Northrop F/B-23 Rapid Theater Attack aircraft

Stargazer2006 said:
Sundog said:
However, if the "F-24" does exist and they still want to keep it secret, I could see the DOD jumping straight to the F-36, because the latest aircraft to enter production is the F-35.
Click to expand...

Yeah! As I said earlier in another thread, how convenient to have 11 designations unaccounted for if you want to conceal some secret programs... ::)
Click to expand...

As outlined here:
http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/coverdesignations.html

The century designations were used until at least the early 1990s (1993?). After that....
If I remember correctly the guys who assigned the names were based at George AFB.
 
bobbymike said:
Abraham Gubler said:
OM said:
...And while we're talking about the JSF, any comments about this clip?
Click to expand...

Job 13:4
Click to expand...

;D Although I had to look it up.
Click to expand...

...So did I. Which directed me to this page:

http://bible.cc/job/13-4.htm

...And I thought transliterating Русский язык could produce multiple interpretations with only slight variations that actually make a difference in how the translation is understood. :eek:
 
Getting back on topic, I really do appreciate the image you uploaded Orionblamblam! It's awesome!
 
Triton said:
May I ask how Chad Slattery got pictures of the F/B-23 model?
Click to expand...

Yes, you may ask. {/smartass}

"Air & Space" magazine had an article on the Northrop display model shop (the same one from ebay fame) a year or so ago. Chad's a professional aviation photographer as well as the author of the A&S article, and was granted access to the shop to photograph a number of models. Chad took a *lot* of photos of the F/B-23 model (far more than are in the APR article)... but there are a few angles that are missing. So some aspects of the design remain a bit murky.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Triton said:
May I ask how Chad Slattery got pictures of the F/B-23 model?
Click to expand...

Yes, you may ask. {/smartass}

"Air & Space" magazine had an article on the Northrop display model shop (the same one from ebay fame) a year or so ago. Chad's a professional aviation photographer as well as the author of the A&S article, and was granted access to the shop to photograph a number of models. Chad took a *lot* of photos of the F/B-23 model (far more than are in the APR article)... but there are a few angles that are missing. So some aspects of the design remain a bit murky.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much, Scott, for answering my question. I hope my question didn't cause you offense. If so, I apologize to you.
 
Does the speed of the F/B-23 RTA match the YB-23 with Mach 1.8 supercruise and Mach 2.2+ with afterburner at altitude? Maximum speed of Mach 1.92 as in the Lockheed Martin FB-22 "Strike Raptor"? Range? Weapons load?
 
There used to be a rumor, after the YF-22 was chosen over the YF-23, that the reason why Lockheed was awarded the contract was because Northrop was going to produce the F/B-23 instead. Although this obviously didn't happen, I really wonder how far Northrop Grumman went in that direction, and if there may have been a couple of test articles of that beautiful beast. The sighting at Boscombe Down in the mid-1990s made me dream that could be it...
 
That is exactly what I was thinking about the F/B-23 Stargazer, there was the now infamous Air Forces Monthly article that was published at the time saying that it was the Northrop A-17 but that could have been a cover story for the F/B-23 when it crashed especially when the SAS were brought into secure the site.
 
FighterJock said:
That is exactly what I was thinking about the F/B-23 Stargazer, there was the now infamous Air Forces Monthly article that was published at the time saying that it was the Northrop A-17 but that could have been a cover story for the F/B-23 when it crashed especially when the SAS were brought into secure the site.
Click to expand...
The witnesses specifically described an airplane that resembled the YF-23 but larger...
 
JimK said:
Sorry to put a damper on some of this speculation, but the FB-23 "Regional Theatre Aircraft" was designed in 2004 to give the USAF an alternative to the, then heavily promoted, Lockheed-Martin FB-22.
Click to expand...
Yes, you're right. I have found the article I posted on my personal website in 1999 regarding the Boscombe Down incident, and indeed I was only talking of a possible "F-23 derivative".
 
I would not be surprised that possibly an FB-23 demonstrator or type may have flown for Regional Theatre Strike or some other program efforts. There is a lot about the YF/F-23 that will probably remain out of the public eye for various reasons including that aspects of the design are potentially have been involved in ongoing testing. Examples: Lockheed Have Blue, Northrop-Tacit Blue, Northrop-ATA (this one probably pass lineage along to B-21 mixed with some B-2), very little. Even if you go to FOIA, you will get nothing.
 
aim9xray said:
View attachment 743446
Click to expand...
Lovely model. That's an extremely impressive level of detail for something of which there is only limited drawings and information to work off of. Are there any more photos of it anywhere? As cool as that camo is I've only seen USAF Aggressor squadrons use anything of the sort, to simulate Russian patterns. But when you've built something as impressive as that I can't blame the creator for adding a bit of flair like that.

It strikes me on that as on Northrop's 'official' RTA model the back seater isn't given much view out of the aircraft at all, although I'm sure he'd be able to utilize whatever EODAS-type system the aircraft would have if built. In the 'official' model even the front seater's visibility is also more limited than it could be. This model is bit more generous giving him something of a bubble canopy like on the F-35.
 
Last edited:
I am surprised that they never moved the engines wider apart after to make space for more fuel and weapons it would be a better idea, plus the fact that it would help protect them if one engine gets hit by a an enemy SAM then the other one would survive.
 
FighterJock said:
I am surprised that they never moved the engines wider apart after to make space for more fuel and weapons it would be a better idea, plus the fact that it would help protect them if one engine gets hit by a an enemy SAM then the other one would survive.
Click to expand...
I'm more surprised that they didn't just reuse the F-23 tooling (what little there was) to make more parts, that would have left the engines a ways apart.
 
FighterJock said:
I am surprised that they never moved the engines wider apart after to make space for more fuel and weapons
Click to expand...
I am surprised that for all that time on forum you never tried to get some starting knowledge of [combat] aircraft design like effects of engine spacing on roll inertia and maneuverability.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom