426Shadow
Topic Author
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 am

This is what the F-32A would have been.

Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:33 pm

We've all seen the prototype X-32 from the JSF competition but that model was not what the final aircraft would have looked like. I found this quite interesting, tho still ugly as sin.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... ompetition

Image
We are all just fanboys, our opinions don't make or break businesses.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2271
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:45 pm

It looks.. interesting. And menacing. It reminds me of the 50s era fighters like F-86, F-8, MiG-15 and 17 and so on. Mostly because of the air intake up front.

There's no doubt that the F-35 looks more esthetically pleasing.
 
426Shadow
Topic Author
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:47 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
It looks.. interesting. And menacing. It reminds me of the 50s era fighters like F-86, F-8, MiG-15 and 17 and so on. Mostly because of the air intake up front.

There's no doubt that the F-35 looks more esthetically pleasing.


It beats the F-35 in at least 2 areas from what I see. Fuel payload and it would have had thrust vectoring. But man how many sailors would have been eaten by that intake by now.
We are all just fanboys, our opinions don't make or break businesses.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3057
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:55 pm

426Shadow wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
It looks.. interesting. And menacing. It reminds me of the 50s era fighters like F-86, F-8, MiG-15 and 17 and so on. Mostly because of the air intake up front.

There's no doubt that the F-35 looks more esthetically pleasing.


It beats the F-35 in at least 2 areas from what I see. Fuel payload and it would have had thrust vectoring. But man how many sailors would have been eaten by that intake by now.


Or fallen overboard as they recoiled in disgust!

Fred
Image
 
Flaps
Posts: 1582
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2000 1:11 pm

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:01 pm

Looks like a GMO offspring of the mating of an F16 and F7.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 1859
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:21 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
It looks.. interesting. And menacing. It reminds me of the 50s era fighters like F-86, F-8, MiG-15 and 17 and so on. Mostly because of the air intake up front.

It's a close call between the shoulder wing F-8 Crusader, and the F-86, but not the standard version - it has to be the Dog.
Image

I was also thinking along these lines...
Image
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
estorilm
Posts: 740
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Thu Nov 07, 2019 7:58 pm

426Shadow wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
It looks.. interesting. And menacing. It reminds me of the 50s era fighters like F-86, F-8, MiG-15 and 17 and so on. Mostly because of the air intake up front.

There's no doubt that the F-35 looks more esthetically pleasing.


It beats the F-35 in at least 2 areas from what I see. Fuel payload and it would have had thrust vectoring. But man how many sailors would have been eaten by that intake by now.

Not even close - do you recall them having to remove panels from the aircraft to achieve STOVL tests during demval because it was so overweight?

That thing was never more than just a sketch. Sure the YF-23 (barely) survived to live out its days in a museum now, but who the hell wants this thing?! :lol: I guess its in the same museums as the 23, but whatever.

Thrust vectoring doesn't really apply, its impact will never be known and the Block IIIF 9g F-35 has proven to be essentially super maneuverable with MUCH larger control surfaces and a wing that's
optimized for maneuverability as well.
 
426Shadow
Topic Author
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Thu Nov 07, 2019 8:19 pm

estorilm wrote:
426Shadow wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
It looks.. interesting. And menacing. It reminds me of the 50s era fighters like F-86, F-8, MiG-15 and 17 and so on. Mostly because of the air intake up front.

There's no doubt that the F-35 looks more esthetically pleasing.


It beats the F-35 in at least 2 areas from what I see. Fuel payload and it would have had thrust vectoring. But man how many sailors would have been eaten by that intake by now.

Not even close - do you recall them having to remove panels from the aircraft to achieve STOVL tests during demval because it was so overweight?

That thing was never more than just a sketch. Sure the YF-23 (barely) survived to live out its days in a museum now, but who the hell wants this thing?! :lol: I guess its in the same museums as the 23, but whatever.

Thrust vectoring doesn't really apply, its impact will never be known and the Block IIIF 9g F-35 has proven to be essentially super maneuverable with MUCH larger control surfaces and a wing that's
optimized for maneuverability as well.


I can tell you didn't even pay attention to the article.

YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE TEST AIRCRAFT. The aircraft in the article is drastically different than the test plane. The test plane did no have thrust vectoring, the final would have. The test plane had a fairly thin delta wing and no horizontal stabilizer, the final aircraft would have had a horizontal stabilizer and much thicker wing.

Again THIS IS NOT ABOUT THAT HORRIBLE TEST AIRCRAFT.
We are all just fanboys, our opinions don't make or break businesses.
 
User avatar
Nomadd
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:26 pm

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:49 pm

I was thinking more Basking shark.
People love to assume that plane would have just magically been everything, with none of the problems the winner had.
Image
 
Ozair
Posts: 4403
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:51 pm

426Shadow wrote:
The aircraft in the article is drastically different than the test plane. The test plane did no have thrust vectoring, the final would have. The test plane had a fairly thin delta wing and no horizontal stabilizer, the final aircraft would have had a horizontal stabilizer and much thicker wing.

I don’t think anyone can claim that the F-32 would have had those two additional benefits. The 2D nozzles could well have been eliminated during the detailed design phase as the X-32 transitioned to the F-32. For an aircraft that was already struggling with weight issues the 2D nozzles would have been the easy low hanging fruit to prune off.

Additionally the replacement wing with subsequent horizontal stabilizers was heavier and the F-32 likely had less body lift than F-35, so would not have benefitted as much from that additional lift while the wing area looks reasonably similar between the two aircraft. The F-32 wing may have held more fuel but that is a bit hard to believe without a decent source to back it up. There weren’t two different sets of requirements, the range/payload requirements were common between the two airframes, so there is no reason to suggest the F-32 would have had a significantly larger combat radius.

The other things that stand out to me are the smaller nose and therefore correspondingly smaller radar, from a simple visual review perhaps as much as 1 third less the size of the APG-81 on the F-35, and the side weapons bays. Lugging 2000lb weapons out the side bays like that required a more complex release mechanism which you can see here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdRPXJyoqIk I’m not sure that would have been as flexible for the suite of weapons the aircraft eventually is required to carry.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3256
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Fri Nov 08, 2019 3:40 am

Ozair wrote:
426Shadow wrote:
The aircraft in the article is drastically different than the test plane. The test plane did no have thrust vectoring, the final would have. The test plane had a fairly thin delta wing and no horizontal stabilizer, the final aircraft would have had a horizontal stabilizer and much thicker wing.

I don’t think anyone can claim that the F-32 would have had those two additional benefits. The 2D nozzles could well have been eliminated during the detailed design phase as the X-32 transitioned to the F-32. For an aircraft that was already struggling with weight issues the 2D nozzles would have been the easy low hanging fruit to prune off.

Additionally the replacement wing with subsequent horizontal stabilizers was heavier and the F-32 likely had less body lift than F-35, so would not have benefitted as much from that additional lift while the wing area looks reasonably similar between the two aircraft. The F-32 wing may have held more fuel but that is a bit hard to believe without a decent source to back it up. There weren’t two different sets of requirements, the range/payload requirements were common between the two airframes, so there is no reason to suggest the F-32 would have had a significantly larger combat radius.

The other things that stand out to me are the smaller nose and therefore correspondingly smaller radar, from a simple visual review perhaps as much as 1 third less the size of the APG-81 on the F-35, and the side weapons bays. Lugging 2000lb weapons out the side bays like that required a more complex release mechanism which you can see here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdRPXJyoqIk I’m not sure that would have been as flexible for the suite of weapons the aircraft eventually is required to carry.

Correct. Boeing was also having a hell of a time with the construction of the upper surface of the wings and mid-fuselage; they were supposed to be built as one piece out of carbon composite. Boeing could never get the process right due to excessive amounts of defects in the curing process, and in the end, Boeing had to ditch the concept, which added a ton of weight to their design.

As noted by others, Boeing was also having problems with their vertical take off system; X-32’s method of delivering vertical thrust made it susceptible to a thing called hot gas re-ingestion, which is where the carbon dioxide coming from the exhaust is prone to getting sucked back into the intakes. This is bad for the engine because the hot gases are less dense and low in oxygen, leading to compressor stalls, losses in power and potentially flameouts. The X-32 had a number of engine stalls while trying to demonstrate vertical landing capabilities, and as a result, Boeing had to execute an emergency weight loss program on the X-32 prototype, by stripping the aircraft of its intake cowling, landing gear bay doors, etc in order to reduce weight.

However, the stuff they took out meant that the jet could not go supersonic, while the X-35 could both go supersonic, and land vertically all in the same flight, showing that the X-35 was more mature, despite being heavier and using a much more technically risky lift-fan concept for vertical take off and landings.

There were also concerns about the location of the refueling probe and the air data probe in the X-32, which prevented the jet from demonstrating aerial refueling, and the USN also made changes to the approach speed / low speed manoeuvring requirement for their carrier variant; the X-32 as it was could not meet the new requirement and required a significant redesign into a more traditional planform, while the Lockheed X-35 could easily meet the revised requirements.
 
DigitalSea
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:28 pm

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:25 pm

Hands down, one of the most ugliest fighter concepts I've ever seen.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21900
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Fri Nov 08, 2019 8:19 pm

DigitalSea wrote:
Hands down, one of the most ugliest fighter concepts I've ever seen.

There's a reason why the A-7 was called SLUF, the 'short little ugly f---er':

Image
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17785
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:18 pm

426Shadow wrote:
I found this quite interesting, tho still ugly as sin.


Yeah, because the F-35 is such a looker!
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 10246
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:23 pm

Image

At this angle it looks quite nice.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
AtomicGarden
Posts: 399
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:57 pm

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:38 am

F-32 Erne from Ace Combat 3. Which looks like it's laughing.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source= ... 9763833798
You killed a black astronaut, Cyril! That's like killing a unicorn!
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1697
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Sat Nov 09, 2019 10:24 am

The F-32 would have been inferior in nearly every way, not just looks.

1) The VTOL version of the F-32 would never have worked. It didn't have the added thrust of the lift fan. The engine in hover can not use afterburner and the F135 has a dry thrust of only 12,800kg. Considering the F-35B weighs 14,700kg it is highly unlikely it could land with any weapons.

2) The liftfan adds 6,000kg of downward thrust to the F-35B. This allows the F-35B to land with a full weapon load and a third of a tank of fuel.

2) The radar diameter would have been much smaller on the F-32. Approx two thirds of the detection range is massive.

3) The engine being so far forward and inline with the intake required a compromised intake design to maintain stealth.

4) The F-35A/C has a massive fuel tank where the lift fan goes in the F-35B. The F-32 with the engine mounted so far forward would never have had greater fuel capacity than the F-35.

The X-35 won in a landslide victory. This is not like the YF-23 that had many advantages that in hindsite would be nore suitable for todays mission.
 
estorilm
Posts: 740
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:06 pm

426Shadow wrote:
estorilm wrote:
426Shadow wrote:

It beats the F-35 in at least 2 areas from what I see. Fuel payload and it would have had thrust vectoring. But man how many sailors would have been eaten by that intake by now.

Not even close - do you recall them having to remove panels from the aircraft to achieve STOVL tests during demval because it was so overweight?

That thing was never more than just a sketch. Sure the YF-23 (barely) survived to live out its days in a museum now, but who the hell wants this thing?! :lol: I guess its in the same museums as the 23, but whatever.

Thrust vectoring doesn't really apply, its impact will never be known and the Block IIIF 9g F-35 has proven to be essentially super maneuverable with MUCH larger control surfaces and a wing that's
optimized for maneuverability as well.


I can tell you didn't even pay attention to the article.

YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE TEST AIRCRAFT. The aircraft in the article is drastically different than the test plane. The test plane did no have thrust vectoring, the final would have. The test plane had a fairly thin delta wing and no horizontal stabilizer, the final aircraft would have had a horizontal stabilizer and much thicker wing.

Again THIS IS NOT ABOUT THAT HORRIBLE TEST AIRCRAFT.


You're not making any sense.. I don't care what the final plane "would have had" - both companies had the same opportunity to develop and produce a concept aircraft for the demval program, in fact Boeing actually ALREADY had a freebie "redesign" during the program assessment phase and ALREADY told them "well, the real thing will do better.." because they didn't have time to produce it and iron out all the new specs and numbers for the new wing re-design.

My point was that Lockheed stuck with their guns EARLY on, and regardless of all the development drama and controversies surrounding the F-35, its only true competitor (literally) barely got off the ground! At least in STOVL form. That entire aircraft and design would have cost exponentially more and likely would have been cancelled... so this article is no more than click-bait as far as I'm concerned. The YF-32 is an ugly duckling that no one wanted; something that even Boeing knew wasn't competitive.

So anyways if you want to talk about what "could have been" - who is paying for it? If you want to free up some more design and research time and funding, maybe the F-35 could have had additional features also? You've gotta cut things off at the demval phase of the program, and (again) Boeing already got one more extra chance than was really fair to be honest - and even THAT design was a complete mess.

Even if it had met the JSF criteria, it would have been a bad plane... the 35's numbers for payload, range, maneuverability, maintainability, etc would have likely been higher.
 
estorilm
Posts: 740
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:45 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
The F-32 would have been inferior in nearly every way, not just looks.

1) The VTOL version of the F-32 would never have worked. It didn't have the added thrust of the lift fan. The engine in hover can not use afterburner and the F135 has a dry thrust of only 12,800kg. Considering the F-35B weighs 14,700kg it is highly unlikely it could land with any weapons.

2) The liftfan adds 6,000kg of downward thrust to the F-35B. This allows the F-35B to land with a full weapon load and a third of a tank of fuel.

2) The radar diameter would have been much smaller on the F-32. Approx two thirds of the detection range is massive.

3) The engine being so far forward and inline with the intake required a compromised intake design to maintain stealth.

4) The F-35A/C has a massive fuel tank where the lift fan goes in the F-35B. The F-32 with the engine mounted so far forward would never have had greater fuel capacity than the F-35.

The X-35 won in a landslide victory. This is not like the YF-23 that had many advantages that in hindsite would be nore suitable for todays mission.

Amen! Except for the YF-23 part... ;)
 
426Shadow
Topic Author
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:13 pm

You guys are acting like I am a Boeing Stan or something. I LITERALLY work on the F-35 program.
We are all just fanboys, our opinions don't make or break businesses.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1697
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Wed Nov 13, 2019 3:11 am

426Shadow wrote:
You guys are acting like I am a Boeing Stan or something. I LITERALLY work on the F-35 program.

I'm just replying to this bit.
426Shadow wrote:
It beats the F-35 in at least 2 areas from what I see. Fuel payload


The actual dry thrust of the F135 does not even reach the empty weight of the F-35. The F-32B would have been hovering using only the dry thrust. For the F-32B to hover it would have had to weigh much less than the current F-35B or the engine thrust would have had to be much greater than the current F135.

Unless Boeing made the aircraft much smaller I do not see how that much weight could be removed. A physically smaller aircraft means less payload and fuel. If the engine was made much bigger it would also take up more internal space that also means less payload and fuel.

Lets assume Boeing managed to make an aircraft 10% lighter than the F-35B and fitted an engine with 10% greater dry thrust. 14,700kg empty weight comes down to 13,320kg and dry thrust goes from 12,800kg up to 14,080kg. This would have been the best case scenario. That is a fuel and payload of less than 720kg. That would probably be close to reserve fuel so it would not be able to land vertical with a pair of sidewinders.

The F-35B by comparison can land vertical with two 2,000lb bombs and two AMRAAM's which is crazy. Or it could take off vertical with four AMRAAMs and enough fuel to fly for 500+nm.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:33 pm

Some longer history/drama of the competition at this link for those interested;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_WPLeDmU6o
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 5682
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Wed Nov 13, 2019 3:52 pm

Fighter jets must be ugly to scare the enemy away.

I like it.
Reading accident reports is what calms me down
 
426Shadow
Topic Author
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Thu Nov 14, 2019 6:55 am

RJMAZ wrote:
. A physically smaller aircraft means less payload and fuel. If the engine was made much bigger it would also take up more internal space that also means less payload and fuel.


Might want to let the F-22 know that since it has the same fuel payload as the F-35 even tho it is much larger.
We are all just fanboys, our opinions don't make or break businesses.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3256
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:14 am

426Shadow wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
. A physically smaller aircraft means less payload and fuel. If the engine was made much bigger it would also take up more internal space that also means less payload and fuel.


Might want to let the F-22 know that since it has the same fuel payload as the F-35 even tho it is much larger.

The F-22 carries less weapons internally; it can only take 2 x 1000lb or 8 x 250lb bombs internally, and that's a fairly tight fit.

The F-35A and C can take 2 x 2000lb bombs; the reason is that the F-35's weapons bays are much deeper.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4403
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:35 am

ThePointblank wrote:
426Shadow wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
. A physically smaller aircraft means less payload and fuel. If the engine was made much bigger it would also take up more internal space that also means less payload and fuel.


Might want to let the F-22 know that since it has the same fuel payload as the F-35 even tho it is much larger.

The F-22 carries less weapons internally; it can only take 2 x 1000lb or 8 x 250lb bombs internally, and that's a fairly tight fit.

The F-35A and C can take 2 x 2000lb bombs; the reason is that the F-35's weapons bays are much deeper.

F-22 also has two F119 which are nearly the same size as the single F135 on the F-35 and what the F-32 would have used.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1697
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:40 pm

Increasing internal fuel capacity will also increase the empty weight. Extra structure needs to be added such as thicker wings and wider fuselage.

For the F-32B to hover it would need to reduce the empty weight significantly. The easiest option would be to reduce internal fuel capacity as it saves a lot of structure weight. Reducing weapon capacity would also be a way of saving weight. This would have had a negative effect on the F-32A and F-32C versions.
 
426Shadow
Topic Author
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:49 pm

At the end of the day, it wasn't chosen so you can get as technical as you want and it wont change a thing. I thought the designs looked interesting. I am not trying to sell a failure to a a close minded audience or anything like that. The A-12 also looked interesting but got forbid if I said anything positive about it I sure i would be beat down with "Facts".
We are all just fanboys, our opinions don't make or break businesses.
 
aumaverick
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:40 pm

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Thu Nov 14, 2019 6:03 pm

426Shadow wrote:
At the end of the day, it wasn't chosen so you can get as technical as you want and it wont change a thing. I thought the designs looked interesting. I am not trying to sell a failure to a a close minded audience or anything like that. The A-12 also looked interesting but got forbid if I said anything positive about it I sure i would be beat down with "Facts".


The A-12 was not interesting and would have never met the actual capabilities proposed. The F-14 Tomcat 21 would have been the better capable aircraft and I think we should also consider it as the better option to the F-35. It would have been the best looking option over the F-35, F-32, or the A-12 II. <insert heavy sarcasm> :roll:

All of the potential vs actual debating aside, the original post was nothing more than a good mock-up painting of what could have been, nothing more.

Image
I'm just here so I won't get fined. - Marshawn Lynch
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1697
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:56 pm

426Shadow wrote:
I am not trying to sell a failure to a a close minded audience or anything like that. The A-12 also looked interesting but got forbid if I said anything positive about it I sure i would be beat down with "Facts".

Just the bit about the F-32 having more fuel and payload was definitely incorrect.

If the Soviet Union didn't collapse the A-12 would have definitely entered service and performed very well. We would also have 132 B-2 bombers and 750 F-22's. The NATF program was also launched in 1988 and cancelled in 1991.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3256
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:06 am

RJMAZ wrote:
426Shadow wrote:
I am not trying to sell a failure to a a close minded audience or anything like that. The A-12 also looked interesting but got forbid if I said anything positive about it I sure i would be beat down with "Facts".

Just the bit about the F-32 having more fuel and payload was definitely incorrect.

If the Soviet Union didn't collapse the A-12 would have definitely entered service and performed very well. We would also have 132 B-2 bombers and 750 F-22's. The NATF program was also launched in 1988 and cancelled in 1991.

On the A-12, I've posted about this before, but the gist is that, no it would not have performed well, and it was running into severe technical and cost issues:

viewtopic.php?t=1027057

ThePointblank wrote:
I think the main issue with the A-12 was that for the money, the aircraft as desired could not be built. Remember, there were two contractor teams involved in the bidding, McDonnell-Douglas/General Dynamics and Northrop/Grumman/Ling-Temco-Vought. The Northrop team proposal envisioned a larger and heavier aircraft than its competitor, with a projected development cost $1.1 billion dollars more than for the design the McDonnell-Douglas/General Dynamics team submitted.

The McDonnell-Douglas proposal was selected because it was the only team that submitted a bid that was in compliance, and one that was within the requested budget, but also because the Navy also considered the Northrop proposal to be too radical because it was extremely different from other Navy designs in an area where the USN did not have much expertise. Certain concepts, such as the ordnance release mechanism, had to be explained in great detail to the Navy because they had never seen anything quite like it before, as the overall design was really unique. This was one of the tasks of Grumman; to interface with Navy as one of the senior partners with the most experience in naval aviation, as it wasn't that the naval requirements caused any issues, but it was the stealth requirement and the related requirement to use extensive amounts of composites in the structure to achieve low observability that caused the most cause for concern. Grumman was brought onboard as a risk reduction effort as in reality, their involvement wasn't really necessary, except to work with the Navy as the Navy loved Grumman 'Iron Works'.

Furthermore, the Northrop team didn't commit to a fixed price development contract, with Grumman being especially wary. The Northrop team knew that from the onset, the Navy was asking for too much aircraft for the price, and the Navy didn't understand the significance that the team with experience building stealth aircraft (Northrop with their B-2 and Tacit Blue), the most experience building military aircraft using large composites structures (Northrop and LVT) and the most experience building naval aircraft (Grumman, the premier builder of carrier aircraft since WWII, and LVT, with the A-7 and F-8) was telling them that the aircraft the Navy wanted couldn't be built for what the navy wanted to pay.

The Navy did try and beat them down on the price in negotiations, and at this point Grumman, remembering how they got burned on the fixed price development contract on the F-14, did not want to risk their company to proceed with proposing a fixed price development contract, and convinced their partners of same. They then turned in a proposal that had the R&D portion as cost plus. This was non-responsive to the solicitation as published and so they got out.

The end result was that the Navy was working with a team (McDonnell-Douglas/General Dynamics) that had zero experience with stealth technology, zero experience in composites structures, and with one of the partners, most critically, the senior partner (General Dynamics) having zero experience designing naval aircraft. The USN also didn't tell the McDonnell-Douglas/General Dynamics team that the Northrop team was bowing out of the competition because of unrealistic cost requirements and kept negotiating as if there were two teams and pressured with that supposition.

It was basically, a disaster waiting to happen; unrealistic cost and schedule projections, no experience in two key technical areas, limited experience on another technical area, and the contractor with the most experience in all of the technical areas telling you that the project can't be done for the price. It was therefore, natural that the bid selected would run into major technical issues surrounding all three of the key technical areas; low observability, composite structures, and naval requirements, and therefore completely miss weight targets with continued schedule slippage and then proceed to blow the planned budget due to a lack of experience in these three technical areas.

It is therefore, very interesting to note that the expected cost overrun for the A-12 by McDonnell-Douglas and General Dynamics ($1-2 billion dollars depending on which report you read) exceeded the difference in expected costs between the McDonnell-Douglas team and the Northrop team.

It is also worthwhile to note that Lockheed, which normally bids on everything, has experience developing stealth aircraft (F-117 and F-22), has experience in large composite structures (F-117 and F-22), has experience building naval aircraft (S-3 Viking) and joined multiple teams during A/F-X at the same time for a fairly similar aircraft, also declined to bid on A-12 contract, as they could see the writing on the wall regarding A-12 from the start.


ThePointblank wrote:
My understanding of the Northrop proposal for the A-12 contract was that it looked very much like a miniaturized B-2 bomber. It was certainly a bigger and more expensive aircraft as proposed, and the Northrop team was very serious in their bid. I think that due to the Northrop team's experience in the major technical areas, most critically low observability and composite structures, they proposed a much larger and subsequently a more expensive aircraft. I think after the competition and the Navy had selected the McDonnell-Douglas/General Dynamics proposal, the Navy went back to Northrop and asked them if the Northrop team believed their weight and cost estimates because the Navy really liked the Northrop design. It all came down to that by knowing what it would take to build to the requirements, the only viable design was priced out of the competition.

The early Navy assessment of the original contractor proposals also seems to bear out a lack of experience at the contractor level in critical stealth technologies for the McDonnell-Douglas/General Dynamics team. The Navy study concluded that the cost projections in the McDonnell Douglas/General Dynamics proposal were at least $500 million too low. Assuming the contractors did not purposely underbid, this very low bid could reflect a lack of understanding of the complexity and difficulties involved in developing and manufacturing an airframe composed almost entirely of composite materials. Investigators also determined that the original McDonnell-Douglas/General Dynamics weight estimates were also unrealistically optimistic.

Much more interestingly, the Navy assessment of the Northrop proposal resulted in virtually the same cost numbers and weight estimates as the contractor provided. This could indicate a greater realism on Northrop’s part due to experience. Northrop has extensive experience developing stealthy aircraft, already developed Tacit Blue and supposedly completed development for a dark project called THAP, which may have been very similar in concept to the A-12, and was of course deeply involved in the B-2 R&D effort. Combined with Grumman’s naval aircraft experience, and LTV’s expertise in composite structures and naval aircraft, the Northrop team’s experience may have contributed to more realistic estimates of cost and technological risk.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 12005
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:43 pm

I like the F-8 Crusader vibe.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
426Shadow
Topic Author
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:31 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
426Shadow wrote:
I am not trying to sell a failure to a a close minded audience or anything like that. The A-12 also looked interesting but got forbid if I said anything positive about it I sure i would be beat down with "Facts".

Just the bit about the F-32 having more fuel and payload was definitely incorrect.

If the Soviet Union didn't collapse the A-12 would have definitely entered service and performed very well. We would also have 132 B-2 bombers and 750 F-22's. The NATF program was also launched in 1988 and cancelled in 1991.


No you just read it incorrect. I never said payload i said FUEL PAYLOAD as in carry more fuel, and fuel is part of a payload last time i checked.
We are all just fanboys, our opinions don't make or break businesses.
 
426Shadow
Topic Author
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:31 pm

The F-14 was a garbage plane no matter what you did to it. See everyone has opinions.
We are all just fanboys, our opinions don't make or break businesses.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9484
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:48 pm

I see this as just a fun "what if" discussion. No harm no foul as nothing is going to change. The YF-32 might have been a great plane, but it did not live up to what was required during the testing. The looks certainly were not an issue for me, I like variety if we can have it (but not for the sake of variety, function over form people).

Now can we PLEASE all just agree that the YF-23 was the better plane? :spin:

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
426Shadow
Topic Author
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:29 am

Tugger wrote:
I see this as just a fun "what if" discussion. No harm no foul as nothing is going to change. The YF-32 might have been a great plane, but it did not live up to what was required during the testing. The looks certainly were not an issue for me, I like variety if we can have it (but not for the sake of variety, function over form people).

Now can we PLEASE all just agree that the YF-23 was the better plane? :spin:

Tugg


I always felt it could have went to the Navy as a F-14 replacement.
We are all just fanboys, our opinions don't make or break businesses.
 
estorilm
Posts: 740
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Mon Nov 25, 2019 7:33 pm

426Shadow wrote:
Tugger wrote:
I see this as just a fun "what if" discussion. No harm no foul as nothing is going to change. The YF-32 might have been a great plane, but it did not live up to what was required during the testing. The looks certainly were not an issue for me, I like variety if we can have it (but not for the sake of variety, function over form people).

Now can we PLEASE all just agree that the YF-23 was the better plane? :spin:

Tugg


I always felt it could have went to the Navy as a F-14 replacement.

Okay I'm going to stir the pot here :stirthepot:

No, the YF-23 wasn't a better plane. It had an interceptor-style design without adequate control surface area. The rear of the aircraft (especially the thrust nozzle/vector area) seemed primitive and likely would have required significant redesign. Also looked less stealthy (the rear, that is). I firmly believe that payloads, performance specs (minus perhaps max top speed) certainly WVR combat specs, and definitely design maturity and program cost / target IOC / dates were far better and/or more realistic for the F-22.

Also, I don't think the YF-32 could have ever replaced the F-14. That thing was designed to carry 5x. massive AIM-54's, achieve high-speed supersonic intercepts against almost anything in the sky, achieve decent loiter times, and still turn/burn with the best jet dogfighters of the day.

Payload, all-out high speed, WVR combat performance, and loiter time mentioned above are NOT anything the YF-32 would have been particularly good at.
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 495
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Mon Nov 25, 2019 9:23 pm

From what I've read, the YF-23 could maneuver with the YF-22 without the need for thrust vectoring, and has a rear aspect stealth design that is based on not having it. Yes, at VERY low air speeds, the thrust vectoring on the 23 could give it a slight edge in maneuvering, but, in the terms of the contest, it was considered a draw. The major obstacles for the YF-23 were that the engines that it was designed for were not as mature as the ones intended for the YF-22, and, the weapons bay arrangement for the -23 wasn't quite as flexible as the one for the -22 in terms of weapon deployment and dimensions. The final design for the F-23 would have been somewhat larger to accommodate a needed change to the weapons bay, which would have introduced a certain amount of risk. There are a couple of very good write ups online that talk about the issues that faced the -23.

In the end, neither design was drastically better than the other, and I don't feel that we were left with a lesser platform because we chose the -22.
 
426Shadow
Topic Author
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Tue Nov 26, 2019 6:58 am

estorilm wrote:
Okay I'm going to stir the pot here :stirthepot:

No, the YF-23 wasn't a better plane. It had an interceptor-style design without adequate control surface area. The rear of the aircraft (especially the thrust nozzle/vector area) seemed primitive and likely would have required significant redesign. Also looked less stealthy (the rear, that is). I firmly believe that payloads, performance specs (minus perhaps max top speed) certainly WVR combat specs, and definitely design maturity and program cost / target IOC / dates were far better and/or more realistic for the F-22.

Also, I don't think the YF-32 could have ever replaced the F-14. That thing was designed to carry 5x. massive AIM-54's, achieve high-speed supersonic intercepts against almost anything in the sky, achieve decent loiter times, and still turn/burn with the best jet dogfighters of the day.

Payload, all-out high speed, WVR combat performance, and loiter time mentioned above are NOT anything the YF-32 would have been particularly good at.


Well I don't think its fair to say that a replacement aircraft has to do EVERYTHING and carry EVERYTHING that the former aircraft did.

They are touting the F-35 to do the A-10 mission. The F-22 cannot carry as many AIM-120 AMRAAM's as the F-15C. I'm sure there are other examples but I digress.
We are all just fanboys, our opinions don't make or break businesses.
 
estorilm
Posts: 740
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Tue Nov 26, 2019 3:02 pm

LightningZ71 wrote:
From what I've read, the YF-23 could maneuver with the YF-22 without the need for thrust vectoring, and has a rear aspect stealth design that is based on not having it. Yes, at VERY low air speeds, the thrust vectoring on the 23 could give it a slight edge in maneuvering, but, in the terms of the contest, it was considered a draw. The major obstacles for the YF-23 were that the engines that it was designed for were not as mature as the ones intended for the YF-22, and, the weapons bay arrangement for the -23 wasn't quite as flexible as the one for the -22 in terms of weapon deployment and dimensions. The final design for the F-23 would have been somewhat larger to accommodate a needed change to the weapons bay, which would have introduced a certain amount of risk. There are a couple of very good write ups online that talk about the issues that faced the -23.

In the end, neither design was drastically better than the other, and I don't feel that we were left with a lesser platform because we chose the -22.

No way - recall that the 23 has a v-tail arrangement with two (total) control surfaces for pitch/yaw, while the 22 has TWICE that (and I believe they are also larger). This was seen as a principal advantage (maneuverability) over the YF-23. The 23 did have vectored thrust, but my point was that it seemed more primitive, as did the entire rear of the aircraft from a stealth-perspective. The front looked amazing for sure, though.

As far as neither being drastically better than the other, I firmly believe that the 23 would have ended up being considerable more expensive to develop and achieve IOC, plus likely numerous delays. When you consider the political climate at the time the 22 was being built, it's entirely possible that (given likely delays) we might only have 50 or so 23's if that's the route they went.

The fact that LM won the contract for the JSF helps the F-22 a lot as well; I don't believe that LM would have trickled down as much added-knowledge down to Northrop if they had won the ATF competition. I believe RAM coatings research/understanding was one of the first of these "trickle-down" advantages early in the F-35 program.

426Shadow wrote:
Well I don't think its fair to say that a replacement aircraft has to do EVERYTHING and carry EVERYTHING that the former aircraft did.

They are touting the F-35 to do the A-10 mission. The F-22 cannot carry as many AIM-120 AMRAAM's as the F-15C. I'm sure there are other examples but I digress.

Oh I didn't mean it like that, my comments were targeted at the notion of the YF-32 being able to replace the Tomcat in any way - I still firmly believe that's not even remotely possible. If the Tomcat didn't require HIGH M2+ performance along with a large payload and the ability (insane at the time) to get down in the dirt and dogfight at slower speeds and high turn rates, it wouldn't be nearly as large/expensive and complex as it was. The 32/35 are fine for what the Navy needs now, but nothing like the F-14.

As far as the AIM-120 is concerned, 6x 120 and 2x 9X is a significant load-out, and something you are VERY VERY rarely going to see on an F-15C, especially considering the extra drag the F-15C encounters, as it'll likely need external drop drop tanks to achieve the F-22's range in that same mission profile. The F-22 will be clean in this scenario, and capable of achieving high M2 performance, while an F-15C with 8 external missiles and drop tanks would have a DRAMATICALLY reduced performance envelope. This fact is almost always ignored when comparing the "clean" Raptor and Lightning II to conventional platforms.

It's also worth noting that each of the 4 wing hardpoints on the F-22 is technically capable of mounting 5000lbs, and LM designed them to hold 2x A2A weapons each. At that point you're talking TEN AIM-120s and 2x AIM-9X's in a comparative "dirty" A2A configuration. I don't think this was ever developed (pylons) but it's possible. For now, given the requirement to possibly dogfight WVR, I think their loadouts will be similar (F-15 will be limited drag/weight).

I definitely don't think the F-35 can replace the A-10, but I absolutely do think the 25mm will get the job done if an F-35A flying cap hears a call for some CAS tasking and no one else is around. That flexibility is pretty cool to be honest (as usually the CAP planes just sit up there doing nothing).
 
426Shadow
Topic Author
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Tue Nov 26, 2019 5:40 pm

estorilm wrote:
LightningZ71 wrote:
From what I've read, the YF-23 could maneuver with the YF-22 without the need for thrust vectoring, and has a rear aspect stealth design that is based on not having it. Yes, at VERY low air speeds, the thrust vectoring on the 23 could give it a slight edge in maneuvering, but, in the terms of the contest, it was considered a draw. The major obstacles for the YF-23 were that the engines that it was designed for were not as mature as the ones intended for the YF-22, and, the weapons bay arrangement for the -23 wasn't quite as flexible as the one for the -22 in terms of weapon deployment and dimensions. The final design for the F-23 would have been somewhat larger to accommodate a needed change to the weapons bay, which would have introduced a certain amount of risk. There are a couple of very good write ups online that talk about the issues that faced the -23.

In the end, neither design was drastically better than the other, and I don't feel that we were left with a lesser platform because we chose the -22.

No way - recall that the 23 has a v-tail arrangement with two (total) control surfaces for pitch/yaw, while the 22 has TWICE that (and I believe they are also larger). This was seen as a principal advantage (maneuverability) over the YF-23. The 23 did have vectored thrust, but my point was that it seemed more primitive, as did the entire rear of the aircraft from a stealth-perspective. The front looked amazing for sure, though.

As far as neither being drastically better than the other, I firmly believe that the 23 would have ended up being considerable more expensive to develop and achieve IOC, plus likely numerous delays. When you consider the political climate at the time the 22 was being built, it's entirely possible that (given likely delays) we might only have 50 or so 23's if that's the route they went.

The fact that LM won the contract for the JSF helps the F-22 a lot as well; I don't believe that LM would have trickled down as much added-knowledge down to Northrop if they had won the ATF competition. I believe RAM coatings research/understanding was one of the first of these "trickle-down" advantages early in the F-35 program.

426Shadow wrote:
Well I don't think its fair to say that a replacement aircraft has to do EVERYTHING and carry EVERYTHING that the former aircraft did.

They are touting the F-35 to do the A-10 mission. The F-22 cannot carry as many AIM-120 AMRAAM's as the F-15C. I'm sure there are other examples but I digress.

Oh I didn't mean it like that, my comments were targeted at the notion of the YF-32 being able to replace the Tomcat in any way - I still firmly believe that's not even remotely possible. If the Tomcat didn't require HIGH M2+ performance along with a large payload and the ability (insane at the time) to get down in the dirt and dogfight at slower speeds and high turn rates, it wouldn't be nearly as large/expensive and complex as it was. The 32/35 are fine for what the Navy needs now, but nothing like the F-14.

As far as the AIM-120 is concerned, 6x 120 and 2x 9X is a significant load-out, and something you are VERY VERY rarely going to see on an F-15C, especially considering the extra drag the F-15C encounters, as it'll likely need external drop drop tanks to achieve the F-22's range in that same mission profile. The F-22 will be clean in this scenario, and capable of achieving high M2 performance, while an F-15C with 8 external missiles and drop tanks would have a DRAMATICALLY reduced performance envelope. This fact is almost always ignored when comparing the "clean" Raptor and Lightning II to conventional platforms.

It's also worth noting that each of the 4 wing hardpoints on the F-22 is technically capable of mounting 5000lbs, and LM designed them to hold 2x A2A weapons each. At that point you're talking TEN AIM-120s and 2x AIM-9X's in a comparative "dirty" A2A configuration. I don't think this was ever developed (pylons) but it's possible. For now, given the requirement to possibly dogfight WVR, I think their loadouts will be similar (F-15 will be limited drag/weight).

I definitely don't think the F-35 can replace the A-10, but I absolutely do think the 25mm will get the job done if an F-35A flying cap hears a call for some CAS tasking and no one else is around. That flexibility is pretty cool to be honest (as usually the CAP planes just sit up there doing nothing).


If we are talking about unlikely:

Image
We are all just fanboys, our opinions don't make or break businesses.
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 495
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Tue Nov 26, 2019 7:30 pm

No way - recall that the 23 has a v-tail arrangement with two (total) control surfaces for pitch/yaw, while the 22 has TWICE that (and I believe they are also larger). This was seen as a principal advantage (maneuverability) over the YF-23. The 23 did have vectored thrust, but my point was that it seemed more primitive, as did the entire rear of the aircraft from a stealth-perspective. The front looked amazing for sure, though.


There absolutely wasn't much of a maneuverability difference between them. The one pilot that both flew both platforms AND actually talked about it was very clear about that...
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... yf-23-lost
--Sandburg talks about how the YF-23's massive tailerons were so powerful that they largely mitigated the perceived advantages of the YF-22's thrust vectoring.--

The YF-23 had greater range and better stealth. Again, don't take my word for it...
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... -northrop/
--While the two planes were about equal in weapons load and avionics, Northrop's design had better stealth and longer range. That range bonus would have been particularly appreciated today, with the rising influence of China. The vast distances involved in covering the Asia-Pacific are now factoring into how to design the Raptor's proposed replacement.--

The YF-23 (and the F-23) did NOT use thrust vectoring. The V tail is placed farther back from the center of mass than the F-22s stabilizers, and doesn't suffer from airflow disruption from the wings in the same way that the F-22s do. Again, at low speeds, the thrust vectoring makes a difference, but, it's not night and day, and both aircraft could maintain a greater than 60 degree AoA.

As far as neither being drastically better than the other, I firmly believe that the 23 would have ended up being considerable more expensive to develop and achieve IOC, plus likely numerous delays. When you consider the political climate at the time the 22 was being built, it's entirely possible that (given likely delays) we might only have 50 or so 23's if that's the route they went.


I have no doubt that the YF-23 would have been more expensive in development, largely because the engines needed more work, and the production aircraft was going to be a bit more modified from the prototype than the F-22 was going to be. I don't think that either would have been more expensive or complicated to keep in the air. The F-22 has a considerable maintenance workload in handling the thrust vectoring system that the F-23 would never have had to deal with, but the weapons bay in the F-23 was going to be more complex. Again, I don't think that either is significantly better in principle than the other, but, I can certainly see where the better stealth and longer range of the F-23 would be very helpful in today's global climate.
 
aumaverick
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:40 pm

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:14 pm

426Shadow wrote:
We've all seen the prototype X-32 from the JSF competition but that model was not what the final aircraft would have looked like. I found this quite interesting, tho still ugly as sin.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... ompetition

Image


Now that we have strayed into the F-22 vs. F-23 topic, here is what the F-23 woul have looked like if Northrop won the competition:

Image
I'm just here so I won't get fined. - Marshawn Lynch
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2117
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:59 am

aumaverick wrote:
426Shadow wrote:
We've all seen the prototype X-32 from the JSF competition but that model was not what the final aircraft would have looked like. I found this quite interesting, tho still ugly as sin.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... ompetition

Image


Now that we have strayed into the F-22 vs. F-23 topic, here is what the F-23 woul have looked like if Northrop won the competition:

Image


Matter of opinion of course, but here's what I think should have been . . .

US Air Force;
Image

US Navy;
Image

Be still my heart . . . .
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11130
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:15 am

Ugly airplanes have an outstanding combat record. Just look at the A-7 and A-10, ugly but extremely deadly to the bad guys. An F-32 could be in the same category.
 
estorilm
Posts: 740
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:34 pm

LightningZ71 wrote:
There absolutely wasn't much of a maneuverability difference between them. The one pilot that both flew both platforms AND actually talked about it was very clear about that...
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... yf-23-lost
--Sandburg talks about how the YF-23's massive tailerons were so powerful that they largely mitigated the perceived advantages of the YF-22's thrust vectoring.--

The YF-23 had greater range and better stealth. Again, don't take my word for it...
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... -northrop/
--While the two planes were about equal in weapons load and avionics, Northrop's design had better stealth and longer range. That range bonus would have been particularly appreciated today, with the rising influence of China. The vast distances involved in covering the Asia-Pacific are now factoring into how to design the Raptor's proposed replacement.--

The YF-23 (and the F-23) did NOT use thrust vectoring. The V tail is placed farther back from the center of mass than the F-22s stabilizers, and doesn't suffer from airflow disruption from the wings in the same way that the F-22s do. Again, at low speeds, the thrust vectoring makes a difference, but, it's not night and day, and both aircraft could maintain a greater than 60 degree AoA.


Ehhh I don't see how that's possible - you don't need to be an aeronautical engineer or test pilot to know basic physics. The fact is that you're exerting an aerodynamic force and deflection of air in exactly the axis you want for both pitch and yaw, with minimal induced drag in undesirable directions. Pitch authority will be better in the F-22, even without TV - also due in part (like you said) to the shorter moment arm of the F-22 airframe/tail location. Regardless - once you throw in TV, you have to factor pitch rate in addition to AoA / authority, and its impact on slow-speed maneuverability. They can't be in the same realm honestly. I listened to a podcast a while ago where an F-22 driver said a red air aircraft went vertical after a merge, and he was able to snap-point and hold the aircraft at the adversary as he waited for him to lose energy, getting an easy kill.

As far as yaw authority is concerned (while less important) - that's automatically going to induce a rolling motion into the aircraft with those canted v tails, which would need to be countered with aileron deflection - AGAIN, significant induced drag. Especially at the angles we're talking about with the pelican / v tail on the 23 - doesn't seem to have much of any yaw control.

When people say that the YF-23 put "less focus on A2A" it's a huge understatement. I think the 23 could maneuver, maybe into a merge or something, but it's pretty clear when you factor in the deflections and control surfaces that the plane would DUMP a ton of energy very quickly while maneuvering. If you got into a tight turning fight (especially without TV as your speeds decreased) I believe the ability to point and turn inside or maintain a tactical advantage in the 23 would be significantly reduced versus certain adversary aircraft, and a 22 would crush it.

Stealth and range may be better in the 23, but at this point it's being targeted more as an interceptor which isn't really what the USAF wanted. To this day, I still see the plane as more of a missile truck/interceptor-type platform. I guess I'm the only one that doesn't think the F-22 looks "conventional" - yes the 23 is a big more futuristic, but it doesn't seem as dramatic to me as everyone else implies.

Interestingly, due to their fixed intakes and stealth coatings, I recently read that they'd actually have about the same top speed in the real world.

Let's be honest, if they chose the 23, everyone would be drooling over the 22 instead. :lol:

LightningZ71 wrote:
As far as neither being drastically better than the other, I firmly believe that the 23 would have ended up being considerable more expensive to develop and achieve IOC, plus likely numerous delays. When you consider the political climate at the time the 22 was being built, it's entirely possible that (given likely delays) we might only have 50 or so 23's if that's the route they went.


I have no doubt that the YF-23 would have been more expensive in development, largely because the engines needed more work, and the production aircraft was going to be a bit more modified from the prototype than the F-22 was going to be. I don't think that either would have been more expensive or complicated to keep in the air. The F-22 has a considerable maintenance workload in handling the thrust vectoring system that the F-23 would never have had to deal with, but the weapons bay in the F-23 was going to be more complex. Again, I don't think that either is significantly better in principle than the other, but, I can certainly see where the better stealth and longer range of the F-23 would be very helpful in today's global climate.

The variable cycle and plumbing alone would have been more mx intensive for sure, and access to them seems like it would also be far more difficult and less conventional than the 22. Considering the F-22 is what, the size of a marble on radar? I don't see how you can justify the far more exotic layout of the engines and reduced space, etc. I'd have to imagine the fuel storage areas would also be hugely mx intensive.

I heard a Raptor driver the other day say that if you took coating mx out of the equation, they'd have a higher ready-rate than any of our 4th gen aircraft (easily) which seems crazy but who knows. Apparently the TV is also active at higher speeds, though I'm not sure exactly what it would be doing. I suppose it would allow for a direction change without inducing as much drag through a control surface deflection.


Anyways, we should get back to how ugly the YF-32 is.
 
cpd
Posts: 6042
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: This is what the F-32A would have been.

Sat Dec 07, 2019 2:26 am

aumaverick wrote:
Now that we have strayed into the F-22 vs. F-23 topic, here is what the F-23 woul have looked like if Northrop won the competition:


And the Rockwell design looked even better, although it wasn't as stealthy.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: EvoDell, YIMBY and 62 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos