Spreading your resources awfully thin...

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Out of curiosity, what makes you think you're better qualified than the USAF to make this decision, Concordia? :p It seems to me they must have had their reasons for not choosing the F-23.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
God damn stupid freaking air force. If *I* were in charge, they'd have the F-24, which would be like an F-22 and, like, six F-23s together. Except it's made entirely out of cake, and it's invisible to the human eye. And instead of bombs it has one of those whistles that makes dogs attack you. Those exist, right?
 

Haesslich

Spaceman
Originally posted by Concordia
Honestly if I was the one making the choices, I would have simply made the F-23 with modified nozzles to make it more like the F-22, re-designed the nose (in that one respect it was LESS stealthy than the F-22, otherwise it was stealthier in all aspects... with a modified nose, it would have been more stealthy), and used the F-120 engine (Variable cycle: Think of it like a turbofan that can transform into a Turbojet; to the more educated: A turbofan which can vary it's bypass ratio).

-Concordia

Except the thrust-vectoring is what makes the F/A-22 somewhat less stealthy in some respects than the YF-23, as the changing of angles with the moving nozzles potentially can increase the F/A-22's radar signature... but again, the F/A-22 can stand off for quite a range and shoot, yet dodge like a son-of-a-bitch when it needs to.

I believe that they wanted speed and high combat radius on the F/A-22, like the F-15's, at over a thousand kilometers (1400 according to some sources for the F/A 22, versus the 1260 km for the F-15E)... though the YF-23 had a similar range.
 

Delance

Victory, you say?
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
God damn stupid freaking air force. If *I* were in charge, they'd have the F-24, which would be like an F-22 and, like, six F-23s together. Except it's made entirely out of cake, and it's invisible to the human eye. And instead of bombs it has one of those whistles that makes dogs attack you. Those exist, right?

That reminds me of the napoleonic wars...


God damn stupid freaking navy. If *I* were in charge, they'd have the giant battleship, which would be like an ironclad and, like, six man-o-wars together. Except it's made entirely out of cake, and it's invisible to the human eye. And instead of shells it has one of those whistles that makes sea snakes attack you. Those exist, right?
 

Happy

Spaceman
people, clearly, the A-10 Warthog is superior in every aspect pissible, and the only reason is that I say so....
not to mention maximum weapon load, TOT (Time Over Target) and super-sub-sonic speeds.
The 30 mm GAU-8/A gun makes bad people simply disappear, pretty stealthy to me....


a10_3.jpg
 

Rambo_UK

Spaceman
Stealth Features

The angles of the surfaces of the YF-23 are all the same, a design for pure stealth. The intakes are better hidden. The vertical surfaces of the tail are at a shallower angle, better for stealth. The curved surfaces, like the shapes of the B-2, are all designed primarilly for their stealth aspects, unlike the F-22. The heat signature of the exhausts is probably lower, too, but that precluded thrust vectoring. In all likelihood the YF-23 was faster as well, but since ultimate top speed is almost irrelevant now, this wasn't as important as the ability for supercruise. The YF-23 looks like it has a lower drag profile (and thus probably a longer range) but the F-22 a better power to weight ratio as it is a smaller aircraft - which would also increase agility. I still believe cost and ease of manufacture played a part too - if the F-22 is that expensive, and was probably the cheaper of the two you can imagine the unit cost of the F-23! If the Navy were to but a Navalised version, the smaller, lighter A/C would again be at an advantage as the days of the F-14 and other A/C that can't land on with a full warload are long gone. I don't think they will because Naval aircraft these days are going back to the old ideas of a jack of all trades - which the best fighters of all time have been. The F-22, optimised as it is for A2A with little or no ground attack capability doesn't have this.
 

Haesslich

Spaceman
Re: Stealth Features

Originally posted by Rambo_UK
The angles of the surfaces of the YF-23 are all the same, a design for pure stealth. The intakes are better hidden. The vertical surfaces of the tail are at a shallower angle, better for stealth. The curved surfaces, like the shapes of the B-2, are all designed primarilly for their stealth aspects, unlike the F-22. The heat signature of the exhausts is probably lower, too, but that precluded thrust vectoring. In all likelihood the YF-23 was faster as well, but since ultimate top speed is almost irrelevant now, this wasn't as important as the ability for supercruise. The YF-23 looks like it has a lower drag profile (and thus probably a longer range) but the F-22 a better power to weight ratio as it is a smaller aircraft - which would also increase agility. I still believe cost and ease of manufacture played a part too - if the F-22 is that expensive, and was probably the cheaper of the two you can imagine the unit cost of the F-23! If the Navy were to but a Navalised version, the smaller, lighter A/C would again be at an advantage as the days of the F-14 and other A/C that can't land on with a full warload are long gone. I don't think they will because Naval aircraft these days are going back to the old ideas of a jack of all trades - which the best fighters of all time have been. The F-22, optimised as it is for A2A with little or no ground attack capability doesn't have this.

The F/A-22 is primarily air superiority, with a secondary role as a ground-attack fighter, similar to the F-15E Strike Eagle. The JSF is more the 'jack of all trades' fighter, though it's primarily designed for air-to-ground action in most of its configurations, with a secondary role as support for F/A-22. It's meant to replace the F/A-18E and F series, the AV-8B Harrier, F-16C, and I believe the F-14 Tomcat.
 

Happy

Spaceman
Originally posted by Delance
Superior on just one role. Try to intercept supersonic fighters with the A-10.
i guess "super-sub-sonic" didn't sound sarcastic enough...
i was merely trying to show the stupidity of arguing f-22/yf-23, and my love for the A-10. which discounting air-to-air missles, the A-10 has better low airspeed handling than any supersonic figter.
but as usuall, the fighters jocks have the upperhand with long rang missles.
based upon looks, i liked the yf-23, looked like something out of a game i used to play on super-nes.
but after air trials, and fly-offs, the f-22 delivers more bang for the dollar. and being that the f-22 is the end product of the 20yr. long AFT competition, it's safe to say that some of the features of the yf-23 has been integrated into the f-22, mainly sub-systems. sure the yf-23 is more stealthy over-all, but from the front, the f-22 is almost impossible to spot. who cares about the rear, cause the all the bad guys r up front, the rear just faces burnning reckage.
 

Delance

Victory, you say?
Originally posted by Happy
i guess "super-sub-sonic" didn't sound sarcastic enough...

You can have a super-sub-sonic fighter. It's super, but it's subsonic. As you can have a crappy supersonic fighter. And *that's* sarcasm.
 

twiligh81

Spaceman
As is usual the primary reason why the YF-22 was picked over the YF-23 has little to do with performance and everything to do with money and politics.

The navy had it's own super-fighter in development before the ATF, but they ran into a few technological SNAFUs, and before they could fix them, congress droped the axe on the project.

The Air Force didnt want the same to happen to the ATF, so altho the YF-23 was in several ways superior to the YF-22, the 22 was more conventional, and therefore more likely to complete its development without any major delays, and therefore more likely to survive the penny-pinching, technologically chalanged, risk-adverse, morons... er 'elected officals'... in congress.
 

Haesslich

Spaceman
Originally posted by twiligh81
As is usual the primary reason why the YF-22 was picked over the YF-23 has little to do with performance and everything to do with money and politics.

The navy had it's own super-fighter in development before the ATF, but they ran into a few technological SNAFUs, and before they could fix them, congress droped the axe on the project.

The Air Force didnt want the same to happen to the ATF, so altho the YF-23 was in several ways superior to the YF-22, the 22 was more conventional, and therefore more likely to complete its development without any major delays, and therefore more likely to survive the penny-pinching, technologically chalanged, risk-adverse, morons... er 'elected officals'... in congress.

I'm not sure I'd call the vector-thrust capabilities of the F/A-22 'more conventional' - in fact, it's anything but in many respects. For one, the electronics are easily upgraded, at least compared to the F-15 and F-16's. The most conventional thing about the F/A-22's the mission profile and its engines....

Money and some capability was more likely what drove the decision - I'm not sure how well the YF-23 was going to do in the mission profile of the F-15E,. The F/A-22 was judged, however, to be more capable in those roles.
 

twiligh81

Spaceman
I donno what they've sence modified the YF-22 design to do, but back when it was still in competition with the YF-23, they were BOTH designed as Air Superiorty Fighters, period.

The goal of the ATF project was to develop a replacement for the F-15C , which is the USAFs current Air Superiorty Fighter, the F-15E which everyone here keeps talking about is a STRIKE DEDICATED version of the F-15 airframe, intended to replace the F-111. Now technically yes, the F-15E retains its air-to-air combat capabilities, however it is NEVER actually used in that role, because it is far too expensive to risk.

The YF-22 was designed to replace the F-15C only, the F-15E will be replaced by the JSF, as will the F-16, AV-8B, and eventually probably the navy's F/A-18C/Es.


As for the YF-22s conventionality, altho no compaired to current aircraft its not especally conventional, but the YF-23 was an even more radical design then the 22 in most respects.

The ground attack capabilities of the YF-22/23 were not serioulsy tested during the competition because at that time the ATF was never intended to be assigned to strike duty.

Personally I believe the 23 would have been the superior multi-role aircraft, it was slightly faster, had a larger payload capacity, and was stealthier, especally in the IR spectrum, which is particulary important for a strike aircraft, to avoid short range SAMs.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by twiligh81
The Air Force didnt want the same to happen to the ATF, so altho the YF-23 was in several ways superior to the YF-22, the 22 was more conventional, and therefore more likely to complete its development without any major delays, and therefore more likely to survive the [...] congress.
I like how you make it sound as though those are not valid considerations.

That's what always annoys me about people who insist that the worse design was chosen because [insert hundred reason here]. Who do you think is paying for this thing? The government? No, you are. Why should you pay for something you'll never need?
 

twiligh81

Spaceman
They're not invalid concerns, they just shouldnt be at the top of the list, the price difference between the 23 & 22 would not have been that great, when you're talking about peoples LIVES (the pilots, and the soliders and civvies they're defending), not to mention the fate of nations, alittle time & money should'nt stand in the way of haveing the best.
 

Haesslich

Spaceman
Originally posted by twiligh81
They're not invalid concerns, they just shouldnt be at the top of the list, the price difference between the 23 & 22 would not have been that great, when you're talking about peoples LIVES (the pilots, and the soliders and civvies they're defending), not to mention the fate of nations, alittle time & money should'nt stand in the way of haveing the best.

Are you sure this IS the best? It's all fine and dandy to have a superfighter - but if you have only about 339 of them to replace the 918 F-15C/E fighters currently in service... well, a numerical advantage is still a numerical advantage, as the Bugs and Kilrathi kept proving to us in game, and the possibility that they're cutting the numbers down to 239 planes (Rumsfeld is said to be considering this, since Pentagon planners have assured him and President Bush that the United States will easily maintain air dominance... an idea which is likely incorrect).

Yes, the YF-23 MIGHT have been more capable... yet more expensive, and if you're only able to afford maybe 150 of the fuckers... you'd be in so much trouble when the next war or 'police action' starts. Especially when losing even ONE of those fighters - which is quite possible, no matter how 'stealthy' it is in radar - means there is a much greater reduction in force if you lose that one unit.
 

Happy

Spaceman
first u r wrong, there r not 918 f-15c/e's.
the USAF website states the total numbers f-15s;
"Inventory: Active force, 396; Reserve, 0; ANG,126."
http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/F_15_Eagle.html
that equals 495 total f-15 airframes.
of those;
"Inventory: Active force, 217; ANG, 0; Reserve, 0 "
http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/F_15E_Strike_Eagle.html
217 are f-15E variants. making the 278 f-15C/D variant airframes in service.
The latest numbers i've been able to find, state that we are buying 295 F-22's, which will increase the air-to-air capabilities of the USAF. not to mention that there will be an number of f-15c/d airframes passed down to the reserves and air national guard units.

also in development is a strike varient of the f-22, the FB-22.
obviously to replace the f-15e, this is leading to alot of confusion among arm-chair generals.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,12543,262063-3,00.html
 

Demon

Spaceman
I'm confused. Even if you only have 50 F-22s, which are by all accounts very stealthy and will be at least harder to spot than any other fighter plane yet made, how are you going to be "in so much trouble" the next time there is a war? Its not like we are going to lose the capabilities we already have. And, what nation can actually field an aircraft against us that will even rival what we have now? From all accounts, just a couple of F-22s will be able to take out multiple other aircraft at one time, and with our missiles we can probably take them out before they even realize we are targeting them. I really don't expect to take on Russia in the next war, and even if we did, I think that our command and control capabilities and our training would outclass anything they could field anyway.
 

Rambo_UK

Spaceman
F-15E

The Mud Hen is a dedicated strike A/C, not an air superiority fighter at all, even if it is the bastard offspring of an fighter plane. That huge wing on the flying tennis court makes for one damned bumpy ride, low level and trans sonic. F-15Cs aren't capable of ground attack and the Strike Eagle's air-to-air capability is defensive. You have two (big and expensive) aircraft doing the job that in other air forces would be done by one. It does save some money by using the same basic airframe but you still have to have more aircraft overall.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by twiligh81
They're not invalid concerns, they just shouldnt be at the top of the list, the price difference between the 23 & 22 would not have been that great, when you're talking about peoples LIVES (the pilots, and the soliders and civvies they're defending), not to mention the fate of nations, alittle time & money should'nt stand in the way of haveing the best.
"Not that great" is a subjective thing. This isn't the difference between a Duron and a Celeron we're talking about. The only reason why the difference doesn't seem that great is because the pricetags are insanely high on both planes anyway.

Lives at stake? The fate of nations? That's a joke. These fighters aren't built because fighters of their stature are needed. The only "combat" they'll see during their career is a few skirmishes over a third-world country, where they'll destroy some poorly-armed F-16 or MiG that's too far away to even engage them, or fire off a missile at a radar site long before anyone on the ground realises what's going on. They'll never have to fight combat on an equal footing. Even if the F-22 is really worse than the F-23, no F-22 pilot will ever die merely because (s)he's flying an F-22 instead of an F-23.

Chances are, the only F-22s ever lost will be the ones lost in accidents and (maybe) friendly fire incidents. Combat casualties? Yeah, right. By the time the MiG-29s or Su-37s (or whatever the F-22's rivals are) seep down to the sort of third-world countries that the US fights, you'll be engaged in another futile debate, about the F-47 being inferior to the F-46.
 
Top