FB-23

WoW, War is starting!
Joseph, I take it that you know that AMRAAM has kind of smokeless motor, but I will assume it was don on purpose for better looks. ;)

I can almost see the trails of the several AIM-154 Phoenix that allready came out of the bigger main weapons bay. Seriously, the F/B-23 could have played as some very serious HEAVY interceptor, like a Stealthy MiG-31.
 
Oh...it flies right to my heart...
 
Save your hand mastering. Hand painting is art, rendering is job. Both manners can bring pleasure and money, too but painting is more personal
 
I am going to try to make a model of this awesome A/C and I will be kit bashing a bit. A few questions are coming up:
1. What type of engine would be used? It got to be bigger than what was in the YF-23. Some thing like the General Electric F-101-GE-102 turbofan engines that push the B-1B? I might use the cans off this engines
2. Landing gear, also from a B-1B or a commercial airframe?

TIA
Bob
 
utahbob said:
I am going to try to make a model of this awesome A/C and I will be kit bashing a bit. A few questions are coming up:
1. What type of engine would be used? It got to be bigger than what was in the YF-23. Some thing like the General Electric F-101-GE-102 turbofan engines that push the B-1B? I might use the cans off this engines
2. Landing gear, also from a B-1B or a commercial airframe?

TIA
Bob
Click to expand...

The F101 actually has less power than the F119. Something like that would have likely used F135s.
 
Dear Mr Gatial,

I found only one thing that might be out of place... above the engine-nozzle is a triangular covering (at least on the F-23), you can't actually see the nozzles...


Respectfully,
Kendra
 
KJ, check once more FB-23 topping model pic. There are no nozzle flaps a-la YF-23 on FB-23
 
flateric said:
KJ, check once more FB-23 topping model pic. There are no nozzle flaps a-la YF-23 on FB-23
Click to expand...

Oh, never mind.

Kendra Lesnick
BTW: Out of curiousity, why would they have removed them?
 
Wow your FB-23 is really great! I made a similar drawing of FB-23 last week with MS-paint, but it is nothing compared to yours.

http://fc03.deviantart.com/fs31/f/2008/227/9/7/FB_23_Black_Widow_II_by_darthpandanl.png
 
it is nevertheless a good art of a rare aircraft and I wanted to thank you for sharing it with as.

I see that you have included the stealthy external pod that lockheed was proposing as part of the F/B-22 package.
 
darthpanda said:
Wow your FB-23 is really great! I made a similar drawing of FB-23 last week with MS-paint, but it is nothing compared to yours.

http://fc03.deviantart.com/fs31/f/2008/227/9/7/FB_23_Black_Widow_II_by_darthpandanl.png
Click to expand...

Still mighty impressive, given the software and the perspective.
 
Thank you, I'm just starting to make drawings of unbuilt aircrafts, but I think I gonna take some time to learn some 3d software. But If you like my drawing, you can go to my site of deviant art

http://darthpandanl.deviantart.com/
 
PlanesPictures said:
FB-23 is slowly coming on the scene. Are you short run producer and do you like this model. I can prepare for you Z-Printer's 3D model for your fast start
Click to expand...
Hi Jozef,
I am very interested in this model. Is that offer still open, about the 3D model? Any details: price , size of the model etc.? Also I am using CATIA V5 and would like to model something similar if not the same. I notice that your model is very precise. Do you have layout drawings of this airplane with section views at the different stations or how did you get such exact proportions and shape? I realize this might be a professional secret yet I have to try.
 
This work is simply excellent, but I have a few questions.

Why would Northrop-Grumman have gone with such a cockpit? It seems to go against the USAF's current opinion that visibility comes first. Isn't this too "smooth" for a stealth aircraft? Not many angles at all? It looks like all of the 1980s concepts. Also why was the engine nozzle configuration of the YF-23 abandoned?
 
I had not seen this topic before, and all I can say is :eek: :eek: :eek: WOW! Jozef Gatial has once again astounded me. This is just so beautifully done...
 
Why would Northrop-Grumman have gone with such a cockpit? It seems to go against the USAF's current opinion that visibility comes first.
Click to expand...

In a bomber, aerodynamics play a larger role than visibility. Check the B-2 cockpit. Also, the smaller the windows, the stealthier the design, since the inside of the cockpit is a big spike in RCS if not painted in gold like in the F-22.

Isn't this too "smooth" for a stealth aircraft?
Click to expand...
The stealthiest aircraft has no edges besides those separating the top from the bottom surface. Its better
to make the radar singer travel along the surface and be skattered from the edge on the far side than to bounce back from an edge on the exposed side. So the smoother the stealthier. Check Tacit Blue

It looks like all of the 1980s concepts
Click to expand...
Those concepts made more aerodynamic sense than an F-117. F-117 should never serve as a model of the best stealth approach. That aircraft looked the way it did just because they did not have a supercomputers at the time to predict the RCS of a curves design.

Also why was the engine nozzle configuration of the YF-23 abandoned?
Click to expand...
One reason is that the YF-23 engines were designed to use Trust Reverses. These were eliminated late in the program but metal had already been cut for the prototypes.
Another reason, I think is the simpler structure that results from placing the engines closer together.

Lastly, the YF-23 looked like a person from a concentration camp because weight was an performance issue. The FB-23 did not have that problem and could use more internal volume for fuel, hence no major "geological" features ;)
 
The DoD has already dumped the FB-22. Will the FB-23 be next?
Click to expand...
The FB-23 proposal was part of an industry study into what the NG-LRS should be as a concept. One of the many. Since the end of that phase ( 2007 ) of the program the requirement settled onto a somewhat larger aircraft with subsonic cruise speed. Whatever chance any YF-23 related design has of seeing the light of day was gone with the decision not to include supersonic requirement for the proposed system with a 2018 IOC deadline.

Now the whole NG Bomber project is into question and I think it will be canceled altogether. At least in its current form.
 
XB-70 Guy said:
The DoD has already dumped the FB-22. Will the FB-23 be next?
Click to expand...


"FB-22" was one of many concepts and proposals for a long range strike aircraft, it never was an ongoing program. It was thought to have the inside track because it would leverage USAF's investment in the F-22. FB-23 would have been a real long shot, because ordering that might call into queston USAF's original decision to order F-22 over F-23, and since USAF was fighting to get more F-22s they certainly wouldn't have wanted that.

In any case, that whole concept was set aside and a program was started for a two-step approach to field a real Next Generation Bomber. The Administration recently canceled this program, I believe.
 
With regard to the FB-23's nozzles, the reason for the design change was to lower cost and maintenance. It didn't have anything to with the thrust reverser, as the production design of the YF-23 didn't have thrust reversers but still had the rectangular nozzles. The tiles that were in the nozzle area to protect the structure from heat were similar to those on the space shuttle and required similarly intensive maintenance. By going to the axisymmetric nozzle design, they negated the need for those ceramic tiles. Also, by going to an axisymmetric nozzle, they probably also lowered the weight, because it's much easier and lighter to make a circular cross section withstand high pressures than a design with a rectangular cross section.
 
With regard to the FB-23's nozzles, the reason for the design change was to lower cost and maintenance. It didn't have anything to with the thrust reverser
Click to expand...

I really believed he was asking about the engines nacelles not nozzles even thought he said nozzles. The FB-23 has virtually no separate engine nacelles which were merged into the main body. That change is much more obvious and important than the change in the nozzles IMHO.
 
If Lockheed or Northrop did get a contract for a "regional bomber" roughly the size and weight of the FB-111, is it likely they would have developed the FB-22 or FB-23? Or would they come up with a whole new design?
 
If the requirement emphisys is on low risk and supercruise the FB-23 or any larger YF-23 derivative wins hands down. The FB-22 and the FB-23 this time offer quite different capabilities and are not likely to compete again for the same contract.

Personaly, I doubt any such contract will appear in the next decade.
 
The Rapid Theatre Strike (RTS) specification was drawn up almost 10 years ago by USAF, the aerospace industry came up with proposals, they were assessed and ultimately rejected. Instead USAF decided to go down the path of a subsonic aircraft in the form of the Next Generation Long Range Strike (NGLRS) or 2018 Bomber. The RTS request for proposals (RFP) mission profile was something like that shown in the attachment.

In response to RTS Lockheed offered various iterations of strike customised F-22 called the FB-22. These ranged from a hull stretch through to a tail-less delta. Northrop on the other hand offered the upsized YF-23 called the FB-23. The FB-23 was made public via the infamous eBay model. Lockheed supplemented their FB-22 with a purpose built RTS similar in concept to the FB-23 perhaps as a response. Details of all these aircraft are available in the various subject threads here at secretprojects.co.uk. There appears to be no public glimpse of what Boeing would have offered…

RTS is well and truly dead with the future of air power now being focused on persistence rather than transience.
 

Attachments

  • RTS_RFP.png
    RTS_RFP.png
    55.8 KB · Views: 522
Abraham Gubler said:
There appears to be no public glimpse of what Boeing would have offered…
Click to expand...
they have offered B-1R
 
Abraham Gubler said:
The Rapid Theatre Strike (RTS) specification was drawn up almost 10 years ago by USAF, the aerospace industry came up with proposals, they were assessed and ultimately rejected. Instead USAF decided to go down the path of a subsonic aircraft in the form of the Next Generation Long Range Strike (NGLRS) or 2018 Bomber. The RTS request for proposals (RFP) mission profile was something like that shown in the attachment.

In response to RTS Lockheed offered various iterations of strike customised F-22 called the FB-22. These ranged from a hull stretch through to a tail-less delta. Northrop on the other hand offered the upsized YF-23 called the FB-23. The FB-23 was made public via the infamous eBay model. Lockheed supplemented their FB-22 with a purpose built RTS similar in concept to the FB-23 perhaps as a response. Details of all these aircraft are available in the various subject threads here at secretprojects.co.uk. There appears to be no public glimpse of what Boeing would have offered…

RTS is well and truly dead with the future of air power now being focused on persistence rather than transience.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information, but I after a few searches I can't find anything related to Lockheed's purpose built RTS proposal. As far as persistence goes, when F-16s are largely being used to haul iron back and forth something like the FB-22 or FB-23 would be a vast improvement in that regard. Didn't NGB, NGLRS, 2018 Bomber, or whatever it was recently die a painful death at the hands of the bureaucrats?
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Thanks for the information, but I after a few searches I can't find anything related to Lockheed's purpose built RTS proposal. As far as persistence goes, when F-16s are largely being used to haul iron back and forth something like the FB-22 or FB-23 would be a vast improvement in that regard. Didn't NGB, NGLRS, 2018 Bomber, or whatever it was recently die a painful death at the hands of the bureaucrats?
Click to expand...

Not so much the bureaucrats (this time) so much as the politicians
 
And the lack of funds in the budget these days.
But politics above all, of course. It seams to me that the current administration is looking for ways on how to work more closely with China, rather than how to fight it in 15 years time, which actually makes sense.

I also strongly believe that the last version of the FB-23 to be submitted by Northrop (shown as artist drawing in AW&ST) was a lot bigger than the Rapid Theater Attach model we say a few years back and presented here in 3D by Josef Gatial. This flexibility of the basic design to be scalable is a testament to its fundamental nature as an advanced flight platform. Platform that may emerge yet again under different designation but always with supercruise as part of the mission profile.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Didn't NGB, NGLRS, 2018 Bomber, or whatever it was recently die a painful death at the hands of the bureaucrats?
Click to expand...

I think that's what Abraham Gubler basically said as a conclusion a couple of posts above...
 
lantinian said:
And the lack of funds in the budget these days.
But politics above all, of course. It seams to me that the current administration is looking for ways on how to work more closely with China, rather than how to fight it in 15 years time, which actually makes sense.
Click to expand...

What would make sense is if we got more such 5th generation aircraft regardless of our relations with China, but then again I don't have that brilliant DC mindset.

Stargazer2006 said:
I think that's what Abraham Gubler basically said as a conclusion a couple of posts above...
Click to expand...

I believe he stated Rapid Theater Strike was dead, not NGB/NGLRS. Sadly however, I can't imagine us getting anything out of these programs at this rate. As soon as our B-52s cannot be maintained any longer, we're out of luck.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I believe he stated Rapid Theater Strike was dead, not NGB/NGLRS. Sadly however, I can't imagine us getting anything out of these programs at this rate. As soon as our B-52s cannot be maintained any longer, we're out of luck.
Click to expand...

Yeah. That is, unless that's the time they come up with that rabbit in the hat, a new secret bomber they've been secretly evaluating for several years and that is now ready to enter full-fledged operational status...
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom