jgetti

I've caught a couple articles on the net stating that the YF-23's were refurbished by Northrop Grumman for a Regional Bomber RFI from the airforce. See the attached link: http://aviamagazine.xs4all.nl/news/readnews.asp?id=46

I've also heard other rumors floating around that the YF-23 (or a form of it) has been secretly put into service.

Anyone have any additional information on this??

highsea

I know that the one that was at Edwards (PAV-1) has been moved, it may be at Wright Patterson, but I have been unable verify that. The one that was at Hawthorne (PAV-2) has not been returned to the museum yet. I sent emails to the Western Museum of Flight, and also the the Test Center Museum at Dryden. Neither one is in posession of a YF-23 at this time.

If anyone lives in Dayton or around WP, any sign of PAV-1?

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

Franco Lolan

please don't ressurect it. complete waste

Anon

They're going to try to compete against the FB-22 with it.

The YF-23 was a very, very high performance aircraft, and even more stealthy than the F-22, but had a problematic stacked weapons bay and was not as manueverable. It was also more ambitious.

jgetti

On what grounds do you say that?

Franco Lolan

Because f22 is already getting geared up for mass production (if less than 200 aircraft can be called that). wouldn't getting yf23 ready cost inordinate amounts of money?

jgetti

Not necessarily. One of the main cost issues with the F/A-22 is software. Many legacy aircraft have multiple computers, control boxes, etc. to tell the aircraft how to operate. With the F/A-22, the idea was great,, we'll have a central CPU, and each system will just be added/removed just like the card in a home PC. Every system from flight controls to skid control will be put on cards that can be pulled easily from one computer and placed in another,, and it'll all be integrated with software. It would be outstanding for maintainability, and that was the idea. What was invisioned and what happened were two different things though. The bugs are finally being ironed out, but the software necessary to accomplish this type of central cpu system turned out to be much more difficult to develop than was originally thought. This has been one of the chief things that has haunted the F/A-22 program and ran the cost up so much.

There are lots of things everyone has learned from the F/A-22 program on what not to do that could be great cost savers on a new program like a regional bomber that the YF-23 was re-competing for. Furthermore, much of the avionics/computing system of the F/A-22 that I was just speaking of that cost so much to develop was designed to be higly modular, and therefore much of that already developed technology could be dropped directly into an aircraft such as the YF-23. This cost savings due to avionics modularity is one of the chief selling points Lockheed has for the FB-22 which the YF-23 is in direct competition with for this regional bomber (if the RFI ever makes it into an actual program that is).

The YF-23 could hold many advantages over the F/A-22 derivitive as a bomber. Northrop developed all aspect stealth when they created the YF-23,, i.e. not just RCS stealth, but IR signature stealth, etc. It was capable of higher supercruise speeds than the YF-22, and the production version would have been even more low profile and thus faster as the provision for thrust reversers wasn't removed from the YF-23 after the USAF canceled the requirement for it in the ATF competition. It can carry more internal fuel as is, and I'm sure a production bomber variant would increase upon that. It was larger than the YF-22 and thus would require less structural modification to convert it into a bomber.

I agree that a new program such as this would suck even more away from an already depleting USAF budget. The thing is, though, if this regional bomber program were enacted, it would finally fill the empty shoes of the F-111, and replace the F-117, F-15E, and B-1B. The cost savings from ending these other programs would be substantial (as much as I love the F-15).

Franco Lolan

F-22 is not "stealthed" in regards to IR signature? If not, why not?! (especially considering our foes have dedicated so much energy into IR detection systems and weapons)

Your selling of the YF-23 is very impressive. I'm almost sold already.

jgetti

IR signature is given off from two things on an aircraft. First is the heat generated on the aircraft skin from going so fast through the air. The other comes from the heat of the engine exhaust. If you look at a picture of the aft end of the YF-23, you'll notice that the engine exhaust does not pass directly into the atmosphere from the nozzles like on most conventional jets. It first passes through troughs built into the airframe to cool the exhaust and block the jet flame from direct visibility from beneath and the sides. This cooling trough idea was first used on the B-2. The existance of these jet plume cooling troughs (and the weight savings of not having vectored thrust nozzles) are the primary reasons Northrop opted not to use thrust vectoring on the YF-23. Conversely, Lockheed could not incorporate cooling troughs and use thrust vectoring at the same time. Therefore, they sacraficed IR stealthiness for increased low speed manerverability.

Anon

"F-22 is not "stealthed" in regards to IR signature? If not, why not?! (especially considering our foes have dedicated so much energy into IR detection systems and weapons)"

Well, it is as IRCM stealthed as an aircraft with approx 80,000lbs of thrust can be....LOL.

IR SAMs aren't much threat to Raptor because quite frankly, even the best of them lack the kinematic performance to succesfully engage a beaming F-22 operating in it's expected flight envelope.

SAMs generally suck, i don't know why everyone gets so worked up over them. Their combat effectiveness to date is pretty dismal.

berzerker109

i overheard that it might also be used for long range recon missions as well

leib10

Maybe because fighters are generally unable to target the SAM battery itself. Unless the fighter has a HARM...

__________________
"The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

Raven

I would love to see the FB-22 or FB-23 go at it, but who knows.

__________________
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...mages/12fs.gif

Bluesman

Ignore this idiot. He's a fake.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Warrior_Medic

I would love for the U.S. Navy to have this fighter. It would be like the YF-16 vs. YF-17 all over again.