Northrop / McDonnell Douglas ATF - YF-23 and EMD F-23

Ogami musashi said:
Well by the way, he was referring to the argument that part of LM win was made by "showy" demonstrations, like TVC low speed maneuvers, during the ATF dem/val period.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I'm referring to at all. I'm referring to the online community thinking more showy equates to more effective. One aircraft can supercruise, is stealthy, superior radar, etc., well it sucks because, "but, but Cobras, backflips, TVC!" Another aircraft has complete awareness of the entire battlefield, is stealthy, can defend itself, and hit targets with pinpoint precision, "it sux 'cuz OMG teh A-10 has the GUUUUNNNNNN!" Maybe the fact that the YF-23 looked so damn cool ('cuz that's important) would have kept it from getting crucified but I doubt it. And while those who know better aren't swayed by the online community, the same cannot be said of politicians. Those holding the purse-strings.
 
sferrin said:
Ogami musashi said:
Well by the way, he was referring to the argument that part of LM win was made by "showy" demonstrations, like TVC low speed maneuvers, during the ATF dem/val period.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I'm referring to at all. I'm referring to the online community thinking more showy equates to more effective. One aircraft can supercruise, is stealthy, superior radar, etc., well it sucks because, "but, but Cobras, backflips, TVC!" Another aircraft has complete awareness of the entire battlefield, is stealthy, can defend itself, and hit targets with pinpoint precision, "it sux 'cuz OMG teh A-10 has the GUUUUNNNNNN!" Maybe the fact that the YF-23 looked so damn cool ('cuz that's important) would have kept it from getting crucified but I doubt it. And while those who know better aren't swayed by the online community, the same cannot be said of politicians. Those holding the purse-strings.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how this applies to F-23 (obviously, online community wasn't there, and the one who select a plane aren't politician but the military. Politicians may intefere though). One the other end the argument brung forward by Paul Metz and Bill Sandberg seem much more relevant.
 
Ogami musashi said:
sferrin said:
Ogami musashi said:
Well by the way, he was referring to the argument that part of LM win was made by "showy" demonstrations, like TVC low speed maneuvers, during the ATF dem/val period.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I'm referring to at all. I'm referring to the online community thinking more showy equates to more effective. One aircraft can supercruise, is stealthy, superior radar, etc., well it sucks because, "but, but Cobras, backflips, TVC!" Another aircraft has complete awareness of the entire battlefield, is stealthy, can defend itself, and hit targets with pinpoint precision, "it sux 'cuz OMG teh A-10 has the GUUUUNNNNNN!" Maybe the fact that the YF-23 looked so damn cool ('cuz that's important) would have kept it from getting crucified but I doubt it. And while those who know better aren't swayed by the online community, the same cannot be said of politicians. Those holding the purse-strings.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how this applies to F-23 (obviously, online community wasn't there, and the one who select a plane aren't politician but the military.
Click to expand...

You must not have been around to hear all the BS hurled at the F-22 before it started showing what it could do at air shows and shut everybody up. (Yep, all the facts in the world meant nothing to them, but one airshow. ::) ) "We need to cancel the slow, boxy, compromised, too expensive, obsolete, Cold War relic" was usually how the whine went.
 
Sundog said:
DrRansom said:
I thought the A-12 had a fundamentally wrong approach to stealth? Quellish said something like the USN had the wrong ideas? This may have been in reference to A-12 low altitude ops and low altitude being bad for low observability?
Click to expand...

All of the above. It was just a bad design, as also mentioned by Ben Rich when they asked him to help out with the nozzles. It did look good, though.
Click to expand...

The USAF's MOA to acquire the A-12 speaks more for the soundness of the design and the validity of its CONOPS than stray remarks
from corporate competitors. Listening to Rich, every competition that Lockheed won was on the merits and every competition they lost was
due to politics.
 
marauder2048 said:
The USAF's MOA to acquire the A-12 speaks more for the soundness of the design and the validity of its CONOPS than stray remarks
from corporate competitors. Listening to Rich, every competition that Lockheed won was on the merits and every competition they lost was
due to politics.
Click to expand...

The A-12 was a political choice by the USAF to get the ATF built, just as the USN agreeing to get a variant of the ATF was so they could get the A-12. The A-12 program was cancelled because it was a mess and GD didn't really know what it was doing at the time with regard to LO. Ben Rich's criticisms of the nozzle design, which he actually worked on, were spot on. He wasn't making a passing comment. GD had trouble with the heat build up after engine shut down and Ben Rich, being one of the best thermodynamics engineers in the business, was asked to help them fix the problem. Do some research before commenting about a program you don't actually know anything about.

Also, Northrop, who also reluctantly bid on the ATA, refused to bid it at what the Navy wanted to pay for it, because, based on their actual experience with stealth technology, they knew it couldn't be done at the price the Navy was asking.
 
DrRansom said:
I thought the A-12 had a fundamentally wrong approach to stealth? Quellish said something like the USN had the wrong ideas? This may have been in reference to A-12 low altitude ops and low altitude being bad for low observability?

Anyway, A-12 or FB-23 would have saved the USAF a lot of heartache.
Click to expand...

I believe McDonnell Douglas/General Dynamics were waiting for, or under the impression that a significant amount of stealth related data and/or technologies would be provided to them to aid their design efforts.
 
Sundog said:
marauder2048 said:
The USAF's MOA to acquire the A-12 speaks more for the soundness of the design and the validity of its CONOPS than stray remarks
from corporate competitors. Listening to Rich, every competition that Lockheed won was on the merits and every competition they lost was
due to politics.
Click to expand...

The A-12 was a political choice by the USAF to get the ATF built, just as the USN agreeing to get a variant of the ATF was so they could get the A-12.
Click to expand...

Much like accepting the F-4 and A-7 was a political choice the Air Force made to get F-X.
Both happened to be superior to anything the Air Force had in the inventory for more than decade.
That's the point you seem unable to grasp. Whatever the shortfalls with the A-12 it would have been
superior to the A-6, the F-14, the F-111 and the "interim" F-15E. And there's still that gap in the US inventory.

GD had trouble with the heat build up
Click to expand...

Gasp! An LO design that was thermally challenged? You meet like the B-2, the F-35 and the F-22 which I'm sure you'll
claim Rich engineered. Obviously, Rich is severely overrated as a thermodynamicist.

Or it's just a recurring challenge that these programs have to confront and overcome.

In reality, Rich hadn't engineered anything in 15 years by the time A-12 came around.
Do some research on how quickly your technical skills atrophy as a manager and VP.

Rich ended up as an engineering consultant. And like all consultants there's one overriding motivation: billable hours.
And the inevitable: "if only they had listened to me" when a project doesn't work.

As for Northrop not bidding, they had no engineering resources to spare with B-2, YF-23 and TSSAM.
There was intensive competition for engineering talent in the late 80's which means skyrocketing
wages which is kryptonite to a fixed-price EMD contract.
 
sublight is back said:
DrRansom said:
I thought the A-12 had a fundamentally wrong approach to stealth? Quellish said something like the USN had the wrong ideas? This may have been in reference to A-12 low altitude ops and low altitude being bad for low observability?

Anyway, A-12 or FB-23 would have saved the USAF a lot of heartache.
Click to expand...

I believe McDonnell Douglas/General Dynamics were waiting for, or under the impression that a significant amount of stealth related data and/or technologies would be provided to them to aid their design efforts.
Click to expand...

The A-12 had a fundamental configuration error in the unswept trailing edge. This is difficult to fix, and would have compromised its stealthiness from directly in front and behind. General Dynamics also don't seem to have realised they would need to align all access doors etc with their leading/trailing edge angles. I don't believe the A-12 aimed at the same level of RCS reduction as the F-117, and would have used low level flight and ECM to supplement its reduced RCS.

Dan Raymer said the ATF stealth requirements went from "pretty good, especially at the front" to "incredible, from almost all directions". I'm not sure A-12 went through the same stealth reset.

General Dynamics and McDonnell-Douglas also expected technology transfers from the US Government on details of stealth structures and materials from other programs which didn't happen, and which contributed to cost and weight escalation.

Of course, it could still have been a viable combat aircraft even if it wasn't quite as stealthy as an F-117.
 
marauder2048 said:
Sundog said:
marauder2048 said:
The USAF's MOA to acquire the A-12 speaks more for the soundness of the design and the validity of its CONOPS than stray remarks
from corporate competitors. Listening to Rich, every competition that Lockheed won was on the merits and every competition they lost was
due to politics.
Click to expand...

The A-12 was a political choice by the USAF to get the ATF built, just as the USN agreeing to get a variant of the ATF was so they could get the A-12.
Click to expand...

Much like accepting the F-4 and A-7 was a political choice the Air Force made to get F-X.
Both happened to be superior to anything the Air Force had in the inventory for more than decade.
That's the point you seem unable to grasp. Whatever the shortfalls with the A-12 it would have been
superior to the A-6, the F-14, the F-111 and the "interim" F-15E. And there's still that gap in the US inventory.

GD had trouble with the heat build up
Click to expand...

Gasp! An LO design that was thermally challenged? You meet like the B-2, the F-35 and the F-22 which I'm sure you'll
claim Rich engineered. Obviously, Rich is severely overrated as a thermodynamicist.

Or it's just a recurring challenge that these programs have to confront and overcome.

In reality, Rich hadn't engineered anything in 15 years by the time A-12 came around.
Do some research on how quickly your technical skills atrophy as a manager and VP.

Rich ended up as an engineering consultant. And like all consultants there's one overriding motivation: billable hours.
And the inevitable: "if only they had listened to me" when a project doesn't work.

As for Northrop not bidding, they had no engineering resources to spare with B-2, YF-23 and TSSAM.
There was intensive competition for engineering talent in the late 80's which means skyrocketing
wages which is kryptonite to a fixed-price EMD contract.
Click to expand...

As an aero-engineer, I know about the skills and what has atrophied over time, but it isn't difficult to get back in the groove if you know what you're doing. The simple fact, that you refuse to acknowledge, which is actually based on physics, not opinion, is the A-12 was a poor LO design. Could engineering have fixed it? Yes, it's called a new design.
 
I wonder how things might have played out if they'd chosen Northrop's ATA design.
 
sferrin said:
I wonder how things might have played out if they'd chosen Northrop's ATA design.
Click to expand...

Northrop declined to bid, so its not like they "lost" this, they walked away. I think Northrop had hands full on B-2 at the time.
 
Wait, the A-12 did not have aligned trailing edges, that would give it a much worse radar signature for basically no reason.

Unlike the Pak-FA, you'd get low signature with a performance impact.
 
I think I've read that the A-12's straight trailing edge gave a substantial RCS spike directly front due to surface diffraction and creeping wave returns. It's one of those lower order phenomena that was not carefully considered. Honestly I don't think the problem could've been adequately addressed without a complete redo of the basic wing configuration.
 
I believe General Dynamics thought the spike to the rear was acceptable within the mission requirements, without realising the corresponding spike forward would exist. Dan Raymer at Rockwell hit the same issue with his Delta Spanloader design, and was told "yeah, that always happens, we don't know why" by the RCS experts there.
 
Sundog said:
As an aero-engineer, I know about the skills and what has atrophied over time, but it isn't difficult to get back in the groove if you know what you're doing. The simple fact, that you refuse to acknowledge, which is actually based on physics, not opinion, is the A-12 was a poor LO design. Could engineering have fixed it? Yes, it's called a new design.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, we don't have consider your background or weigh your opinion because:

The A-12 is one of the best documented cancelled SAPs of all time thanks to its long litigation history which has resulted in a huge ream of program documents in the public domain.

And nowhere in those documents which are contemporaneous, official records that were formally admitted into evidence and whose veracity was established
by the sworn testimony of those who prepared them do we find any proof for:

1. Thermal management deficiencies
2. Signature deficiencies
3. Survivability deficiencies

On the contrary, we have the Navy's chief engineers, DAB, JROC and independent consultants all attesting to the soundness of the design, the CONOPS and the requirements.
The Navy had in fact relaxed the weight requirements which it had acknowledged were too aggressive. Even with GD/MD's weight growth the documents imply it was still lighter than NG's design.

And nowhere in the court documents (unless I've missed it) do we have Rich's claims implied, statrf or corroborated despite the fact it would have been an explosive bit of evidence.
So the conclusion has to be that even if Rich is totally correct his assessment was not regarded as materially relevant since neither side entered it as evidence.

There's also no hint anywhere of a re-design being desirable or necessary to meet the reqs.
 
The Navy's signature requirement for the ATA may not have been that aggressive in the first place. Not only that, the Northrop/Grumman/Vought team didn't actually submit a bid, so MDD/GD team speculating on the merits of their design compared to their competitors is about as valid as Boeing's protest of Northrop Grumman's win in the LRS-B.
 
marauder2048 said:
And nowhere in those documents which are contemporaneous, official records that were formally admitted into evidence and whose veracity was established by the sworn testimony of those who prepared them do we find any proof for:

1. Thermal management deficiencies
2. Signature deficiencies
3. Survivability deficiencies
Click to expand...

Well of course they didn't testify to that. You think they wanted to pay the Navy back for the gross mismanagement that drove the program into the ground?
 
marauder2048 said:
Fortunately, we don't have consider your background or weigh your opinion because:
Click to expand...

Well of course, you wouldn't because I'm speaking from direct experience which counters your beliefs. In that regard, you're just like the people who screwed up the program in the first place, by relying on beliefs instead of facts then spending the rest of the time trying to cover their asses, rather than admit their mistake. Thank you for making my argument for me, as noted below.

marauder2048 said:
On the contrary, we have the Navy's chief engineers, DAB, JROC and independent consultants all attesting to the soundness of the design, the CONOPS and the requirements.
The Navy had in fact relaxed the weight requirements which it had acknowledged were too aggressive. Even with GD/MD's weight growth the documents imply it was still lighter than NG's design.
Click to expand...

Yes, because the guys who screwed up in the first place by thinking they could get a stealth attack plane on the cheap would never lie to cover their asses, right?

Also, the USAF version was different from the USN version, as they insisted on having the nozzles exhaust on the top and flying the mission at altitude, since their studies (And experience, but they weren't talking about that at the time) had shown that flying a stealth aircraft on the deck wasn't a great idea. So, just for the record, the USAF wasn't completely on board with the A-12's mission profile.
 
Roughly 25 years after the rollout and there is still very little informatiom/images about the manufacturing of the YF-23. I have seen quite a few images of both YF-22 prototypes during construction, but I don't think I've ever seen publicly released images of either of the -23 PAVS
:-\
 
Steven said:
I think I've read that the A-12's straight trailing edge gave a substantial RCS spike directly front due to surface diffraction and creeping wave returns.
Click to expand...

trailing edge returns are actually dominated by edge diffraction contributions in the specular direction if edge alignment is the major concern (ie. concern over straight trailing edges)... the magnitude of the rcs contribution of the edge diffraction can be approximated by the length of the edge squared divided by pi (see equation 7.54 in ch.7 in "Introduction to the Uniform Theory of Diffraction", McNamara/Pistotius)...

with regards to edge location with respect to the incidence direction, trailing edges contribute an edge diffraction return when the electric field is polarized perpendicular to the edge (which can occur for linearly polarized waves where the E field is perpendicular to the trailing edge, or for circularly polarized waves where a component of the E field is perpendicular to the edge, figs. 7.6 and 7.8 in "Radar Cross Section", Knott/Shaeffer/Tuley)...

trailing edge diffraction actually drops considerably when viewed directly head on but rises quickly to the approximate value length^2/pi when the view angle rises slightly (see fig. 14.7 and accompanying discussion in "Radar Cross Section", Knott/Shaeffer/Tuley)...

---

in contrast traveling waves (ie. surface waves if on surfaces exposed to the incident radiation, or creeping waves if on surfaces shadowed from the incident radiation) would reflect back at a surface discontinuity (ie. current discontinuity) regardless of edge alignment but their contributions are typically on the order of the square of the incident wavelength and thus are much smaller compared to the edge diffraction return in the specular direction (ie. direction normal to the edge), traveling wave contributions are thus normally mitigated via surface RAM and/or materials to taper the currents as it nears the surface discontinuity (since it is the discontinuity of the currents at the edge of a surface which causes the reflection of the traveling wave to occur)...

---

given the difference in relative magnitudes of the two contributions (ie. "length^2/pi" for edge diffraction vs. "wavelength^2" for traveling waves), if edge alignment was the major concern (ie. straight edges were used) then it's likely the major concern of contribution was the edge diffraction return (under the assumption that short wavelengths were under consideration, and also under the assumption that the trailing edge was actually a metal structure, and not a dielectric covering a saw-tooth metal edge underneath)...
 
kilokb said:
Roughly 25 years after the rollout and there is still very little informatiom/images about the manufacturing of the YF-23. I have seen quite a few images of both YF-22 prototypes during construction, but I don't think I've ever seen publicly released images of either of the -23 PAVS
:-\
Click to expand...

Really? I remember over 26 years ago a written work about the manufacturing difficulties..... er, I mean challenges with the YF-23. What I read explained the construction of the double hump engine covering and how for the YF's it was metal with lots of fasteners and other things. In the production F-23 it would have been replaced by a lighter simpler composite blend which was would have also been easier to build than the metal prototype part.

I guess you need to go back in time when the ATF program was alive and kicking to find such info. There really isn't any need by anyone today to write papers or publish info on these "old" obsolete aircraft.
 
Which is why I said "very little"versus none..... there is a smattering here and there.... but it really doesn't illuminate the build process as a whole. I can think of several articles with images of fus section being shipped, joined and tested as well as wing build up and installation. Even primer ed roll out for the LM GD birds
Just interesting to me that one is pretty well out there, while the other still seems pretty dark... so if it is "obsolete" ???......
 
r3mu511 said:
Steven said:
I think I've read that the A-12's straight trailing edge gave a substantial RCS spike directly front due to surface diffraction and creeping wave returns.
Click to expand...

trailing edge returns are actually dominated by edge diffraction contributions in the specular direction if edge alignment is the major concern (ie. concern over straight trailing edges)... the magnitude of the rcs contribution of the edge diffraction can be approximated by the length of the edge squared divided by pi (see equation 7.54 in ch.7 in "Introduction to the Uniform Theory of Diffraction", McNamara/Pistotius)...

with regards to edge location with respect to the incidence direction, trailing edges contribute an edge diffraction return when the electric field is polarized perpendicular to the edge (which can occur for linearly polarized waves where the E field is perpendicular to the trailing edge, or for circularly polarized waves where a component of the E field is perpendicular to the edge, figs. 7.6 and 7.8 in "Radar Cross Section", Knott/Shaeffer/Tuley)...

trailing edge diffraction actually drops considerably when viewed directly head on but rises quickly to the approximate value length^2/pi when the view angle rises slightly (see fig. 14.7 and accompanying discussion in "Radar Cross Section", Knott/Shaeffer/Tuley)...

---

in contrast traveling waves (ie. surface waves if on surfaces exposed to the incident radiation, or creeping waves if on surfaces shadowed from the incident radiation) would reflect back at a surface discontinuity (ie. current discontinuity) regardless of edge alignment but their contributions are typically on the order of the square of the incident wavelength and thus are much smaller compared to the edge diffraction return in the specular direction (ie. direction normal to the edge), traveling wave contributions are thus normally mitigated via surface RAM and/or materials to taper the currents as it nears the surface discontinuity (since it is the discontinuity of the currents at the edge of a surface which causes the reflection of the traveling wave to occur)...

---

given the difference in relative magnitudes of the two contributions (ie. "length^2/pi" for edge diffraction vs. "wavelength^2" for traveling waves), if edge alignment was the major concern (ie. straight edges were used) then it's likely the major concern of contribution was the edge diffraction return (under the assumption that short wavelengths were under consideration, and also under the assumption that the trailing edge was actually a metal structure, and not a dielectric covering a saw-tooth metal edge underneath)...
Click to expand...

Thank you for the details.
 
Those images are from the book air force legend: YF-23. They were published by Aldo Spadoni on the TGPTNW facebook(the author of those illustrations back in the 90's)


You can see the actual cockpit that was proposed both for ATF-23 and NATF-23.

In the book are several pictures of Tony Chong's model of a near DP 232 (F-23 EMD proposal with F120-GE-100) as well as technical drawings for DP232 and DP231(With F119-PW-100) including with some corrections (the fuselage/nacelles blending was altered) and explanations for the dual weapon bays, the new intakes as well as the "fill in" between the recontoured nacelles.
 

Attachments

  • 15626192_10207924161249922_7574092755346188515_o.jpg
    15626192_10207924161249922_7574092755346188515_o.jpg
    92.9 KB · Views: 1,536
  • 15675850_10207924161209921_6168947598978176315_o.jpg
    15675850_10207924161209921_6168947598978176315_o.jpg
    60.5 KB · Views: 1,544
  • 15577956_10207924161729934_1921984323113473157_o.jpg
    15577956_10207924161729934_1921984323113473157_o.jpg
    153 KB · Views: 1,497
  • 15590927_10207924161849937_8320443472970363359_o.jpg
    15590927_10207924161849937_8320443472970363359_o.jpg
    255.2 KB · Views: 2,058
So now it appears that the "fill in" between the nacelles is done so to compensate for the smoothed out nacelles so as to largely maintaining the area ruling of the YF-23. It would also appear that the leaked Koku Fan diagram of the F-23A represents DP232 with the F120 engines, based on the extra serration on the trailing edge of the fuselage.
 
Steven said:
So now it appears that the "fill in" between the nacelles is done so to compensate for the smoothed out nacelles so as to largely maintaining the area ruling of the YF-23. It would also appear that the leaked Koku Fan diagram of the F-23A represents DP232 with the F120 engines, based on the extra serration on the trailing edge of the fuselage.
Click to expand...

Probably DP201 (tony chong model) as koku fan drawing still has the straight chine in the fuselage and the roll out ceremony was 06-90 while the DP232 drawing was from 12-90.
 
While the experts here won't find anything new, I found this YouTube clip to be worth watching and a good short summary and a great starting point to explore the YF-23 topic

 
Here is an other F-23 video that I have just found on YouTube, this time featuring test pilots Paul Metz and Jim Sandberg. I hope hat no one has posted this video on this thread before.

 
FighterJock said:
Here is an other F-23 video that I have just found on YouTube, this time featuring test pilots Paul Metz and Jim Sandberg. I hope hat no one has posted this video on this thread before.
Click to expand...
Why not try to search?
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1092.msg258520/topicseen.html#msg258520
 
After some thoughts, i can't get my mind on how the weapon release in the F-23A would work. Let me explain:

- On the YF-23 PAV-1, there was a complicated plater+launcher system. The Utility manual says that the palet was outward angled by 17 degrees. In Paul Metz book, the YF-23 drawing indeed depicts two amraams in the weapon bay being angled at approx 17° outward.

-The problem is that, IMHO, this system can't work on the F-23A. The two missiles on the YF-23 were located at the center of the bay, while on the F-23A you had 4 of them with two outward and on top of two other(see aldo spadoni illustration above). The weapon bays on the F-23A were shallower and more importantly there was wing bulkhead that basically prevented the lower missiles to be rotated.
The two files attached show the 4 missiles arrangement on the F-23A and the YF-23A arrangement as put into an F-23A weapon bay.


-Since you can't rotate the lower missiles, then, only four hypothesis:

1/ The weapon palet tilts down to fire the upper missiles. This seems impossible for two reasons: the bulkhead will prevent the lower missile to rotate unless lowered outside of the weapon bay (see point 3) and even though, the upper missiles can't be fired without being extended (their wings would collide with lower missiles fins).
2/ You can't select the munition and lower missiles are first launched. This would seem plausible because the plane has one weapon bay for amraams and one for sidewinder. Except that in technical drawings, in the specifications table, you have an alternative weapon load offered. And this is still has only amraam and aim-9 as possibility. At the time of the proposal, the aim-120c program wasn't officially launched and as confirmed by Aldo spadoni, aim-120c fitting in the F-23A was only remotely researched so the proposal didn't feature those. I think one probable loadout was a 4 aim-9 and two aim-120 missiles. In that case, not being able to select the munition is clearly impossible.
3/ The whole loadout is exposed to the air. This would be pretty strange for a plane that put so much attention to stealth that the whole pylons+missiles would be in the stream!
4/ The rest of all solutions!

Anyone has some idea, info?
 

Attachments

  • YF-23arrangement.jpeg
    YF-23arrangement.jpeg
    88.2 KB · Views: 957
  • F-23Awb.jpeg
    F-23Awb.jpeg
    94.5 KB · Views: 294
Had my answer by Aldo.

The F-23A had no weapon station selection because, at the time of the proposal, it was only envisaged to use similar missiles per bay. So you would first fire the lower missiles then the top ones.
But the F-23A would have had to have a AG capability so in this case JDAMs would have been carried on one side and aim-120 on the other.

As such it appears the moveable palet of the YF-23 was not kept on F-23A.

Aldo told that USAF preferred the F-22 weapon arrangement as more flexible even if the vertical stacking on the F-23A was more stealthy with less weapon bays doors and less edge sealing.

As always, aldo, just as tony chong, stress that this was the system used on the illustrated proposal hinting that this was probably not the only and definitive proposal.
 
I believe F-23A could have employed a similar AIM-120C trapeze launcher like F-22A has but instead of 3 per bay, would have carried 4 or 5 (as there was no wall separating the bay into 2 sections)

Same in the smaller bay upfront. Because it's was 1 bay, they could easily have fitted 3 AIM-9X in the place of 2 AIM-9M.

Further, as the main bay was deeper, each weapons bay door could have carried not just 1 AIM-9M, but maybe two 9X or 120C on a similar launcher but without the trapeze mechanism.

So that a total load between 9 and 12 missiles.

I fully agree F-22 had a more practical weapons launcher design but it's pretty easy math to see F-23 had a bigger and potentially much more versatile weapons bay.

It could have even been modified to carry 2000lb JDAMs in the main bay by sacrificing all other missiles.
 
I don't think any of this is possible since the main weapon bay has a bulkhead that prevent stacking the missile longitudinally like on the F-22. There's room for 6 aim-120C, room for probably more than 2 jdam1K while keeping at least 2 aim-120C, and there's even room for two Jdam 2K but missiles on weapon bay doors was excluded from the proposal as not stealthy (this was one of the reason for going from 1 deep wb to 2 on the emd) and 9 to 12 is probably too much because you need to have sufficient room for the launcher to reach their missiles. That being said if the articulated palet like on the YF-23 was used, using assymetrical weaon carriage like aldo said, you can have pretty interesting mixed weapon arrangement because the palet had the role of imparting a specific movement direction before the launcher extended.
 
Ogami musashi said:
I don't think any of this is possible since the main weapon bay has a bulkhead that prevent stacking the missile longitudinally like on the F-22. There's room for 6 aim-120C, room for probably more than 2 jdam1K while keeping at least 2 aim-120C, and there's even room for two Jdam 2K but missiles on weapon bay doors was excluded from the proposal as not stealthy (this was one of the reason for going from 1 deep wb to 2 on the emd) and 9 to 12 is probably too much because you need to have sufficient room for the launcher to reach their missiles. That being said if the articulated palet like on the YF-23 was used, using assymetrical weaon carriage like aldo said, you can have pretty interesting mixed weapon arrangement because the palet had the role of imparting a specific movement direction before the launcher extended.
Click to expand...
The F-23A proposal did indeed had 2 bays and they would have likely seen further refinement to accommodate A2G weapons like the update F-22A undertook around 1994.

In terms of how the weapons could be stacked (an idea, not a reference to an actual proposal), since 2007 I have been referring to an approach, now used by Boing in its weapons pod proposals for the Super Hornet. This approach allows for firing of any weapons in any succession without complex launch arms or pallets.

You can easily make an argument that F-23A larger bay was wider than the Super Hornet pod and has doors that can support heavier loads. Essentially, in terms of potential for weapons and configuration, I believe the F-23A main bay could have been updated to be like 2 Super Hornet pods put side to side.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1045.PNG
    IMG_1045.PNG
    489.1 KB · Views: 412
So Sn:02 is up for relocation it looks like. GSAXcess has it listed, so far two have requested it. I have contacted our local Aviation Museum "evergreen" but they dont seem to keen on trying to get it sadly, too bad too because it would make a great addition sitting next to the SR-71 here.

If you want to check it out yourself:
Step 1. Go to https://gsaxcess.gov
Step 2. click on the red Login button
Step 3. use the Login name "govuse" and the password is also "govuse"
Step 4. Click on "aircraft"
Step 5. Click on the 11th entry, clearly the YF-23....

I hope it goes to a good home. Wonderful aircraft.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom