The Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23A was a contender in the bid for an advanced tactical fighter to replace the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle in US Air Force service. The first of two prototypes flew in August 1990, the second aircraft being powered by General Electric YF120-GE-100 turbofan engines. The YF-23A was designed to be ultra-stealthy and incorporated many of the stealth features of the Northrop
Grumann B-2 bomber, and all its planned weaponry was to be housed in an internal bay to reduce the radar signature. The two YF-23s
successfully completed their flight test programme, but the Lockheed YF-22 was selected to meet the USAF requirement.
Robert Jackson "The Encyclopedia of Aircraft", 2004
Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 Black Widow II on YOUTUBE
David P.Curcione National Mili, e-mail, 18.04.2011 22:14
1.The YF-23A is Steath Fighter Jet is 5th Geration Fighters Jets for 2011 A.D. & Beyond too! We Need replacements immmedly now soon!! F-22s ,Yf-23s & F-35s too! There Speeds should be over Crusing is Mack-2.6 too! Top Speed is over Mack 2.7 + too!
David P.Curcione National Mili, e-mail, 18.04.2011 22:10
1.The YF-23A is Steath Fighter Jet is 5th Geration Fighters Jets for 2011 A.D. & Beyond too! We Need replacements immmedly now soon!! F-22s ,Yf-23s & F-35s too! There Speeds should be over Crusing is Mack-2.6 too! Top Speed is over Mack 2.7 + too!
David P.Curcione National Mili, e-mail, 18.04.2011 21:54
1.The YF-23A is Steath Fighter Jet is 5th Geration Fighters Jets for 2011 A.D. & Beyond too! We Need replacements immmedly now soon!! F-22s ,Yf-23s & F-35s too! There Speeds should be over Crusing is Mack-2.6 too! Top Speed is over Mack 2.7 + too!
Here's an email I received in November of 2007. Not only did the worst airplane win the competition, but it took 25 years to develop. We need to quit paying contractors profit on development. Once we started doing that, there ceased to be any reason for contractors to build weapons. That's why there are only 20 B-2's and 170 F-22's. The F-22 might not be the best, but it's better than a paper airplane for keeping the nation safe!
MEMORANDUM FOR CSAF SAF /OS SUBJECT: F-22A FOC Declaration
1. Mr. Secretary and Chief, I am honored to announce that after 25 years of collaborative effort, a key milestone for the F-22A is behind us. The integrated 1FW /192FW at Langley possesses sufficient Raptors, equipment and trained Airmen to provide Air Dominance for the Joint Force for many years to come. The Raptor is ready for global CFACC tasking ahead of schedule and I declare Full Operational Capability for the F-22A as of 12 December 07.
2. Our success at Langley is the showcase example of our shared vision for the Total Force Integration of tomorrow. 1FW Active duty and 192FW Virginia guard Airmen fly and maintain the world's premier 5th generation fighter with seamless integration, superior dedication and unmatched synergy. Team Langley represents the type of readiness and organization we need to maintain a dominant Joint Total Force for the future.
/ /Signed / / JOHN D.W. CORLEY General, USAF Commander
The YF-23 was much faster than the F-22 and had much more advanced aerodynamics features. It also had a way of supressing the IR. It was not designed by McDonnell Douglas or Northrop. They had to hire some outside guys to do the design. The funny thing is those same guys had to fix the F-22 intakes so that program could get off the ground. Many of the features you see in common between the production F-22 and the YF-23 are because of tips the designers of the YF-23 gave the Lockheed guys when they did that work.
I have a couple of photo's taken by AVIS (Air Force) of the YF-22 and the YF-23 during their 'fly offs.' Just looking at the YF-23 I could see that it was not only a better, sleaker looking aircraft but more adapted for the task at hand.
I agree, Northrop has always gotten the raw end of a very nasty stick /deal. Politics should not be allowed to determin which company wins which contract, That should be left up to the people that fly and maintain them. And as far as what NATO is flying, who gives a darn! Nato can go kiss a duck...
I wish Northrop can just move off shore. Just build stuff for Japan, maybe for the hell of it, Europe? Then when the best fighter jet comes out and sell it to multiple countries, it will really slap the US government in the face. So they know to stop playing political and start doing business with honesty. From Kirk's explanation, yes, I always do believe in the YF-23.
Hey Guys, I loved the F-23 too and thought it was a stunning looking plane. I wouldn't be too disheartened by the F-22 though as it is still the best fighter out there! I'm a Brit and would love it if the RAF could get their hands on the Raptor. I'm not particularly down on the Typhoon and think once we get the vector update and improved engine it will be a formidable aircraft and stealth aside nearly the equal of the Raptor. It may in fact be as good in a dog fight at this point. Trouble is it will never get into one as the Raptor will have shot it down 60 miles away! All in all though i loved the F-23, it was probably the best looking aircraft i've ever seen (much better than the Eagle or Tomcat), but you still got it pretty good in the USAF, I can't see any country getting a better aircraft for a few years to come!!
I dont know all the facts, but have read and watched as many shows as possible about the competition. And although the reptor won, I am still very intrigued by the F /A 23....and I will give it that status myself. America didnt lose a step either way. I just got to see my first fligt of a F22 over Traverse Bay Michigan on july 3rd, it is an amazing aircraft. I love the thing, it is very manueverabl3e and can perform things that other aircraft cannot, due to thrust vectoring. I will say that the F /A 23 is the sweetest plane that i have ever seen, and if everything I've read is true, there is no way NG should ever scrap the design ! Period ! But I also beleive that we should, as a country and not a company, be smart enought not to let that kind of technology get outside this country! That plane has a use in our military, F117s are fast aproaching ancient. Hopefully Northrup G will just keep inproving the plane and avionics.....we dont want war to be fair.....we want it to be quick and effective. I am just happy to be an american and to be protected by such an amazing military !
1. The New Inproved newest Fighter Jet will has a higher top Speed too! Yf-23 Figher Jet#2 is top Speed is about mack 2.7+ too! Same as the F-22 Fighter Jet too! It"s top Speed is 2.7 + too. Agreed !!!!!! The F-35 Top Speed is Mack 2.9 + too!!
Mike: The contrail(s) you speak of were an anomaly only on the right wing of the YF-23, and are not indicative of a failure in the design. A simple tweak to the leading edge after conclusion of flight testing would have been the fix on PAV-1 (PAV-2 did not demonstrate a similar "problem"). Furthermore, The YF-23 would not have required more "me" time in the hangar, as you state - the F-22 has taken 12 years in development, in a politically-charged atmosphere. Just FYI - after the contract was awarded to Lockheed for the F-22, they approached Northrop / McAir and offered to purchase one of the two YF-23s - in order to "mitigate further development time in reducing the F-22's RCS" - Northrop politely extended a middle finger to Lockheed and refused the sale. Lockheed engineers supposedly used photographs and surreptitious after-hours measurements of the existing aircraft planforms to change the F-22's planform to what it is today in the F-22A. Check for yourself - find any website that gives planform views of the YF-22 vs. F-22A, then compare those to the YF-23. Family resemblance? Sure.
Having been part of the Northrop development effort for the YF-23, I have first hand knowledge of at least some of the factors that went into the selection. (I still have my first flight pins for the YF23 and B2)
#1- the one hard and fast requirement of the competing YF-22 and YF-23 build and fly offs, was that the aircraft MUST ABSOLUTELY meet 100% of the defined requirements.
The F22 met about 68% of the requirements, but outperformed by 200%+ many of the other requirements......The YF-23 met 100% of the requirements.
The one requirement the government ignored, was the one that was inviolate. Amazing! but typical of how Northrop was treated.
The F20 Tigershark was the same price as an F16, AND had 1 /2 the life cycle cost, a 70% spare part interchangeability with the F5, and thousands of trained pilots and mechanics in the F5, worldwide, as well as 3,600 F5s to interchange with. The sales video showed 2 F20s at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, at 56 below, when the klaxon blew. 60 seconds later, from a cold start, the F20s were airborne, and the weapons systems were up and armed (laser gyros are a wonderful thing!).
The F16 took 20 minutes to get off the ground, after hooking up the support truck (since remedied in current F16s).
The government stated that NATO required a common continental defense fighter, and F16s were already ordered by all NATO allies - the US would not buy the superior, lower cost F20. Northrop said fine! We'll sell it to the Foreign buyers that have F5s. The US Government nixed the plan, as they would not allow a superior fighter to be sold.
$1.1B of Northrop F20 internal development funds, down the drain, with no recourse.
B2's were the first military aircraft where the R&D was amortized into the price of the aircraft. A B2 costs 70% of a 747 to build, but amortize the $19.6B in R&D money into 125, no 75, no 35, no 15 aircraft, and the price appears exorbitant.
The YF17 (F /A-18) was a superior aircraft, but the Navy refused to buy from Northrop (an old Jack Northrop feud), so the agreement was struck with McDonald-Douglass to build F18s from Northrop provided airframes (Northrop El Segundo plant) for Navy use, and all land based F18s would be build by Northrop. Australia ordered 16 - the only land based F /A-18s built - the only US plane ever granted the distinction as a fighter /attack craft.
Go back to the YB-47, and the government forcing the scrapping and destruction of not only the planes, but the plans as well.
There is a reason that Northrop does not build aircraft anymore. If they were a bit less patriotic, they probably would have moved offshore, to avoid the corrupt US government.
so then, most of you folks prefer the back-up quarterback, right? i'm surprised that the problem of wingtip contrails during normal maneuvering of the YF-23 haven't been mentioned here. nothing quite like advertising your difficult to detect aircraft's presence with some unwanted contrails, huh? any upsides to the YF-23 were not worth the risk associated with the technologies used to achieve those gains. if the poop ever hits the air mover, i'd rather we have an aircraft that doesn't require too much "me" time in the hangar.
Im proud to say that I was a member of the debelopment of the yf /22.yf /23.R.N.D TRUST REVERSER nassles.Im now 45 years old living the american dream here in me country mexico.I will do it oll over again. I feel that f23 is not a figther is a work of art
I'm disinclined to favor comments on appearance, or from those with an obvious bias.
My understanding of the decision breaks down to this: 1) The F-22 was smaller and lighter (USAF fighter types are strongly biased toward minimum size and weight); 2) The F-22 was less risky and less expensive (if F-23 materials are similar to B-2 materials they could be a long-term maintenance nightmare and require the same special handling as the B-2, limiting deployability); 3) The F-22 was more maneuverable (by the time an engagement becomes a dog-fight, speed becomes irrelevant and energy addition and maneuverability become paramount--speed is merely a means of adding energy or disengaging); 4) The F-23 had a slightly smaller RCS (It is all well and good to have the RCS of a B-B, but if the RCS of a ball bearing is more than sufficient are the added weight, cost and complexity worth the tax dollars?); 5) The F-23 was faster (no aircraft truly fights at top speed--the speeds that are important are cornering speed, climb speed, cruising speed, and for interceptors, dash speed); 6) The F-23 had longer range (nice to have, but not a trump over othr factors); 7) The F-22 was more readily adaptable to using hard-points in environments that did not require maximum steath (not every enemy fields SA-12s and AA-12s, most field nothing better than an SA-18); 8) Both aircraft met the USAF's requirements (and both had their Congressional supporters, so neither side was without Senators and Representatives conspiring on its behalf).
If both aircraft meet requirements, you buy the cheaper aircraft to make the tax-dollars go farther.
As for appearance, neither aircraft is as attractive as the F-15 and F-14 both of which are classic designs. Stealth may cause aircraft to look futuristic, but it also causes them to look ungainly.
