F-23
Dave Majumdar, National Journal: The F-23 Fighter: The Super Plane America Never Built
The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is the best air superiority fighter ever built, but could America have done better?
When the YF-22 prototype won the contract for the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) in April 1991, it was a lesser plane compared to the Northrop YF-23 in many ways. Though the YF-22 was a more maneuverable aircraft, the YF-23 had far greater supersonic cruise capability—especially when outfitted with the General Electric YF120 variable cycle engines. Even when powered by the less powerful Pratt & Whitney YF-119, the YF-23 had the ability to fly an entire sortie at supersonic speeds above Mach 1.4 (explained to me sometime ago by Barry Watts at the Wilson Center—who was an analyst on the Northrop team at the time). The sleek prototype jet could also cruise at slightly more than Mach 1.8 when equipped with the YF-120.
WNU Editor: The above explanation on why the F-22 was chosen over the F-23 is very revealing on how the Pentagon chooses its planes.
4 comments:
Very interesting. I think the point about a "super F-15" is very telling; they wanted a very flexible package. Not sure why dogfighting ability really matters these days (stealth and range seem much more important to me) but it isn't going to hurt either.
I followed this testing and selection process as closely as I could some 25 years ago. All through the competition phase it was evident that the F-23 was superior. Not only in range and speed, but in payload and stealth capabilities as well. It was also clear during the process that the F-23 was going to be significantly more expensive. They can postulate about the politics in the decision, but they went with the slightly less capable package for cost reasons overall.
On a side note, It would have been interesting and amusing to see the Chinese and Russians attempt to copy the much more complex diamond wing design instead of the F-22's more conventional shape.
It's the F-4 lesson, which has been forgotten in regards to the F-35.
When the F-4 deployed to Vietnam, it had no guns, just Sidewinders and AARAMS. The F-4's got badly mauled by obsolete Mig-15's and Mig-17's, because:
- The huge numbers of US aircraft over North Vietnam, required that Visual Identification of an aircraft had to be made before shooting, so the AARAMS were useless as they were a Beyond Visual Range missile,
- in the Visual Range fight, ( dog fighting), the MIG's outmaneuvered the F-4's, making a Sidewinder lock on difficult, and the Sidewinders often failed,
- in the Visual Range fight, ( dog fight) the MIG's guns proved more deadly and reliable, even though only the Mig-17 had a computerized gun sight, and of course, the F-4 had shown up to what turned out to be a gun fight, with out a gun.
Current proponents claim that sensor fusion, BVR missiles, IFF, etc mean that the "dogfight" is dead, ignoring the fact that in every air war since Vietnam, Visual Identification Rules have been required to prevent Blue on Blue and protect Civillian Aircraft.
The anti-dogfighting pundits point out that in air to air combat, there hasn't been a gun kill in over 20 years, and that off Boresight systems, multiple target systems and modern highly maneuverable missiles make the dog fight obsolete.
Proponents of the dogfight point out that there has not been peer to peer aircombat since Korea, and that a peer enemy aircraft, flown by a properly trained and experienced pilot, has counter measures for everything we throw at him, just as we have counter measures for everything he throws at us, so in the end, it could wind up in a turn and burn, and you don't want to be the guy in an u maneuverable missile truck who winds up getting clubbed like a baby seal.
Good points Jay, I especially like the point about Visual Identification Rules. All food for thought. Interesting article for sure.
Post a Comment