23, the F-22 was a far more finished and polished product. Northrop still hadn't figured out how to put together the weapons bay and the test aircraft were built with 2 different engines because a final decision hadn't been made.
Meanwhile, the F-22 showed up to the final fly off and where the YF-23 couldn't even carry a weapon, the F-22 was shooting at drones with live Fox 3's and Fox 2's.
Great video except someone's seems to have put the wrong name on the wrong plane, tail number 0800 in your video is Pav-1 (Blackwidow) with the PW engines piloted by Paul Metz, Gray ghost is Pav-2 0801 with GE engines which was piloted by Jim Sandberg
Great stuff mate!
And also an aeroplane of great beauty! I seem to recall a view expressed that Northrop's marketing of their product to the USAF was amiss, meaning that the best plane, their's, didn't win the competition. A boundary-layer-sucking-thingy? Nope, I wouldn't have thought of that.
They also had the issue that the tooling used to build the prototypes wasn’t suitable for production numbers. They’d have a higher cost and longer order time due to having to make all the equipment necessary. The F-22 was ready to go into production as soon as the contract was signed, which was a big selling point for them
The F-4 and a few other aircraft had what is called "BLC" or "boundary layer control" systems which helped control the boundary layer by taking bleed air from the engines and blowing it across the leading edge of the wings to provide lift and prevent boundary layer separation and other issues. If the BLC warning light went on and stayed on after the bold-face procedure was performed and you were below 10,000 feet, that was an ejection event... That's because of the higher wing loading, combined with low speeds can lead to boundary layer separation, which will immediately cause depression to set in.....
As an Air Force fighter pilot I can tell you with great certainty, that the Air Force is sorry they didn't choose the F-23 Black Widow 2! What you're not aware of, if they resurrected the F-23 an upgraded the software with today's technology, it would be a 6th generation fighter, let me repeat, it would be a 6th generation fighter! That's incredible and that's how far advanced this aircraft was, just look how futuristic it looks, even by today's standards, the F-22 looks dated in comparison! I'm glad he mentioned the speed on this aircraft is still classified to this day and from what I've heard, it came in close to Mach 3! If it was Mach 2.5 like the F-15 they would have told you, because there's no secret on the speed of the F-15, but there is on the F-23 which means it was faster, otherwise they wouldn't keep it a secret! I hope Japan doesn't change a thing on the F-23, just bring the software technology up to speed and that's all they would have to do to it! It's ready to go! The good news out of all this is, that they're building brand new F-15EXs that are more powerful and deadlier than before and I mean deadlier and they will be around for approximately another 50 years for a grand total of 100 years! That's incredible! The F-15 first took to the skies on July 27th 1972 and it just celebrated it's 50th anniversary on July 27th 2022! Thank you Boeing for giving me the opportunity to fly the greatest air superiority fighter in the world! I would also like to thank Fairchild Republic for giving me the opportunity to fly the A-10 Thunderbolt 2, affectionately called, the Warthog which I currently fly and it's one tough bird and always gets you home safely! Our troops love it when we show up, flying around the battlefield and protecting them and killing the bad guys and does a real good job of that! Thanks again to both of you and may the hand of God be with you forever!
it's not just a matter of software. in order to be sixth gen it would also need upgraded sensors and avionics. it doesn't have anything remotely comparable to the f35's DAS or helmet mounted displays and it's doubtful its old computers could even run the f35's combat software. would also need an aesa radar which didn't even exist in 1992.
@@oldfrend . You don't use old computers, you updated with modern software! With today's technology! Get it!
@@craig4867 That is easy to say but a vast over simplification. One of my best friends is involved in BAEs Tempest program, the computers and sensor systems are by far the defining characteristic of a 6th gen fighter.
Made for extreme BVR and drone control the airframe design is basically there to serve as a stealthy platform to mount the systems they will use to fight. Its not just a case of stuffing in the new generation computers, you need power and cooling systems sufficient to run them, advanced sensor and communication systems to link to all battlespace assets.
The F23 was a good design, arguably better on paper than the F22. But to call it a 6th gen capable platform is laughable.
@@tothethreshold.9965 . Obviously you're not an Air Force fighter pilot who has a degree in aeronautical engineering!
Great video with lots of info. Just one bit of clarification. I believe the displayed engine is actually the non-selected General Electric YF-120. I don't know a great deal about aircraft but engines are all I have done for 40 years and I have seen early YF119 engines. That is a YF-120. Again great video just an attempt to correct one small point.
thanks for this! This plane was one of the ones I most wanted to see on my Museum visit
It's easy to romanticize the -23 because it's the fighter not chosen. It certainly one sexy plane, looking like a 6th gen fighter when it really was a 5th gen. But was it better? From what we know it was a close competition. Both the -22 and -23 met or exceeded all expectations. Each one had some slight advantages over the other. But had it gone into production would things have been smooth, or would there have been delays and cost overruns? We'll never know.
Still, it may have created some legacies. The Russian Su-57 looks to have taken many influences from the -23. And if Northrop partners with Japan on their 6th gen fighter, we will undoubtedly see developments that began with the -23.
Thanks Paul for another interesting video. I really do reckon that the F22 and YF23 are two absolutely beautiful airframes, and it is a shame that this model is virtually wasted, tho I guess they learnt lots from this sort of prototype. But seriously, the lines on these models are just gorgeous, and packed with tech. Cheers mate.
I remember being so freaking disappointed when the F22 was chosen. This is the most fantastic looking fighter we've ever came close to adopting. Still looks like it's from the future today, just like it did then.
Great stuff. I'm learning so much about aerospace and fighters from your channel. Thank you.
Glad you're enjoying them
The deeper weapon bay would be an asset as the F-22 cannot carry anything larger than a GBU-32 1000lbs bomb. One drawback that the YF-23 had was that the short range missiles were in the main bay and that meant the flight envelope for opening those bigger doors would tough to do in a dogfight. Basically it means you have either unload G's, or slow down, or both. Weapons bay doors are a challenge for designers. The bigger they are and the further they protrude into the airstream, the more effect they have on the how the aircraft flies. I bet that could have been one of the show stoppers for -23.
Great vid 👍👍💪💪💞💞🙏🙏 enjoy your weekend
Glad you enjoy it. I'm off to Dayton again later this month for more filming.
Our YF-23 isn't inside a nice hangar like this one is. Instead the one at Zamperini Field @ Torrance, Ca is (Seemingly) tucked away at the South/East corner of the airfield, out in the open elements, kinda carelessly if you ask me..Along with an F-14 Tomcat, and another fighter of which I can't remember at the moment. Sad that ours her in Torrance isn't well presented inside a hangar like this one in Dayton, OH is.
Perfect design
Some great video footage and detailed commentary as usual from you Paul about a very impressive aircraft. Amazing design and engineering helping to reduce "radar returns" and "heat signature". There are so many issues to consider in designing a new aircraft. Well done Paul and looking forward to the next aircraft review.
Best-looking aircraft ever built, in my opinion.
The weapon bay on the YF-23 was indeed deeper, but also narrower, and stacked weapons were frowned upon for a fighhter that has to withstand 9 g or sometimes even greater acceleration force.
Additionally, its capacity was only 4 AMRAAMs compared to 6 on the F-22. And the YF-23/F-23's bay lacked the flexibility of the F-22's bays. I doubt, for example, that the GBU-39/53 racks could be accomodated, and it couldn't carry a mix of those and the GBU-32 like the F-22 could. The F-22's single-layer bays had many advantages over the YF-23/F-23's design (the F-23 is actually a little different from the YF-23 because the main bay was smaller and there was a second bay that carried the 2 Sidewinders).
Thanks Paul good video !
Thanks for a great video on this wonderful machine.
Awesome... like something out of a Clint Eastwood movie! 👍✈️
Excellent Narration. Extremely thorough yet efficient description. I wonder if Active Flow Control would ever be considered for this Aircraft. Might make all the difference in the world in terms of Stealth and Maneuverability. Perhaps in a Sixth Generation Model. Superb video.
Glad I got to watch this video. You covered several interesting facts about it, and did a very informative and intelligent review of the YF23! Thank you!
It has been known that politics and bureaucracy killed the aircraft. The YF-23 was and still is one of the most advanced jet designs ever. If they ever decide to bring it back today, it would still be relevant to today's threat environment. Nice to see this beauty up close! 👍👍
You mentioned japan which wanted the f22 but couldn't get because of the import ban, but you gotta wonder why they didnt just buy this model from northrop instead since it was near production ready. Maybe it was also banned?
I still can’t help but feel the YF-23 was the better aircraft. Love it!
I’ve always wanted to visit this aircraft. I love PAV1/2!
During Competition iirc the Pilot of YF-23 Black widow actually painting a red hourglass on the bottom of YF-23 to give it signature look
that wasnt the reason. it was painted that colour to warn ground crew where the APU inlet was. (it would open and could harm the employies)
most beautiful
Thanks for adding to the mystique of the YF23. I prefer it to the YF22. The F22 is way more refined than the YF22 and I always wonder how a real F23 would look like. Also thanks for showing all the nitty gritty details, it's one thing to read about it, it's another to see it on the airframe.
A better fighter for the Pacific theatre than F-22, but F-22 is a great plane too.
Amazing engineering. Beautiful aircraft.
Indeed it is!
It would be great to see a fleet of F-23s taking off from an aircraft carrier.
I found it looking like that "Darkstar" in the beginning of Top Gun: Maverick, that "Darkstar" looks like the combination of this YF-23 and SR-71...do you think??
Very nice video sir.
Paul you need to do the RAF Valcon v bommer????!! Please???
The Vulcon is booked :)
I remember I used to see this plane outside of the air museum by the Northrop plant in Hawthorne CA, and always wondered “why are they letting it rot?” It’s an awesome looking plane. Thanks for this video because I know now it’s in good hands.
Thanks for another great video Paul, looking forward to more.
This was the rare competition where both entries were really worthy of a contract. As it turns out, in the last 20 years we haven’t had a lot of need for a stealthy supersonic attack aircraft, but if we had . . .
Thank you. It was always a dream of mine to visit that specific museum just so I can see the YF-23.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Just imagine what they must be working on right now !!
How this jet wasn't chosen over the YF-22 still baffles me.
F22 is one one my favourites but the yf23 is just a beautiful aircraft
Awesome video really enjoyed that cheers👍🙏
Glad you enjoyed it
There will be less structural reduction than you suggest. The V-tail has to be large enough to provide the same forces as the tail plane and fin. The supporting structure will, have to be strong as the airframe that would be needed to support the tailplane and fin of a normal design.
One of greatest jet fighter, only to be stranded in a museum
Yes it's sad