Lessons Learned from the YF-23 and JSF (F-35) Programs
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 10. 2023
- Former USAF Engineer Rick Abell joins Mover and Gonky to discuss lessons learned from the ATF selection (YF-23) and Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) Programs. From his entry into the USAF as a Civil Servant in 1964 till his retirement in 1997, Mr. Eric "Rick" Abell worked on or led the development and fielding on almost every aircraft and related system in the USAF including the A-7, A-10, F-15, F-16, YF-17, F-117, YF-22, YF-23, F-22, B-1, B-2, and several classified programs. He has also worked extensively with the US Navy and US Army.
ABSOLUTE VENGEANCE eBook by C.W. Lemoine is only $0.99 for the month of October! books2read.com/Absolute-Venge...
Check out The Mover and Gonky Show Mondays at 8PM ET LIVE. • The Mover and Gonky Show
Buy one of C.W. Lemoine's books: www.cwlemoine.com
The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.
Views presented are my own and do not represent the views of DoD or its Components.
In 2001, I was a fresh Lt. at Wright Patterson AFB. I was driving home from work and nearly drove off the road seeing a YF-23 sitting in front of the museum restoration hanger. It was just sitting outside totally unattended. You could walk right up to it. It boggled the mind imagining a whole flight line full of those things.
Almost same thing happened to me out here in LA in 89; driving past the old Western Museum of Flight on Prairie Ave, and there was a YF-23 there on display. Damn near wrecked my car gawking at it!
@@pdexBigTeacher It didn't make its first flight until the middle of 1990. Why was it at a museum in 89?
Maybe my years were mixed up; lol. But I do remember it was early when I moved out here from WPAFB to LA_AFB, so that was 89-95. @@blurglide
The F-22 today is better looking aesthetically than its prototype, IMO. The F-23 would probably have been somewhat different too.
Agreed. The YF-23 is better looking than the YF-22, but the actual F-22 looks better than both.
@@Akm72 I can't believe that an airframe like the F23 could be shelved, I half believe we have or will build it.
@@timfarley274 It's not an optimal air superiority fighter.
It's not super-maneuverable.
And unlike what most people think, this is actually more of a requirement now than ever, not in spite of, but because of stealth.
Due to being unable to track and target stealth aircraft beyond visual range via onboard radar, stealth vs stealth combat relies on ground based long wavelength radar to locate approximately where stealth bandits might be, and vector the stealth interceptor/fighters toward them.
Because on this, almost all stealth-stealth, 5th gen combat will take place in the merge, maneuvering for everything they have.
@@jj4791 Alternately, the move might be to junk the junk the vertical stabilizers and build a fighter that evades long wavelength radar the way the bombers do, perhaps using thrust vectoring or some of the new air redirection tech under development to make something like a more maneuverable bomber full of air to air payload.
@@jj4791that's one scenario. But already now, e.g. IR sensors are quite powerful.
Furthermore, if you combine this with VHF/UHF radars and networking of multiple aircraft, as well as much smarter munitions (e.g., firing missiles before targets are targeted, and in the last second the target gets confirmed/declined via sensors and comms on board the missile), don't you think a munitions intense long range battle is just as feasible?
I'm just trying to say, let's not lose the big picture in a near peer fight, and let's not exclude options early on.
MY All Time FAVORITE Guest on Any CZcams channel anytime, anywhere. GO ‘Rick’ !
Key thing is reputation, Northrop Grumman/ McDonald Douglas was in a string of civil and criminal law cases and the Air Force brass recognized this and decided to go with the safer company. Not talked about too much but I bet this was a huge factor at the time.
Dick Cheney was SecDef at the time with who had LM in his stock portfolio. Politics, self-interest, and corruption also played a role in why YF-23 not chosen.
Lockheed needed the work, Northrop had the B2
I have always personally believed the F-22 (the production model, specifically) is the most gorgeous fighter we've ever made, but the YF-23 is absolutely aesthetically delightful, and I do definitely understand those who prefer its crazy, futuristic look and design ethos. It's a real shame that we couldn't have gotten both, like we did with the YF-16 and YF-17, especially since we were so close with the NATF-23.
Ultimately, the budget wasn't even really there for the raptor, when you think about it: ultimately, every raptor cost half a billion usd, because it was never produced in the planned numbers.
So Idk how you would pay for two fancy jet fleets when even just one is straining the budget so much that you already cut the first fleet...
I think its crystal clear with the NGAD that they learned their lesson on the publicity of the program and meeting targets. As far as anyone knows, the NGAD is just going to be amazing. No cost savings, no VTOL/STOVL, No concurrency, etc. We'll see how it plays out, but in terms of publicity, they are playing this one right.
Soviet approach, eh
It's hard not to get excited about a "specialized" air frame and systems that don't have to compromise as much for commonality. I suspect the overall cost compared to a "common" system, like JSF, is probably similar.
@@brysonfitzgerald5238System of systems
I remember being a kid and reading everything I could about both in popular mechanics.
The 23 had range and comparable performance. That's the only thing that made me scratch my head as a kid.
As an adult, I understand that continuing the funding for all of the different companies is what makes things happen.
Great video, but let's be real about why the F-22 won. There was no way the contract would've been awarded to Northrup when they already had the B-2. These contracts are distributed among the big aerospace companies, and this was no exception. Don't be surprised if 6th gen follows the same pattern of divvying up contracts among the big 3 - Northrup, Lockheed and Boeing.
ugh, boeing
I went to the Air Force museum in Ohio specifically to see the YF-23. It was breathtaking.
I am a separated USAF F-15C F-16D and KC-135R jet engine mechanic maintainer. I PCS from Langley AFB VA 1st FW 2004 just before the F-22 got there. I am cool with the USAF going with the F-22. But... I wish the U.S. Navy in the year 1990 decided to take a navalized F-23 as the 5th Gen replacement for the F-14. This justified having both in the U.S. DOD arsenal. That's me.
It would've cost a whole lot more to make it carrier acceptable.
@@toddie4usa1 Ok... let's do it !!!
@leonswan6733 where's the contract document that says the DOD wants it? You don't just build an aircraft and then the DOD comes in and buys it.
That was GOLD!! Thank you.
I do project management and chief engineer things for a DoD lab. Prototypes are more about learning what requirements should be than getting performance and capability. Doing this successfully requires a certain mindset in the PM, and not just any PM can be successful at prototyping or on risky R&D efforts.
And doing risk reduction on key technologies
we need more rick!
Always a great guest.
Love Mr Abell's thoughts ! he is a hoot.
YF-23 was more forward thinking. Stealthier in multiple signatures(infrared and RCS) and less drag for more range. YF-22 had larger control surfaces and thrust vectoring for better dogfighting potential. Pilots got a loud voice and chose the better dog fighter. Current combat landscape though, YF-23s capabilities are having increased value. Heat tiles on the YF-23 scared some of the maintenance personnel as well. They’re both amazing, but the choice was made. F-22 is a great plane
Man i love this podcast!!!
The YF-23 had a greater top speed, and its technology is still classified for good reasons. The F-22 is no slouch, but the bigger size of the YF-23 could accommodate more future technologies and enhanced capabilities. An actual F-23 production aircraft would build upon the YF-22/YF-23 and production F-22/F-35 programs.
If you do not have Paul Metz's book, it is well worth it.
The YF-23 top speed is not published, because they failed to attain its maximum speed with the prototypes in testing.
This fact, that they were unable to actually fly the airplane to the limits after spending a billion dollars a month on it in the later part of the program, is why it lost.
@@jj4791 "a billion dollars a month" ?! Everything you wrote is a complete lie.
This is 2023 and not 1963. The speed race is over.
@@WALTERBROADDUS "Speed is life." If the speed race is over, then why the race for hypersonics?
This is about the most accurate post I have seen this far on the video. The air to air missle launch was a stunt during the holiday season that was later used to partially justify awarding the contract to Lockheed's pig. That aircraft was nowhere near the F-23 except in it's ability to dogfight, which really means that it failed to look first and shoot first.
I like the way the YF-23 looked, very futuristic.
Just 2 days ago we saw some F-22s practicing off the coast of Virginia while deep sea fishing with the Huk crew, what a sight to see. Caught 10 yellow fins and 3 big eyes, my arms are still cooked but it doesn't get much better than that.
I honestly believe and think the F-35 is severely underrated.. its information warfare capabilities, electronics, and integrations with so many other systems more than make up for its "lack" in physical attributes. Superior information wins battles and wars - the F35 doesn't need to be the fastest, most armed/armored, or maneuverable to win the day. It's specialty in mobile C3I is unmatched.. It can integrate between Space force, air force, navy, and army systems real time, target and destroy over the horizon targets, and provide early warning/targeting for all platforms including itself. Situational awareness and survivability are maximized for the pilots and systems at much greater distances and earlier. Yeah they made tons of mistakes and blew the budget along the way but the result is still something unmatched in it's domain, even among other top fighters/fighter-bombers.
You are correct in that statement. Most of the F35 " capabilities " will remain restricted in the public domain but I can safely say this. I would never want to run into that thing in the air
But the F-35 AIRFRAME was not required to install those sensors and computers.
You can install all of that into an F-16 and derive much of those benefits there.
What the F-35 is, is a multi-role ATTACK aircraft, specializing in SEAD missions against portable S-400 type SAM sites. Because of Iraq, 1991, and the 1999 F-117 loss over Kosovo.
@@jj4791 yes it’s a multi role attack aircraft. That’s what I described.
I want you to compare electronics when the f16 was designed to electronics in 2010+. Much different set of physical requirements for the platform. As an electrical and network engineer myself, I’ve worked with lots of legacy systems in the military and there’s just so much capability you can upgrade vs building something from the ground up.. the f16 and f35 are built for much different combat environments as well.
I really like commentary on the F-35. Too many folks are living in the tactics of three and four wars ago.
@@jj4791you're not making the F-16 into a gen 5 plane.
Rick is correct on everything, and he has always been. As someone who has been studying the YF-23 and YF-22 For nearly 2 - 3 years, and seen that the YF-23 Had better numbers, the F-22 "LOOKED" Like it had better performance.
As he's said before. The better airplane doesn't always get the win. It was really a game of chess when it came to that competition, along with the amount of time both companies had to actually "develop" the planes and it's a miracle they made as much development as they did.
And as I've been trying to clear up the misinformation. I'll say it again.
The YF-23 Didn't loose because of cost, politics, or Lockheed paying off the contractors. It lost because the contractors where in a pickle.
They couldn't choose both of the planes, and both of the planes PERFECTLY filled the requirements. Hell they probably even did better than it. But the F-22 Looked more impressive in the air, so they said "hey we'll go with that one is a then"
Indeed, I also suspect if Lockheed had made the YF-23 and Northrup/MD had made the YF-22 they might well have gone with the YF-23. Both planes exceeded the requirements, but Northrup were struggling with the B2 already. It's not just the plane but also who's going to be building it.
@@tomshackellyeah reputation was partially a factor.
even if northrop won its likely they would've been struggling to hold their footing in the world just as lockheed is right now. but they had to choose which one they THOUGHT was better, even though there was no clear line.
They could barely fly the F-22 during the fly offs, it was a running joke that whenever it flew it was going to declare an IFE, because it did nearly every day it flew.
One thing that still strikes me about the design of the YF-23 is the symmetrical wing planform. Yet pretty much every operational 5th gen fighter (or even notional 6th gen) has not copied that aspect of it. That makes me think it was a compromise that hasn't been seen as being beneficial.
Or it just wasn't the Lockheed Aesthetic
@@JinKee Not just Lockheed, is what I mean.
New to the channel - where can I find the rest of the interview with Rick? These pieces have been incredible.
Here's the entire interview, czcams.com/video/VHkYLgCJeJw/video.html
@@Scott-rk4nbThank you!
Search for "The Mover and Gonky Show Ft. Rick Abell Ep. 14 Live" for the full 2 hour interview.
@@Scott-rk4nb The link you posted is to Mover and Gonky Show Episode 13. The full interview with Rick Abell is Episode 14
Make sure you also watch the interview with him from a couple of years ago. It was phenomenal. I can’t look for it right now, gotta get to work, but I’ll come back and posit if I remember.
the f-23 is out there in the multiverse somewhere, and im convinced that THAT is the best version of reality.
The yf23's trapeze weapons bay looked like a nightmare.
F-35C looks okay, big wings doesn't make it look as Stubby
I think the f22 looks better especially underneath yf23 had weird air intakes in my opinion
Have you checked out DCS cinematic Mover?
I was watching when the f22 won, and Ì was wanting the RAF to say "Well, we will take the 23.Thankyou" 🇬🇧
IIRC the Boeing submission for the JSF had to be physically altered before it could do VTOL things. Like large panels had to be removed. That had to be a huge factor in Lockheed's favor.
Boeing had already planned to alter the whole thing, with different wing platform etc - introducing more development risks
I wish Rick had been hired for the JSF program. We'd be better off.
Just got a framed 26x36" poster of the YF-23 proudly hanging on my wall, lol
I've always said the "F-23" would have been an excellent replacement for the F-14. Much better than the F-18 just in the simple fact it has much more room for internal fuel.
It was never designed or intended for that role.
The requirement for an F-14 replacement is first and foremost being carrier-capable.
I am really sad that YF 23 didn't win and the it's sad that even NGAD won't have bid from Northrop Grumman it's really unfortunate
Grumman has the B21. I'm sure they will survive.
@@mignik01 It's not just about Grumman surviving because I want Grumman to make fighters greatest again which they are best known for like F 14 and F 23 so it's sad that that pesky Lockheed is gonna probably gonna win the NGAD contract
@@soumyajitsingha9614 Northrup Grumman is still competeting for the Navy 6th gen competition at least
@@Bryce-yw8hfthat's not officially confirmed by them, but not denied either. So there's still hope that we'll see them in USN’s NGAD
@@Bryce-yw8hf oh that's a relief I hope Lockheed Martin looses
The YF-23 is America's Avro Arrow.
Could the YF-23 be the design inspiration for the 6th gen fighter?
No, it was a prototype in competition as the first 5th gen fighter.
This is like asking if the prototype P-80 could be the replacement for the F-4 phantom.
No, but IT CAN BE a U-2...
Northrop Grumman needs to go into the 6th gen fighter competition with the YF-23, and they're gonna win.🥇🥇🥇
If i am not mistaken the Japanese have and are starting that program of the YF-23 with alterations to it, with northup to make there 6th generation aircraft so in a way if this is true, it is not dead?
That's what I heard aswell. But, apparently, it looks like they're now on-board with the Tempest (GCAP) program.
They put alot of R&D into it, did they go with it and just change a lot of it? I know about the GCAP program, but they were pursuing this, as its next generation fighter.@@THE-BUNKEN-DRUM
@CullenLuna : From what I read a while ago. Lockheed Martin proposed to build them a new aircraft, something like a hybrid of an F22 & F35. Then Northop Grumman offered their proposal of updated YF23s (or Mitsubishi F3s as they would've been called) with the added bonus of allowing Japan to build it under licence. But they realised the cost was going to be too much handle on their own & with no other NATO country willing to join in, these plans never left the drawing board. So, now it looks like they're going with Tempest program, along with the UK, Italy & possibly Sweden.
Hmmm interesting, i thought i saw they had the R&D along with airframe already moving forward, perhaps i am was wrong.@@THE-BUNKEN-DRUM
@@THE-BUNKEN-DRUMI understand that the Japanese are somewhat wary of working with the Americans again like they did with the F-2 because the diplomatic wrangling involved in getting something as simple as software updates for the American derived tech was tiresome and limited their capabilites while F-16 end users were able to get similar updates fairly quickly.
They want something of their 'own' that they can do as they wish with and the American military-industrial complex is less willing to allow the Japanese to tinker than the British - who have had similar issues with American procurement; I recall a whole order of Chinooks that were unable to fly for eight years because Boeing refused to hand over the security codes needed to assess the avionics' airworthiness. One wonders if Boeing's obstinacy was one of the factors playing against the X-32 in the JSF programme given that Britain was the major foreign partner.
Northrop accidentally built a Sixth Gen platform for the ATF with the yf-23
I bet the NGAD will look like an updated YF-23.
I don't think it's mainly about looks. 23 was supposed to have 1000 miles more range, more payload & stealthier so if you stop at the hardware, there's a very compelling case to be made but reality is more complicated. Trust in NG was low & they just didn't sell 23 as well.
1:43 Whaaat... I thought the Boeing entry looked awesome! Like some sorta shark.
Maybe if they would have adopted the Boeing entry, we would have bought the necessary quantities of the F22 we need and we would have further developed it. I think there are some aspects of the F35 that you simply cannot get around in terms of capability, so bad it could easily lead to strategic defeat, it can fight but can it intercept anything? I certainly hope I am wrong.
While I don't know the entire story, as I'm not and never have been DOD, when Obama canceled the F-22 program, all stated reasons I can remember were about us not needing it because conventional air wars were behind us and no one could match it anyway, so there was no reason to spend more money on it.
We don't need interceptors anymore.
X-29 and Su-47
The YF-22 looks very different than the production F-22. I absolutely LOVE the way the F-22 looks today. I’m just not a fan of the Diamond wing YF-23.
Agreed. The F-22 is WICKED looking. Admittedly, the F-35 has grown on me. From many angles, it looks damn sexy too.
Why is the B21 Raider called the B21 and not the B31?
21 for 21st Century
If the YF-23 would of been expensive to make as a stealth fighter, why not as a interceptor. It was fast and could be low observable and upgraded the the avionics in tech, boom win win for everyone.
It's ironic that one of the quoted reasons for choosing the F-22 was that there was a greater confidence in Lockheed to deliver on time and budget than Northrop.
Today, both companies proved otherwise. (How different Lockheed *Martin* is from the Lockheed of days of yore could be a story of its own).
Given the challenges involved, it's a not given that Northrop *Grumman* would've done better.
At the end of the day, I blame the Clinton administration for actively pushing for these mergers:
It put the MBA types in charge, reduced competition and overall reduced the no. of qualified engineers and craftsmen in the field as the boards were quick to "cut costs" (e.g. let all those people go!) to recoup the "acquisition costs".
Unfortunately, the only lesson ever learned, is how to increase cost without getting cancelled.
Rumours also persist the USAF is flying "black" YF-23 derivatives, and that the YF-23 was merely a proof of concept for that project.
We'll see in a couple decades ...
I got MegaProjects to finally do an episode after months of bugging them.
My favorite aircraft....
Could've just read the Wikipedia page that's all mega projects does.
The story I've heard about the selection decision between the YF-23 and the F-22 really boiled down to Lockheed knowing how to better negotiate the procurement process than Northrup - they made everything easier for the people who had the decision-making authority. Furthermore, while the F-22 is the more aerobatic of the two designs, the YF-23 promised to have better range and load-carrying ability and would likely have had better stealth properties too once production versions were being built. I've often wondered if the F-22 was selected in some small part because it's superior aerobatic abilities would look great for airshow performances, and was therefore thought to be the better PR and recruitment tool, even though maneuverability is not so important in actual combat any more.
I like the looks of F 35 but I'm not a fighter pilot.
The YF-23 hype isn't only that it looks cool. (Though I will admit I'm partial to that argument.)
It's also that you are comparing a real-world development project to a purely hypothetical one. And I can give you a purely hypothetical development project better than the F-35, no problem! But, you would have had the same decision makers managing the real version of the F-23 program. And the F-23 program would have hired a lot of the same engineers and subcontractors that actually got hired by the F-35 program, etc. So if F-23 had been built, we'd now have a nostalgic fantasy version of the F-35 to compare it with and all of us in the comments would be saying that we should clearly have gone with whichever one didn't get built. Because actually building a thing always reveals all sorts of flaws in a plan that remain hidden in the plans you don't actually build.
'cuse my french xD
I think the su-57 may have learnt abit too??? Lol 😆 well shape wise I think 🤔
Mechanical engineer here. I thought the 3 variants plan for the JSF was idiotic from day one. And over the last 20 years, I shook my head every time I read news of the program's difficulties, setbacks, budget overruns, etc. I don't like to see the USA fail, but this has been a monumental 20-year-long 'I told you so'.
As a ME you should start reading the requirements of what the DOD said they wanted. Secondly there were other three variant aircraft in history that exceeded expectations. F4 comes to mind as the most recent. You obviously don't have access to the total performance data for the aircraft so your " I told you so" is premature.
Politics messing with equipment
@@toddie4usa1 LOL, this I told you so is just as relevant today as it was 20 years ago. Please just admit this was a monumental waste of taxpayer money so that maybe we won't make the same mistake with the next project. Oh wait, this is government and big business in bed with each other. They'll never learn.
@@meanderinoranges I've already written lengthy diatribes explaining my thoughts about the F-35 on a couple of Mover's videos. Suffice it to say that I was railing against the program before I joined the Navy, the entire time I was in the Navy, and even now that I'm out. Add the DDG-1000 and LCS programs to the list of massive failures as well. Given these substantial design and procurement debacles, I'm not getting my hopes up for the sixth-generation fighter.
@@erikallder8199 the government is terrifyingly skilled at spending good money after bad. Thank you for your service. 🇺🇲
Newbie laymen . Me. The F22 looks like the F15s sexy sister. The F23 looks like the business of stealthy death.
I always liked YF-23 and FX-32 better than the F-22 and F35. Boeing F-32 was ugly looking prototype but an actual plane would look much better. I really hope Japan ends up reviving the YF-23 and does all the improvements and i truly do hope that some other powerful nation does same with F-32.
Paul Metz, flew both YF-22 and YF-23 and to this day believes they chose the wrong airframe due to political choices in D.C. After all, Lockheed has historical favour in most contests and it's history of working with the U.S. intelligence community surely doesn't hurt it's networking and lobbying influence in D.C. The YF-23 just happens to meet more of the 6th Gen criteria also, so with support and development, we could have saved a whole lot of money. Northrop got shafted by the government with the F-20 Tigershark, a program it had to pay for entirely by itself, again, faster, higher rate of climb, greater range and tighter sustained turning than the F-16 that was chosen. They then gave the B-2 program to Northrop as a means to recover. It logically makes more sense these days to use an unmanned B-21 type platform as a missile truck in tow of a 2 or 4 ship flight for air-air. A concept they originally looked at with the B-1B.
Metz's book is excellent.
Didn't the cost of the F-16, which was a big problem, only come down because GD released a "budget" version?
Lockheed has form with political shenanigans and bribery. Ask the Germans, ask why they're not in passenger aircraft anymore.
The story of how Australia got the F-35 is a classic case: Howard announced there would be a tender soon for an F/A-18 replacement. In preparation, guys like Dassault and Saab and Boeing started getting ready for the tender process. Dassault, for example, got an office ready a year ahead of time, rented it, hired local staff, etc.
And then Howard went to the USA to meet with Bush in DC, and along the way had lunch with some Lockheed folks.
And after that lunch - IIRC he was still in DC - he held a press conference and announced that Australia selected the F-35 a year before the tender had actually started, and that there was now going to be no tender.
From what I understand, and I haven’t read Paul’s book yet, so maybe it’s in there, was that the Lockheed decided early on that they weren’t going to bombard the decision makers with technobabble, and simply talk about their entry in simple terms of capability and performance targets. The Northrup guys were all pocket-protector wearing nerds who could only talk in engineer-speak. Supposedly this was a big factor in the choice of the 22.
The civilian in charge of the ATF program plainly stated in an interview that the YF-23 was the superior plane.
Rick was the chief engineer for the Air Force.
@@CWLemoine thanks. I was going on memory and I am now trying to find your interview.
@@CWLemoine Found it!!
Focussing on commonality isn't all that foolish.
It worked with the F-4, F-18, and even A-7.
Just remember to start from a Navy design, and don't add a VTOL version !
It even works for planes one wouldn't even expect it. AV-8 II and F18 have about 60% commonality in parts. So you can even add VTOL and it still works.
@@misarthim6538 Where on earth did you get the idea the F-18 and AV-8B have 60% parts commonality ?
Maybe if you count all the rivets & bolts & fittings as separate parts ...
From an airframe perspective they have zero interchangeable parts.
@@Wannes_ Almost entire avionics suite, including radar, is from F18, to start with.
@@misarthim6538 Wow, now we also have commonality with the F-4E Peace Icarus and F-4F ICE
AI is changing the aerial environment as we speak. Bubye humans
I always thought the F-23 was butt ugly. I was happy when the F-22 won.
From rumors I've heard the YF-23 IS IN THE INVENTROY. Its one of those black project planes that we don't talk about. It was enlarged, made a two-seater tandem, and has a bomb bay. Its used as the new F-117 and SR-71 replacement plane.
That also might be why the F-22 was so expensive, because we got a F-22 and a secret SR/A-23 as well.
The F-22 is so expensive because it isn't mass produced and requires a pretty extensive supply chain to function. The thing got its first air-to-air kill last year against a balloon because, despite it being quite possibly the deadliest air superiority fighter in history, the Air Force is terrified to put it into combat due to the cost of losing one.
The YF 23 is basically the Felon
You have that backwards. The 23 flew in 1991 or 2. It was another decade or more before the Felon. (Also, the cross section of the Felon is worse than an F-18).
@@thefrustratedtheologian6238 I don’t have it backwards, I know the timelines for both aircraft’s thanks! As for your claims about cross sections show me some proof…
@@Dluger123 The claim about the RCS has been stated on several reliable sources. Probably Sandboxx. Paul Metz's book and the video of the 23 on Western Museum of Flight has the 23's RCS as exponentially smaller than the 22's.
@@thefrustratedtheologian6238 so I ask about the Felon and you talk about the 23? Then say the 23 is smaller than the 22 but the Felon is more? Strange logic….
I’d also love you to define what a reliable source is, the truth is nobody knows
@@Dluger123 Perhaps you should reread YOUR first comment where you claim that "The 23 is basically the Felon," implying that the Felon came first. I corrected your erroneous timeline. The Felon came decades later. Also, I mentioned that the RCS of the Felon was worse than an F-18 which is 4th gen. Meanwhile, the RCS of the 23 is much smaller than the 22. Therefore, even if the Felon was a 'felonious' copy of the 23, the Russians weren't even capable of attaining the RCS of a 5th gen. fighter. I'm out.
Batter Fat Amy then Monica 😁🤣
Face it, it was Lockheed's turn, that's the biggest reason it won. That pig (the F-22) couldn't fly a damn mission during the flyoff without coming back declaring an IFE and being code 3 every damn time. Meanwhile, the F-23 was routinely returning from test flights code 1, it went faster, used less fuel, had a better RCS, etc. The "reason" they used for picking the F-22 was that stupid stunt of firing a missile - which wasn't even a requirement of the test program. I was there and we all knew that the F-23 was the more reliable aircraft. From where many of us were standing on the flight line it was all political.
I did realize that routinely declaring IFE's was a testing requirement for Lockheed, if so, they did great.
22 is better performing, and 23 has a fatal flaw
first you start off talking bad about the 23... then you speak bad about the guppy. you're really trying our bond sir. :p
YF23 is mathematically better with a lower RCS, IR, Speed, Range and over all performance, I get Rick doesn’t care but over all the YF23 would have been a better plain
Fat Amy looked too happy...
Are you talking about the "Monica"?
I guess. It doesn't strike fear when it's about to attack. It's like Ronald McDonald doing a cat shot from Top Gun.
IMHO, the growing clamor for the YF-23 is mainly due to all the ‘next gen’ designs from Europe+Japan tend to look somewhat similar to the Black Widow. Super cruise, check. Stealth, check (god forbid the euros try and build something stealthy) long range, check. What’s not love? Well, Francis you have pay for it. Without the Putin invasion it would all just be another jobs program/air show for the taxpayers.
The 22 that was produced was not the same design that was in the competition. The F22 you see today was a total redesign from the tires up.
There are renders on the Internet of the supposed look of the F-23A and it differs from the prototype as well
Am I the only one who doesn't think the F35 is bad looking? Sure it's not as sexy as any of the teen series planes, but it's not ugly. Why all the hate? Lol
I’ll even go as far as saying the view of Amy’s underside is better looking than any other fighter.
The Naval F-35C is more attractive with its larger wing surface area. Though the advantages of the larger wing surface area are somewhat nullified by the added weight of reinforcement and gear. The one thing the Russians have over NATO; they actually have operational 'Interceptors'. An interceptor should be a larger airframe, carrying 1.5 - 2x payload capacity, very high supercruise and 2-3 times the internal fuel of a fighter. Most NATO fighters performing QRA don't have the legs for pursuit, loiter or payload for numerous Pheonix type missiles. An true interceptor would be somewhere between an F-15 and a B1-B in scale.
I think the f35 is beautiful but it’s front view she’s kinda chunky,
@@andrewdavies3584we don’t need intercepters they do, they have a large area to cover Russia is huge.
The f14 is the best looking plane the us has developed. The f22 is a very close second.
The biggest and most important is do not let the democrats or anyone on the left pick your country's aircraft.
The F-23 is a better plane. Lockheed Martin played the Pentagon and we got the lesser plane that screwed the taxpayers by always being over budget and behind on delivery. Now we are stuck with not enough planes that cost too much. Plus the Pentagon screwed the pooch on the F-35 which cost more and isn’t as good as the F-22.
Agreed except on the F-35. It was never meant to be like the F-22. Just like the F-16 was never meant to do what the F-15's job.
the f35 sucks.. ill argue with any pilot... ill take my 1970 book "the Lore of Flight" and out any pilot shrill for a defence company
f-35 is the most advanced fighter on this planet lol, sure it had its setbacks but it’s a damn good airplane
shut up BOT.... if you do a search of f 35 on youtube .(Daily hourly) you get fresh videos on f35 how great it is ... trying to drown out any critisim F 35.. is just a small steath bomber only good if you have air superiority.. i mean Air SUPREMACY @@grantjones522
We are going to boneyard the early F-22 because they cannot be maintained or upgraded. The USAF famously bought more 15s because they can’t fill the needs with 22s. 22s famously had pilot breathing issues. The entire “the -22 met the requirements” line is nonsense. Rick seems like a great guy but he is in denial
What's your background?
He's not wrong, the F-22 was a disaster during the ATF flyoff, I was there, witnessed it first hand at Edwards AFB. I was setting up the encrypted comms for the chase planes. The F-22 prototype couldn't fly without having some kind of failure requiring an IFE on nearly every flight. The F-23 had far fewer issues during the fly-off. The F-15 is also a maintainers dream, it was by far the easiest jet to work on at Edwards AFB period at that time (and although an F-15 maintainer myself, I saw and even worked on enough of the other aircraft to know how good I had it.)
I dont think this is a very good presentation; I learned literally nothing about the YF-22/23 from this... there was some talk about "meeting requirements" and "being able to take off under its own power, but these guys didnt even say whether or not if failed to meet requirements or didnt take off when tested; this was a big pile of nothing. was this video meant to actually discuss the YF-22/23 in any meaningful way, or was it just to talk about (generally) procurement and testing in the most unspecific and vague way possible?
It's not a presentation, or a video specifically tailored for you. It was a discussion about the YF-23 and how it applied to the JSF later with the former Chief Engineer for the Air Force who was part of the ATF program. I did a more in-depth interview with Rick two years ago which also covered this.
czcams.com/video/B77HEioDtFI/video.html
The F-22 is way better looking than the YF-23, no contest
Dear Mover, it's time for some introspection (which you are already good at, as you know). Might there exist a small amount of envy in you? You had to stop some of your flying prematurely. The truth is that the F-35 is a beautiful aircraft, and it's an extremely successful platform. The recent accidents that we've been hearing about is not a sign of failure. At all. These are extremely complex aircraft, and with increased complexity, there is not only an increased risk of something going wrong; there is a guarantee that a lot of stuff will go wrong. That is simply the nature of complexity. I can reply most problems of most old electronic consumer devices myself. But modern electronics have parts that are so complex that it requires both very specialist tools, but also specific expertise. Well, with they modern aircraft, the complexy are many orders of magnitude higher. Complexity is also why we see tech companies having thousands of engineers working on single products. Tens of thousands! Twenty years go, you could do almost anything with a couple of hundred people. And it pains many people, because there was a time where one person could realistically become an expert in the inner workings of most of an advanced product. And that is not the case anymore. But what's the alternative? This complexity is what provides the necessary capabilities and thus deterrence. I'm not claiming that no avoidable mistakes are being made. But many of the parts of the design of e.g. the F-35 that seem like neglect, are actually part of exactly an effort to do at least some complexity reduction in a situation where every single screw needs field expertise to properly evaluate
No.
fact is the yf-23 was inferior to the f22 therefore not put into productions. civilians thoughts on military craft are fully irrelevant.
I began working on the ATF in 1983. While fundamentally what he says is technically correct, much of it is total bullshit. There actually were requirements that the prototypes had to meet. Once your demonstrator met those goals, anything “extra” like A-A missile launch was the contractor team’s choice. The YF-23 was an LO super cruise BVR gunslinger. That was the focus from Day 1. Getting into a phone booth and going guns was considered a failure.
Don’t get me wrong, L-M built a nice plane, but if you look at the cost per unit, the F-22 was awarded based upon a production run of 700+ airplanes. ALL of those development and tooling costs are now amortized over 200 aircraft…that’s why they’re so bloody expensive…L-M couldn’t build them for what they bid…pure and simple. The AF still got a nice plane, but the -23 IMHO would have been a terrifying weapon system.
The reality is that the F-23 SHOULD be made today. To replace the F-22.
The advanced technology we now have, can be integrated into the F-23. It may not be a “6th Gen” jet, but the reality is that 6th Gen is a fallacy. Won’t be available for another 20+ years and we will experience a massive war and retrograde of humanity by then.
Build the F-23 today. We need 500 of them. Plus.
Phase out the f-22. It’s a cash hog. We can do the F-23 for less and lower operating cost…with the tech we have today.
And it should be made available to KEY ALLIES! Japan, England, Poland, Australia, S Korea, Israel. Production run of 1000+. We can have those jets in the skies in less than 1 year.