Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

YF-23 Black Widow II vs. Russian 4th generation fighters

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by M21Sniper
    When commenting on exactly this subject, a Lockmart stress engineer who posts on my site commented, and i quote, "You can't get there from here".

    Forget navalizing the F-22. It would be cheaper to build something from scratch.
    Forget a 5th generation Naval ATF, it won't happen. Apart from the JSF, the USN will be skipping a generation of air power in that respect. Until the rest of the world starts to truly catch up with US maritime-air power, the USN can, and most likely will, have to make do with the Super Hornet and JSF.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill
    replied
    Originally posted by jgetti
    Much easier said than done. When the same thing was done with YF-17, all that ended up being the same was loft.
    When commenting on exactly this subject, a Lockmart stress engineer who posts on my site commented, and i quote, "You can't get there from here".

    Forget navalizing the F-22. It would be cheaper to build something from scratch.

    Leave a comment:


  • The_Burning_Kid
    replied
    Politics screw everything up. That's life and most likely will be the end of life.

    Leave a comment:


  • avon1944
    replied
    RE: YF-23 Black Widow II vs. Russian 4th generation fighters

    Originally posted by hello
    The F-22 has a hook??? Why would an F-22 need a hook?
    The same reason some countries like Israel have tail hooks on some of their F-15's, for emergency landings.

    Thanx "jgetti" I had heard about the F-15 that lost a wing, I did not know it tried to use its tailhook. I had previously 'assumed' that it probably used a runway that was 12,000 feet to 15,000 feet long, thank you for the correct information.

    Originally posted by jgetti
    YF-23 was of similar proportions to YF-22, but longer. The ORIGINAL cost of YF-23 was higher than what Lockheed quoted the YF-22 because McDonnell and Northrop Grumann knew there was no way anyone could build ANY aircraft with the requirements of the ATF program at the price Lockheed quoted. The Northrop McDonnell team gave a realistic quote, and as usual Lockheed didn't, they won the contract, and then went WAY over budget. So, yes, the original quote for YF-23 was higher than YF-22, but was much lower than what F-22 actually costs today.
    Actually, the estimate Lockeed gave was accurate but, congress played around with the program, stretched it out cut the funds and then seemed surprise when the cost rose.
    When the Cold War ended the F-22 was on time and on budget, so the F-22 was scheduled to become operational during clinton's first term. Congress messing around caused the program to get out of hand. To save money two years were taken to find ways to save money. Lower the top speed, supercruise speed, maximum altitude, specs on the engine and other systems.
    Think of it this way.... if you were paying off your credit card at a rate three times greater than minimum rates and you were greatly reducing the debt each month. Then to "save money" you start paying the minimum amount each month. At the end you calculate how much you spend and are surprised how much more it cost, a lot more than you had originally expected..... this is what congress did to the F-22 program! The results are instead of purchasing 700+ F-22's for a lot less than S100M per aircraft, we are paying a lot more for only 187 F-22's.

    Adrian
    Last edited by avon1944; 01 Mar 06,, 02:26.

    Leave a comment:


  • jgetti
    replied
    Originally posted by -{SpoonmaN}-
    Is it compatable with carrier landings though? Anyway this is pointless, the USN will not buy the F-22, it's too expensive for the Air Force to field in large numbers now, and they need it a lot more.
    Definately NOT compatible with carrier landings. They slow the aircraft down, but at much reduced rates and much smaller forces on the aircraft.

    The infamous landing of the Israeli F-15 that was missing a wing showed this pretty well. When landing at close to 300 knots, they deployed the hook and it ripped it off the aircraft. It did, however, slow the aircraft down considerably before it ripped off.
    Last edited by jgetti; 28 Feb 06,, 15:28.

    Leave a comment:


  • Horrido
    replied
    Originally posted by canoe
    I'm not saying it'd be an easy undertaking. I'm just saying its easier then developing a second all new airframe and componets.
    Not when it comes to carrier ops. Structural designers have stated that it actually is both simpler and less expensive to design a whole new aircraft than to fight around the inherant weaknesses of an originally non-carrier design. For the few occasions that modifying an Air Force fighter for carrier ops was attempted, in the end, they quite literally HAD developed a second all-new airframe and components that only superficially resembled the original Air Force aircraft.

    Its the same reasoning when we in Canada buy aircraft we try to get aircraft with as much commonality with our existing stuff as possible. Even if it means modifying them to use parts already in service with other systems. We've proven given our limited military budget that it does infact make a significant savings.
    Different reasons entirely. You are proposing that modifying an entire airframe design for a much more violent and stressful operational environment equates to installing/modifying parts on an existing aircraft. Jgetti is quite correct and provided the perfect example for the issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • canoe
    replied
    Originally posted by jgetti
    Much easier said than done. When the same thing was done with YF-17, all that ended up being the same was loft.
    I'm not saying it'd be an easy undertaking. I'm just saying its easier then developing a second all new airframe and componets.

    Its the same reasoning when we in Canada buy aircraft we try to get aircraft with as much commonality with our existing stuff as possible. Even if it means modifying them to use parts already in service with other systems. We've proven given our limited military budget that it does infact make a significant savings.

    Leave a comment:


  • Horrido
    replied
    The tailhook on USAF fighters, including the F-15, F-16, and even F-117, is for emergency landings, usually if the brakes fail. The tailhook door for the F-117 is explosively blown out to drop the hook. I'm not sure how the F-22 is set up, but most likely a similar arrangement. These hooks are regarded as too weak for repetitive use on carriers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by jgetti
    F-15 has a hook too, and it's used routinely for landing in places like Elmendorf on icy runways.
    Is it compatable with carrier landings though? Anyway this is pointless, the USN will not buy the F-22, it's too expensive for the Air Force to field in large numbers now, and they need it a lot more.

    Leave a comment:


  • jgetti
    replied
    Originally posted by hello
    The F-22 has a hook??? Why would an F-22 need a hook?
    F-15 has a hook too, and it's used routinely for landing in places like Elmendorf on icy runways.

    Leave a comment:


  • jgetti
    replied
    Originally posted by canoe
    I think if the U.S Navy wanted an F-22 like aircraft it'd be cheaper to just add a hook and strengthen the airframe of the F-22. Plus you share commonality for parts with the airforce then.
    Much easier said than done. When the same thing was done with YF-17, all that ended up being the same was loft.

    Leave a comment:


  • jgetti
    replied
    Originally posted by -{SpoonmaN}-
    I thought one of the reasons it was rejected was because it's huge. If so, it's not suited to carriers for obvious reasons. And it was supposed to be more expensive, which, given the already huge price tag of the Raptor, means there's no way the USN would go for it.
    YF-23 was of similar proportions to YF-22, but longer. The ORIGINAL cost of YF-23 was higher than what Lockheed quoted the YF-22 because McDonnell and Northrop Grumann knew there was no way anyone could build ANY aircraft with the requirements of the ATF program at the price Lockheed quoted. The Northrop McDonnell team gave a realistic quote, and as usual Lockheed didn't, they won the contract, and then went WAY over budget. So, yes, the original quote for YF-23 was higher than YF-22, but was much lower than what F-22 actually costs today.

    Leave a comment:


  • hello
    replied
    Originally posted by Horrido
    The F-22 has a hook.
    The F-22 has a hook??? Why would an F-22 need a hook?

    Leave a comment:


  • avon1944
    replied
    RE: YF-23 Black Widow II vs. Russian 4th generation fighters

    Originally posted by Jedi_Iatros
    How would it compare to Russian fighters?
    The same way the F-22 would. Being more stealthy, fly at a higher altitude, at a faster speed, etc.
    Think of it this way, the Russians came up with the MiG.-29 and Su-27 as counters to the F-14, F-15 and F-16. The Russians had so much trouble with the fourth generation aircraft design they are almost a generation behind! This occurred during the Cold War, so a lack of priority was not an issue.
    The modification of the Su-27 family (to the Su-30, Su-37, Su-47, etc.) is their effort to try and stay up with the West. This year the Su-27 (and family) will exceed the total production run of the F-14 which was just retired! By the end of 2005, 760 Su-27's had been produced. The total F-14 production was 775 aircraft.

    Originally posted by Jedi_Iatros
    I wish the U.S. would revive it and give it to the Navy as the Tomcat replacement.
    The main reason the F-14 was retired was because its mission had died. Yes maintenance was a problem but, had the threat remained the problems with maintenance would be endured.
    Personally, I feel the Navy should have had a fly-off between the F-14-21 and the F/A-18E/F. I diffinitely feel this is another fly-off the F/A-18 would lose again!

    The US Navy has no need for the F-22 or F-23 mainly due to the fact that maintenance of the RAM is high! The maintenance of the F-35's RAM will be one-tenth that of the F-22! Progress and science moves on.
    The main reason the F-23 did not win are reasons the Navy would not want the F-23 either. Cost is a function of size/weight, there is a lack of confidence in the prime contractor to control the cost and, the one area where the F-22 had better performance, slow speed performance. This is what is needed to bring the aircraft aboard the carrier safely.


    Originally posted by canoe
    I think if the U.S Navy wanted an F-22 like aircraft it'd be cheaper to just add a hook and strengthen the airframe of the F-22
    No, it takes more than the addition of a tailhook to make a carrier aircraft. Look in detail at the difference between the F-35A and the F-35C. The "C" variant is longer, has larger wings, larger flaps/LEX, etc.. Plus additions to enable the aircraft to deal with the corrosive salt spray of the ocean. These are things normally not included in the USAF's aircraft. Navy aircraft in addition to having a heavier frame and landing gear because the specs on sink rate upon landing is greater for naval aircraft.

    Adrian

    Leave a comment:


  • Horrido
    replied
    How would it compare to Russian fighters? I'm assuming it would have commonality with the Raptor electronic and weapon wise.

    I wish the U.S. would revive it and give it to the Navy as the Tomcat replacement. Shame to let that fighter go to waste. I could picture American fighter pilots argueing over which fighter was the best! F-22 or F-23 on all those Topgun and Red Flag exercises ala F-14 vs. F-15s.
    The F-23 would have superior stealth, data-linkage, range, and fuel economy. Not quite as maneuverable compared with thrust-vectoring aircraft.

    No real point in reviving the F-23, as for expense and that the only real need would be as a longrange strike bomber, and an F/B-22 would probably be cheaper to develop and produce in the long run.

    I thought one of the reasons it was rejected was because it's huge. If so, it's not suited to carriers for obvious reasons. And it was supposed to be more expensive, which, given the already huge price tag of the Raptor, means there's no way the USN would go for it.
    It's really not that much larger (F-23 67x43ft vs F-22 62 x 44ft), it just looks big because of its giant wing acrage. lol C-130s have landed on carriers, so size, other than storage and deck space, really doesn't matter for carrier ops. The F-23 shouldn't be that much more expensive, if at all, than an F-22, since it lacks thrust vectoring. One MAJOR problem I would imagine with the F-23 is it's long back and distance between nose gear and main gear, raising the potential of a broken spine while trapping on a carrier.

    I think if the U.S Navy wanted an F-22 like aircraft it'd be cheaper to just add a hook and strengthen the airframe of the F-22. Plus you share commonality for parts with the airforce then.
    The F-22 has a hook. Unfortunately, I've read that if you strengthened the airframe and the landing gear on an F-22 to make it capable of carrier ops, you'd have a very nice static display, because it'd be too heavy to fly (and WAY over carrier ops restrictions). Because of those structural changes, you'd also lose out on any real commonality other than what you'd still have on independently designed aircraft performing the same mission (they didn't even really keep the Super Hornet in common with the standard Hornet).

    The Navy will never have an F-22-like aircraft, short of maybe the F-35C. Their development and procurement process is so convoluted and inept it is impossible to produce anything before spending far more than their alotted budget for the program. Could they? Of course, but they can't seem to keep from defeating themselves.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X