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

[donnage99]

So this is what the rumor about the yf-23 being built into a super spy and deep penetration plane is about.

 

[pesholito]

A couple of questionsid the tail planes also create lift in straight and level flight or were they aerodynamically neutral? Is it known what type of airfoil was used for the tail?
Thank you!

 

[pesholito]

This might amuse. It is a scan from a product card I picked up at this week's Navy League show in DC. The name on the card is Lockheed Martin, but the design is clearly influenced by the YF-23.

The Low Cost Aerial Target was actually designed by a small California company called AeroMech, which was recently acquired by another company called xcelaero. It is a target drone - catapult-launched, jet-propelled and parachute-recovered. Not dimensions are given, but the photos show it is small enough to be carried by two people.

The LCAT is in use as a low radar-signature target. The idea of the design is to minimise the drone's natural radar cross-section as much as possible so that the radar signature can then be augmented artificially to mimic that of any target aircraft. The product card shows it being used as a target for an F-22-launched AMRAAM.

Clearly someone felt the YF-23's configuration was indeed the stealthiest solution...

Here's what I found:
http://www.aeromechengineering.com/prodncap.php?iframesrc=lcat&breadcrumb=%7CUnmanned%20Air%20Vehicles%7CLCAT

 

[donnage99]

The external shape of the yf-23 might be stealthier than yf-22 (I think the word "more balanced in term of stealth" would be more appropriate, since the yf-23's stealth is pretty balanced from all aspects, unlike yf-22, which does not represent the same level of attention for stealth from the rear aspect in comparison to frontal aspect). However, in real combat aircraft design, external shape is but one factor among others in term of stealth.

 

[donnage99]

Large picture of security men guarding the yf-23
http://defensorfortis.info/AP/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/FXPLANEsecurity.jpg

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

^second that since the spike points are "cleaner in distribution" hence, a stealthier platform from the side and rear aspect. although having less 2 tails is one major factor IMHO

 

[Triton]

EDIT: Duplicate photographs removed.

Sources:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?166065-YF-23-Black-Widow-II-pictures/page11

 

[Triton]

EDIT: Duplicate photographs removed.


Sources:
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=141025
http://007.shanbara.jp/airplane/html/1222125/
http://sportscarforums.com/gallery/showfull.php?photo=18204
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2383

 

[flateric]

Triton, third of these are reposts of photos first time posted here at SPF and stolen by '2495' of MilitaryPhotos without mentioning source.
One third are low-res versions of those from YF-23A factsheet at USAFM site
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2383

 

[OM]

Triton, third of these are reposts of photos first time posted here at SPF and stolen by '2495' of MilitaryPhotos without mentioning source.

...But that's not the offensive aspect of those pictures. What's offensive is that the F-22 (c)Raptor was chosen over the YF-23. Yet another reason to despise Dick Cheney.

 

[Ogami musashi]

I was wondering if someone had sufficient drawings to create a CG model of the F-23 (latest version we know that is the blue prints that orion posted)?

I have difficulties imaging the upper part of the fuselage.

 

[Triton]

Northrop McDonnell Douglas YF-23 program patch found on eBay

URL:
http://cgi.ebay.com/McDonnell-Douglas-Northrop-YF-23-USAF-Patch-/130425551405?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e5df7fa2d

 

[Triton]

From Code One magazine website:

YF-22 flying alongside YF-23 over California during the Advanced Tactical Fighter competition in 1990.

Source:
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_slideshow.html?gallery_id=19

 

[Triton]

Does anyone know what the projected (expected) unit cost would have been for the Northrop/McDonnell Douglas F-23 if the aircraft had been chosen? I have just heard vague claims that the F-23 would be more expensive than the F-22.

 

[Triton]

Northrop McDonnell Douglas YF-23 collectibles

URL: http://cgi.ebay.com/McDonnell-Douglas-Northrop-YF-23-Paper-Collectibles-/130425554879?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e5df807bf

 

[donnage99]

I just read couple articles of turning f-22 and f-35 into BMD platforms (due to the ability to infiltrate defended airspace), and it makes me wonder if the EMD f-23 would make a much better candidate.

1 - It has, presumably, better rear aspect stealth, which would aid it in penetrating deep into enemy's territory (where alot of enemy's radars gonna look at your behind). The higher speed and range also help as well.

2 - Completely theoretically, its AMRAAM bay and AIM-9 bay can be merged by taking out the wall inbetween to give a longer internal space to house a NCADE internally without having to build a external weapon pod (which compromises range, speed, and stealth).

The weapon bays of the f-23 might have looked unfavorable, but consider the political climate during the debate to cancel f-22 production at 187, f-23's weapon bay layout might have been an advantage if it was to be in the f-22's shoes instead. One of the argument against f-22 was its weapon bay being too shallow for anything useful beside JDAM and SDB in air to ground mode. This is not the case for the f-23 however.

 

[Sundog]

Does anyone know what the projected (expected) unit cost would have been for the Northrop/McDonnell Douglas F-23 if the aircraft had been chosen? I have just heard vague claims that the F-23 would be more expensive than the F-22.

It's really hard to say. In general, you go by the weight of the aircraft for aircraft in the same class. If the F-23 weighed more than the F-22, then it probably would have cost more. Basically, weight=more stuff= more cost. However, I think some of that was BS as Northrop had a lot of experience with large stealth structures as a result of their B-2 work. Of course, the costs were definitely higher on their nozzle design, due to all of the thermal protection tiles in the nozzle trough. Something they obviously corrected with the FB-23 design. Of course, the airframe tends not to be the most expensive part of the program. That's usually the avionics/weapons/intel systems.

As for Ogami's question, I do plan to make a 3D model of it, basically for MSFS, but that will be a while, as I have other projects and artwork to complete first.

 

[Triton]

Was the decision also influenced by the US Air Force's promise, at the time, to purchase the McDonnell Douglas/General Dynamics A-12 Avenger II? Or did the A-12 Avenger II have no influence on their decision between the YF-22 and the YF-23 or the decision was prior to the Air Force/Navy agreement?

 

[Sundog]

Was the decision also influenced by the US Air Force's promise, at the time, to purchase the McDonnell Douglas/General Dynamics A-12 Avenger II? Or did the A-12 Avenger II have no influence on their decision between the YF-22 and the YF-23 or the decision was prior to the Air Force/Navy agreement?

According to who I knew at the time there wasn't any relationship between the two decisions. But that was just one persons perspective from the inside, so I can't say definitively, but I've never heard of any relationship between the two decisions.

 

[Stargazer]

Is this type of "arrangement" still in order, anyway? There used to be a time when the armed forces made sure that each of the major contractors got a bone to chew, but is this still any of their business? Lots of companies disappeared, were taken over or shifted their activity to subcontracting over the past 20 years because major contracts promised by the military were canceled unexpectedly...

 

[flateric]

I remember something like F-23A would be somewhat more expensive (surprisingly, while it didn't have expensive TVC engine nozzles) due to cost of large composite panels manufacturing (proprietary Northrop's) technology - something like that
don't beat me - I don't remember where I heard that and if it was *true facts*
well, Lamilloy exhaust trenches wouldn't be cheap, too, but they were planned to be replaced with high-temp RAM composites on serial a/c (not cheap stuff, too, judging waist trenches area)

 

[Ogami musashi]

Sundog: Ah cool thanks!

I asked because i read someone saying the F-23 fuselage would have been bulckier than YF-23;

 

[F-14D]

Was the decision also influenced by the US Air Force's promise, at the time, to purchase the McDonnell Douglas/General Dynamics A-12 Avenger II? Or did the A-12 Avenger II have no influence on their decision between the YF-22 and the YF-23 or the decision was prior to the Air Force/Navy agreement?

It's doubtful that the two are related. For one thing, the A-12 was canceled prior to the decision on ATF. For another, USAF only committed to "considering" the aircraft. I consider it unlikely that they wanted it to go into service, let alone actually buy it even if it had worked.

 

[F-14D]

Is this type of "arrangement" still in order, anyway? There used to be a time when the armed forces made sure that each of the major contractors got a bone to chew, but is this still any of their business? Lots of companies disappeared, were taken over or shifted their activity to subcontracting over the past 20 years because major contracts promised by the military were canceled unexpectedly...

IMHO, this decision was indeed a part of Industrial Policy. DoD/USAF could see the writing on the wall that that there would no longer be enough work to support as many aircraft companies as were in business, even without unexpected cancellations. It must be remembered how the selection for the ATF would be accomplished. If only one of the bidders met all the critical requirements/evaluation points, that company would win. If they both did, their performance and costs relative to each other were not decisive. The Secretary of the Air Force could pick whichever aircraft he wanted for whatever reason he wanted and in fact was not even required to explain why.

Both teams produced fine aircraft that met or exceeded all evaluation points. Like everyone else, I have my opinion of which plane was the best, but all that matters is that in the final analysis the Secretary of the Air Force chose Lockheed. There were some generic references to "documentation" and "produceability", but nothing like the information dump that comes out on major contracts like this, before or since. There was nothing about which the contractors could complain, because they agreed to those terms. Personally and with nothing definitive to back me up, and given that both proposals were very good, I believe the decision came down to preserve the largest number of aircraft companies, and this was necessary to keep Lockheed in that field (at the time it was still thought that Northrop would be building 75 B-2s).

With all the mergers and consolidation since then, I don't think this happens in this field that much anymore. Note that had the F-35 met the original schedule, Boeing would have pretty much gone out of the fighter business and DoD didn't seem too concerned about that. We have seen some of that kind of maneuvering in shipbuilding, though, because of the concern that if certain yards leave the business, they're not coming back and the expertise is lost.

 

[Triton]

Thanks for your insight F-14D.

 

[Stargazer]

Thanks for your insight F-14D.

I second that.

 

[Gridlock]

"Decisions on large capital projects with significant employment implications are made by politicians"

:

 

[F-14D]

Thanks for the nice words from the two members of the "2K+ Posts" club. This is not the only case. The same rationale used in the ATF decision, I believe is why there are Super Hornets rather than Super Tomcats on the decks of carriers today (beyond this statement, that's a topic for another discussion at another time).

 

[donnage99]

IMHO, this decision was indeed a part of Industrial Policy. DoD/USAF could see the writing on the wall that that there would no longer be enough work to support as many aircraft companies as were in business, even without unexpected cancellations. It must be remembered how the selection for the ATF would be accomplished. If only one of the bidders met all the critical requirements/evaluation points, that company would win. If they both did, their performance and costs relative to each other were not decisive. The Secretary of the Air Force could pick whichever aircraft he wanted for whatever reason he wanted and in fact was not even required to explain why.

We have had a great debate in this. However, one thing I never asked, and if I may now, is that where did you get the information that if both aircraft met all requirements, the USAF Sec could choose whichever one that he liked without any reason for justification?

 

[F-14D]

IMHO, this decision was indeed a part of Industrial Policy. DoD/USAF could see the writing on the wall that that there would no longer be enough work to support as many aircraft companies as were in business, even without unexpected cancellations. It must be remembered how the selection for the ATF would be accomplished. If only one of the bidders met all the critical requirements/evaluation points, that company would win. If they both did, their performance and costs relative to each other were not decisive. The Secretary of the Air Force could pick whichever aircraft he wanted for whatever reason he wanted and in fact was not even required to explain why.

We have had a great debate in this. However, one thing I never asked, and if I may now, is that where did you get the information that if both aircraft met all requirements, the USAF Sec could choose whichever one that he liked without any reason for justification?

It was part of the public solicitation for ATF, as well as being covered by the trade press at the time. It's also shown up in a number of writings discussing the competition as well.

Basically, USAF set out a number of criteria. The proposals were evaluated on their ability to meet these criteria and reported through a series of "traffic lights". I think they were red for not met, yellow for met but with caution or reservations, green for fully met and I believe blue for significantly exceeds. the evaluation teams were kept separate, and were not to compare the aircraft. The USAF pilots involved were assigned to fly one of the aircraft and unlike previous competitions were not to fly both. I believe only the Northrop chief test pilot, Paul Metz, has ever flown both (he later went to work for Lockheed on the F-22 program ) and he's never compared the two.

The evaluation teams made their report of findings (the traffic lights) to the Secretary of the Air Force and were enjoined from making any recommendations. The Secretary of the Air Force then decided the winner. He was not required to pick who got the most green or blues, who cost less or more, etc. He decided was most important and made his choice. The teams knew this going in.

 

[Sundog]

I believe only the Northrop chief test pilot, Paul Metz, has ever flown both (he later went to work for Lockheed on the F-22 program ) and he's never compared the two.

We'll have to wait for the auto-biography after he retires to find out what he thinks in that regard. I'll definitely be looking forward to reading that account.

 

[F-14D]

I believe only the Northrop chief test pilot, Paul Metz, has ever flown both (he later went to work for Lockheed on the F-22 program ) and he's never compared the two.

We'll have to wait for the auto-biography after he retires to find out what he thinks in that regard. I'll definitely be looking forward to reading that account.

Unless of course Lockheed, Northrop or USAF require him to sign a confidentially agreement.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Bear in mind that the competition wasn't between Northrop and Lockheed (no Grummans or Martins in their names at this time) but between Team F-23 and Team F-22. I don't want to go into specifics because it’s not my place to do so in relation to information passed on in confidence. But Team F-23 comprised Northrop and McDonnell Douglas which were at that time responsible for the F-5, F-15 and F/A-18 fighter projects. Team F-22 was Lockheed, Boeing and GDFW of which only the minor partner had an ongoing fighter project: the F-16. The Team F-22 project also included moving production of the F-22 from Palmdale to Marietta where Lockheed were building C-130s… While no one can call Lockheed’s Skunk Works an inferior design team their production plan was full of holes but loads more political capital.

 

[F-14D]

Bear in mind that the competition wasn't between Northrop and Lockheed (no Grummans or Martins in their names at this time) but between Team F-23 and Team F-22. I don't want to go into specifics because it’s not my place to do so in relation to information passed on in confidence. But Team F-23 comprised Northrop and McDonnell Douglas which were at that time responsible for the F-5, F-15 and F/A-18 fighter projects. Team F-22 was Lockheed, Boeing and GDFW of which only the minor partner had an ongoing fighter project: the F-16. The Team F-22 project also included moving production of the F-22 from Palmdale to Marietta where Lockheed were building C-130s… While no one can call Lockheed’s Skunk Works an inferior design team their production plan was full of holes but loads more political capital.

The Skunk Works (which back then was still the kind of operation it's famed for and not the regular corporate division it became) always knew that they wouldn't be building the production versions. Large scale and high production rate operations are not where its expertise lay and not the kind of operation they wanted to be in. Team F-22 would decide where the series production would take place and how it would happen. Even in those days it was becoming apparent that California was becoming no longer a good place to do large manufacturing, especially heavy manufacturing, so Palmdale wouldn't necessarily be the place for the line. The fact that they decided to build it in Senator Sam Nunn's state was mere coincidence, I'm sure.

I've wondered if the YF-23 had won, whether they would have built it in California.

 

[AeroFranz]

a little OT, but I can't help but feel sad that with the closing of the C-17 plant, there will be no major military or civilin aircraft production left to speak of in California...

 

[F-14D]

a little OT, but I can't help but feel sad that with the closing of the C-17 plant, there will be no major military or civilin aircraft production left to speak of in California...

On the other hand, Sacramento (California's capital) still has lots of politicians producing plenty of hot air in case someone wants to open a balloon factory.

 

[Stargazer]

a little OT, but I can't help but feel sad that with the closing of the C-17 plant, there will be no major military or civilin aircraft production left to speak of in California...

On the other hand, Sacramento (California's capital) still has lots of politicians producing plenty of hot air in case someone wants to open a balloon factory.

LMAO!!!!! ;D ;D ;D

 

[mkellytx]

a little OT, but I can't help but feel sad that with the closing of the C-17 plant, there will be no major military or civilin aircraft production left to speak of in California...

d
The C--17 plant hasn't yet closed, but the point is taken. The F-18 E/F rear fuse is still produced within eyesight of LAX as are a large portion of the satelites about to be put on rockets. This isn't to say that California has become decidedly un friendly to business (it has), but that some operations persist in SoCal. FWIW I have worked here in SoCal, in the Aerospace/Defense Industry since 2005. Provided that you structure things properly, you can still do business down here.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

a little OT, but I can't help but feel sad that with the closing of the C-17 plant, there will be no major military or civilin aircraft production left to speak of in California...

That’s a bit extreme. In LA there is the Long Beach and El Segundo precincts with lots of work by Boeing, Northrop and Raytheon. Northrop still build Hornet centre barrels at El Segundo in the old wooden buildings used by Douglas in WWII. They also do major large scale carbon fibre forming there.

Then there is Palmdale in the Mojave. The Global Hawk and F-35 centre barrel production lines are there. Also the X-47B was built there and B-1 and B-2 depot level maintenance/rebuilding. In San Deigo’s Rancho Bernado Schweizer 333s are converted into Fire Scouts.

Not to mention that much of Northrop, Boeing and Lockheed’s design work is done in greater LA. The production lines may be in the South for lower labour costs but the engineers work in southern California. It is more than likely that any ICAS or NGB aircraft will be mass produced in California.

 

[AeroFranz]

Not to mention that much of Northrop, Boeing and Lockheed’s design work is done in greater LA. The production lines may be in the South for lower labour costs but the engineers work in southern California. It is more than likely that any ICAS or NGB aircraft will be mass produced in California.

I sure hope so. I recently had a layover in Long Beach, and could see the iconic "Fly DC jets" sign that's been there forever. A reminder of times when thousands of entire airframes were rolling out of those hangars. But as we know, these days your production is dispersed throughout every single district in the country to give everybody a piece of the pie (whether it makes sense or not).