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

[Abraham Gubler]

Are you referring to how only the winner of the ATF could be chosen, or the "need" for major modifications to the F-23 design?

I’m referring to the NATF program and how it was constructed by the US Government long before there was a design downselect. In particular the 1986 agreement by SECAF and SECNAV for reciprocal consideration of the ATF and ATA for corresponding roles in the other services. With a lot of nudging from the holders of the purse strings at Congress.

Well from what little is known it seems the Northrop's NATF design was significantly different from the F-23, are you such extensive changes weren't necessary?

NATF was not just a carrier capable ATF. The Navy requirement had increase loiter range, sensor range and weaponry. In the bare essence of making the YF-22 or YF-23 carrier capable the YF-23 is just as if not more suited. I was trying to illuminate the illogic of the assumption that the ATF aircraft configurations weighted the ATF downselect towards the YF-22 because of NATF. Of course what Northrop may or may not have offered as their NATF solution might have had something to do with it.

If the Russians were able to get something the size of the Flanker to operate off their Admiral Kuznetsov carrier, I have little doubt the F-23 could have been adapted to become the NATF.

The Russians can operate a FLANKER from a carrier? That’s news to me... Besides the US Navy does not need to take the experiences of the Russian dabbling in the carrier arts to know how to operate big aircraft from a carrier. Tomcat, Vigilante, Skywarrior, Savage, etc is a real knowledge base in this kind of thing.

As I said before the NATF was a lot more than just modifying the ATF to land on and takeoff from a carrier. The US Navy only expected the avionics and engines to be common between the two.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

NATF was not just a carrier capable ATF. The Navy requirement had increase loiter range, sensor range and weaponry. In the bare essence of making the YF-22 or YF-23 carrier capable the YF-23 is just as if not more suited. I was trying to illuminate the illogic of the assumption that the ATF aircraft configurations weighted the ATF downselect towards the YF-22 because of NATF. Of course what Northrop may or may not have offered as their NATF solution might have had something to do with it.

I agree that it certainly wouldn't have been harder to navalize than the F-22. I'm just curious to find out the reason for such airframe changes in Northrop's NATF proposal. Yet considering the lack of information and drawings of their proposal, I doubt we will find out anytime soon.

The Russians can operate a FLANKER from a carrier? That’s news to me... Besides the US Navy does not need to take the experiences of the Russian dabbling in the carrier arts to know how to operate big aircraft from a carrier. Tomcat, Vigilante, Skywarrior, Savage, etc is a real knowledge base in this kind of thing.

Yeah the Su-33 also has the the NATO name of Flanker right? I didn't mean to imply the USN doesn't have the experience and ability to operate such large aircraft. It is just that standard Su-27, like the "normal" F-22 and F-23 variants, is a large fighter that wasn't designed with naval operations in mind. First impressions are that it would be a nightmare to navalize, as with ATF designs, yet first impression aren't always accurate.

As I said before the NATF was a lot more than just modifying the ATF to land on and takeoff from a carrier. The US Navy only expected the avionics and engines to be common between the two.

I see, but if it was largely a matter of range, sensors, and weaponry I wonder the reasoning behind the different wing and elevator configuration that Northrop's NATF was said to have.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I agree that it certainly wouldn't have been harder to navalize than the F-22. I'm just curious to find out the reason for such airframe changes in Northrop's NATF proposal. Yet considering the lack of information and drawings of their proposal, I doubt we will find out anytime soon.

Because the NATF needs to be bigger than the ATF for its larger radar, weapons bay and fuel fraction. Also the Navy wants better control at low speed so it needs more tail. When you factor or this in on top of the carrier takeoff and landing then you need to start redesigning the airframe. It’s not just an issue of is the wing able to support low speed approach.

I see, but if it was largely a matter of range, sensors, and weaponry I wonder the reasoning behind the different wing and elevator configuration that Northrop's NATF was said to have.

Because these things have weight and volume and the ATFs were not built with Dr. Who TARDIS technology.

Yeah the Su-33 also has the the NATO name of Flanker right? I didn't mean to imply the USN doesn't have the experience and ability to operate such large aircraft. It is just that standard Su-27, like the "normal" F-22 and F-23 variants, is a large fighter that wasn't designed with naval operations in mind. First impressions are that it would be a nightmare to navalize, as with ATF designs, yet first impression aren't always accurate.

The Su-33 could not operate from a US Navy carrier to US Navy standards. Being able to ski jump off a big ship and have high speed landing approaches during your one day at sea is enough to shoot the video required to make it appear that you have a carrier. However it’s a very different thing to sustain frequent and safe flight operations over an eight month deployment.

In short the Su-33 is not really a naval aircraft. It’s a typical air force aircraft that can have short term carrier operations at high risk to provide a naval aircraft capability for short periods. Classic Soviet tactics in providing a burst capability for two weeks of war and that’s it and not dissimilar to the RN's early marks of Seafire in WW2.

So the experience of the Su-33 has little or no bearing on anyone wanting to make a real naval aviation capability. Something the Indian Navy has had to suffer through thanks to the pro Russian public servants in their ministry. No surprise with MiG-29Ks on order the IN is still trying desperately to get their hands on SHAR FRS.2s...

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Because the NATF needs to be bigger than the ATF for its larger radar, weapons bay and fuel fraction. Also the Navy wants better control at low speed so it needs more tail. When you factor or this in on top of the carrier takeoff and landing then you need to start redesigning the airframe. It’s not just an issue of is the wing able to support low speed approach.
Because these things have weight and volume and the ATFs were not built with Dr. Who TARDIS technology.

Well I suppose we can't get an accurate assessment of how the design was changed unless Northrop releases some information about their proposal someday. The Navy must have had some very high range specifications however.

The Su-33 could not operate from a US Navy carrier to US Navy standards. Being able to ski jump off a big ship and have high speed landing approaches during your one day at sea is enough to shoot the video required to make it appear that you have a carrier. However it’s a very different thing to sustain frequent and safe flight operations over an eight month deployment.

In short the Su-33 is not really a naval aircraft. It’s a typical air force aircraft that can have short term carrier operations at high risk to provide a naval aircraft capability for short periods. Classic Soviet tactics in providing a burst capability for two weeks of war and that’s it and not dissimilar to the RN's early marks of Seafire in WW2.

So the experience of the Su-33 has little or no bearing on anyone wanting to make a real naval aviation capability. Something the Indian Navy has had to suffer through thanks to the pro Russian public servants in their ministry. No surprise with MiG-29Ks on order the IN is still trying desperately to get their hands on SHAR FRS.2s...

Well the Russian Navy clearly doesn't have a high rate of readiness, but I presume the Su-33 was designed with operating off carriers more than the one or two days a year the Russian Navy does now. Regardless, the multi-role MiG-29K seemed like it would have been a better choice for the Russian Navy, but I doubt any more funding will go towards Russian naval aviation in the near future. Is the Indian Navy having any problems with their MiG-29Ks besides for delays in actually getting them and the Russians finishing INS Vikramaditya?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well I suppose we can't get an accurate assessment of how the design was changed unless Northrop releases some information about their proposal someday. The Navy must have had some very high range specifications however.

No we can. “ATF to F-22” is the authoritative source and it is pretty strong in pointing out the differences between ATF and NATF. 4,000 lbs more *empty* weight is one figure and:

For these reasons, the greatest commonality was expected in the engine and avionics, whereas the greatest difference would be in the airframe.

Certainly a lot of stuff already covered in this forum in the NATF and AF/X discussions.

Well the Russian Navy clearly doesn't have a high rate of readiness, but I presume the Su-33 was designed with operating off carriers more than the one or two days a year the Russian Navy does now. Regardless, the multi-role MiG-29K seemed like it would have been a better choice for the Russian Navy, but I doubt any more funding will go towards Russian naval aviation in the near future. Is the Indian Navy having any problems with their MiG-29Ks besides for delays in actually getting them and the Russians finishing INS Vikramaditya?

The Russian Navy doesn’t have high readiness because of two factors: lack of budget and design. Like the Soviet Navy before it the high seas fleet of the Russian Navy was designed to be a fleet in being kept mostly at port that only sorties for war. Unlike the US Navy that was designed to be a globally deployed force 365 days of the year.

What this means is the Soviets/Russians can support a carrier air wing with far lower safety standards in takeoff and recovery than a US Navy carrier air wing because they spend far less time at sea operating. The Russian carrier aircraft all have comparatively high carrier approach speeds (around 140-150 knots) compared to the US Navy (100-120 knots). Watching video of Russian carrier operations (see YouTube) for anyone who has been on deck of a US Navy ship is a frightening thing. Also launching conventional aircraft over a ski jump means there is no one engine out safe takeoff and the margins for error are far less than in cat shots.

This all adds up to far more accidents during flight operations compared to a US Navy standard carrier or a STOVL carrier. For the Soviets it was acceptable in order to provide some air cover for their ASM launchers as they sprinted towards the US CVBGs. For anyone else who may seriously want to be in the deployed air power business it is probably less attractive.

 

[flanker]

This all adds up to far more accidents during flight operations compared to a US Navy standard carrier or a STOVL carrier.

Right. Numbers please? Concrete facts would be nice.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Right. Numbers please? Concrete facts would be nice.

It would be nice to have the safety data of the Russian carrier operations. But two things stand in the way of this. One they haven't operated their carrier for extended operations at sea. Three short term trips to the Med. (96, 07/08 and 0/8/09) is it with the laters being only two and three months long. Secondly the Russians haven't been releasing statistics or allowing for open analysis of their operations.

But the numbers of approach speeds stand. They should be concrete enough for you? A 25-50% increase in approach speed is not going to make things safer...

 

[flateric]

one would think, what has it to do with YF-23...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

one would think, what has it to do with YF-23...

The last several pages have been about the F-23 and NATF. Should they be split of into a NATF thread? Probably. But still legitimate discussion about 'converting' a CTOL plane to a CV plane.

 

[flateric]

but still legitimate discussion about 'converting' a CTOL plane to a CV plane.

ugh...http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4927.0

 

[Abraham Gubler]

ugh...

Hang on a second... Do you seriously expect everyone engaging in dicussion about a particular aircraft - in this case the F-23 and its suitability for NATF - to keep looking over their shoulders to make sure their discussion doesn't enter some generic area when they should then move it to another generic thread?

Maybe if this thread became 10 pages of CTOL to CV then sure but its only been a post or four.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

There's absolutely no problem with the discussions.

It *might* be better to continue in the other topic if we want to discuss the general idea of adapting planes to carriers rather than YF-23 specifically as we tend to use the forum both for discussion *and* as a reference. In which case, the moderators can and do split out digressions to other topics.

 

[flanker]

I am not sure if this is old news or not, but i have received some pictures of Yf-23 weaponbay. PAV-2. I am in proses finding out if the sender is the author, and if i can post them here for you guys. (Crediting him of corse)

If i am not mistaken, i have never ever seen pictures of the weapon bays in that thing. ??? (before now)

 

[flateric]

oh, good news. waiting eagerly

 

[flanker]

A small update. It is a friend of him that took the pics, so he will ask him and find out he can share the pics...His friend is also in process of taking some shots of Yf-23 cockpit. (the area behind the cockpit actually)

So, cross your fingers, toes, legs, arms, everything, so that i am allowed to show the pics. ;D

From those shots i for first time noticed that weaponbaydoors is different on PAV-2, lacking the "tooth" of PAV-1. I have looked at this walkaround 18500302 times but never noticed.

http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/bill_spidle/yf-23_walk_1.htm

http://data.primeportal.net/hangar/bill_spidle/yf-23/YF-23_87-0801_017.JPG

Also, does anyone know if there is rumors or anything, if PAV-1 had a different weaponbays than PAV-2? The weaponbaydoors are different, so i guess the weaponbays themself must be different too...

 

[flateric]

yep, PAV-1 was intended for weapon carriage/vibration/acoustic tests and hold an 'advanced technology launcher'
PAV-2 weapon bay was empty of weapons and launcher, carried instrumentation boxes inside

but anyway, bay walls, ceiling are the same on PAV-2 and surely subject of interest

 

[flanker]

yep, PAV-1 was intended for weapon carriage/vibration/acoustic tests and hold an 'advanced technology launcher'
PAV-2 weapon bay was empty of weapons and launcher, carried instrumentation boxes inside

but anyway, bay walls, ceiling are the same on PAV-2 and surely subject of interest

Thanks for the info. I suspected it was something along these lines.

 

[flanker]

Okei, now i was cleared to show them. Pictures taken and copyright to Tony Chong.

The magic doors are now opened!

 

[flateric]

Flanker and Tony Chong, you are receiving zillion internetz today! Thanks, thanks, thanks!
But, then, it was made at Northrop Grumman facility??

 

[Sundog]

Great pics, thanks!


Are the trapeze/triangular brackets at the top for holding large pallets/boxes of testing equipment in the bay? It's funny seeing them just wire tied at the end of the bracket to hold them up. I wonder if those wire ties are g-rated?

 

[flanker]

But, then, it was made at Northrop Grumman facility??

I am not sure about the location Flateric. I guess it must be, since you can see hangar door and tools etc on pics.

 

[flateric]

triangular brackets are for stiffening PAV-2 WB doors AFAIR, they were put down and connected to doors at the centerline during flight tests (no way they are part of unexisting PAV-2 lauch system

 

[flateric]

some were waiting for this pics about 20 years
what a day, really
thanks once more!

and...wait a minute...we have seen Tony before in one article by Chad Slattery

 

[Sundog]

triangular brackets are for stiffening PAV-2 WB doors AFAIR, they were put down and connected to doors at the centerline during flight tests (no way they are part of unexisting PAV-2 lauch system

Why would they need to connect them to the doors? Were they mounting the test equipment to the inside of the doors, then using those stiffeners to increase the doors load capability, since the doors weren't designed to handle those loads? Or was it just to make sure the doors didn't open no matter what happened during flight testing to protect the test equipment?

I knew that name sounded familiar, but I couldn't remember why. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[flateric]

PAV-2 doors were not intended to be open in flight ever, that's I know for sure (just look at the internal side of bay doors)
all other things are just a matter of guesses
perhaps, PAV-1 weapon launcher had longtitudonal vertical 'frame' at the centerline, and those brackets on PAV-2 were a substitute for added giant weapon bay stiffness in position like shown on attached screenshot you know where from - If I was an engineer I would surely thought of it
once more, till we see how PAV-1 bay did look during tests, we can only guess
I'm pretty sure now it's empty of its main subject of interest

 

[Sundog]

That's an excellent picture. It almost seems they didn't even have the actuators for the doors in it, so they would have used those brackets to bolt them closed as you stated earlier. It makes sense when you have to get something done fast. The people in the latest pic adds scale to it as well.

 

[Fox_One]

Here go images which support Mark's upload as authentic. They are excerpts from a technical drawing included in Document NB92-115, which shows some of the fuel tank areas.

Where can I find the complete drawings? I'm searching for anything useful (beside walkaround pictures) in order to start an accurate YF-23A scale drawing, and the F-23A technical drawings posted earlier are useful, but the drawings excerpts in the quoted post appear to be of the YF, so they would be really useful.

Thanks

 

[Orionblamblam]

Where can I find the complete drawings?

Like the one in upper left?

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=5514

 

[lantinian]

Just WOW!
I just so want to see the details in the top right corner of the F-23A a diagram. This diagram is like the Grail in YF-23 research

 

[Orionblamblam]

Full-color prints are being produced in limited quantities. The one shown has already been passed on to another forum member, who might comment on it if he so chooses.

 

[lantinian]

Scott, do you offer these printouts yourself. Cause if you do, I am buying one right now!

 

[Orionblamblam]

Scott, do you offer these printouts yourself.

Yes. Or more accurately, "will soon." As hinted at on the blog post, those in the first batch of prints I got from the shop were just tests to see how they looked. Some look *awesome,* some look *meh.* The F-23 blueprint is one that, IMO, falls in the former category.

See here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9449.0/viewResults.html

<Threadjack over>

 

[lantinian]

Yes. Or more accurately, "will soon."

Please let us (me) know, cause I looked at your site and it ain't there..yet.

 

[AeroFranz]

I bought a couple of large drawings from these guys
http://aviationshoppe.com
They are nice, but they are just reprints of cutaways found in airplane magazines, not official manufacturer's drawings (and the title blocks are all wrong). Now, the ones you have are a different story. Provided the resolution allows it, have you considered larger prints than 16x20? A larger size would show them in all their splendor. My two cents

 

[Orionblamblam]

have you considered larger prints than 16x20?

Yes. I am currently looking at a couple different sizes. The printer can go up to 24X36; the F-23 drawing is 9745X6552 pixels, and at 300 dpi, that works out to 32X21 inches. I've currently got files set up to print four F-23's per sheet... 12X18 inches. Actually a very nice size, easily framable, looks good on an office wall, makes your co-workers jealous. 21X32 inches would of course cost four times as much and would be a pain to try to frame.

Two per sheet would be 18X27 inches, which might not be too bad.

 

[Fox_One]

Where can I find the complete drawings?

Like the one in upper left?

No, that's the F-23A drawing. The drawing excerpts supacruze posted are for YF-23A. I want to make a scale drawing of YF-23A PAV 1, so due to differences the F-23A drawings usefullness is (for my task) somewhat limited. Any ideas where he got the drawings from ?

 

[Orionblamblam]

I bought a couple of large drawings from these guys
http://aviationshoppe.com
They are nice, but they are just reprints of cutaways found in airplane magazines....

Or at least in the case of the V-2 drawings, simply repackaged versions of drawings painstakingly restored and released by Certain Poverty-Stricken Individuals.

Grrrr....

 

[Orionblamblam]

The drawing excerpts supacruze posted are for YF-23A. ... Any ideas where he got the drawings from ?

Not a clue. I know where I got my copies of the drawings from, however. I might go ahead and clean & process these into large-format prints as well, if there's interest.

 

[Fox_One]

Yes, that's exactly what I need. I need it, and I need it bad ;D

I don't need prints, the drawings in electronic form are good enough for me, if necessary I can print them myself in the convenient scale, correct any angular misalignment, etc

Please, prepare some hi-res (rather huge-res) versions for sale, I will buy them right away. Please hurry

Last year I bought from your website the A-12/YF-12 drawings. Do you have something similar for SR-71 ?

 

[lantinian]

Yeah, I am joining the "I'd buy any good F-23 drawing" club too.