Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: cav58d on December 08, 2006, 07:33:15 PM
-
Did anyone follow the competition? Was the F-22 an all around superior aircraft to the -23? What were some of the major differences.?
(http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/680/copyofyf23b20001mp3.jpg)
-
I remember reading reports that the YF-23 was a bit more stealthy and there were "industry complaints" that the evaluation pilots biased their recommendations because the YF-22 was more maneuverable and in their opinion a better overall fighter, even though both aircraft exceeded maneuverability requirements.
In the end, the USAF stated that they chose the YF-22 due to both the aircraft qualities and the quality of the entire proposal. That included risk management options, company structure, process management, financial considerations, future support, etc. My opinion on the whole thing is that even if the pilots liked the YF-22 better, the aircraft performance would still only be one part of the picture when deciding which proposal would be the winner.
I still think we ought to buy a 2-seat YF-23 based aircraft for a future F-15E replacement as a deep strike fighter-bomber, but nobody asks my opinion about such things :)
-
For some silly reason I would be willing to be that expected operation cost per unit was less for the F-22 =)...
Maybe I am wrong, but lately it sounds like the military prefers the best piece of equipment inside "X" amount of dollars instead of the overall best machine for the job.
-
Realistically, there has to be a budget, cav58d. If the 'overall best machine' is 5% better but costs 5X as much (to use an extreme example) and as a result, you'll be able to afford 1/5th the number of planes without a 5X improvement in projected force... then you've just boned your military.
A budget for equipment isn't just the result of a bean-counter playing with army toys, it's an element of long term military strategy. Strategy isn't just moving pointers on a map and radioing divisions to advance on grid coordinates, the fight starts years earlier when smart people figure out what they're likely to get and the best way to use those resources.
-
I dunno Cav. The YF-23 looks just as complicated as the F-22, from my point of view. It is larger, has a more complex external structure, and also relies on internal bomb bays.
I bet it would cost at least as much. There is no getting around it, fighters are expensive. Both planes would use similiar materials and core technologies, and both programs would have been slow-rolled by Congress and the budget process, which added over 10% to the total cost.
You'll be interested to know that using the same sort of math that shows the F-22 to cost about $120 million each, the F-15E costs over $85 mil each. And that's for a mature design without the latest radar, electronics, brand-new power distribution and hydraulic system technologies, stealth, composites, unobtanium parts, 50% more powerful engines, etc.
The latest F-16s cost around $65 mil.
-
I forgot to add, the F-22 is expected to be able to take on any currently fielded fighter against 2 v 8 or worse odds, and I hear that it's meeting those expectations. That makes it seem a whole lot cheaper IMHO.
-
I actually heard that the YF-23 outperformed the F22 in every category. Including Sexiness.
-
Airplane costs always remind me of two WWII standards, the P-51 for about $50,000 apiece and the P-38 for about $98,000 apiece. My earliest recollection of the one-engine vs. two-engine fighter endless debate.
That YF-23 photo looks as if the first half is refueling the second half.
-
The actual reality that you can't find much of anywhere goes like this..
Lockheed built the F117... Lockheed effectively was the U.S. leader in stealth.
Northrop had a hard time in the '70s and early 80's. The U.S. government is not fond of bankrupting good contractors, so , even though Lockheed but a better bomber design on the table for the Stealth Bomber competition, The government contracted the B2 from Northrop to basically throw them a bone and keep them in business.
That is back in about 1982... (the stealth bomber competition is the Actual allocation of funds that was called Aurora... Not a hypersonic spyplane as most of you believe... It disappeared off the books the day it got the internal B2 designation, not because UFO chasers were hot on its tail)
Now, the second generation stealth fighter competition comes along.. Lockheed still has the beans on stealth, although Northrop is certainly strong competition... The F22 is actually better on a lot of levels, but the government gave the last big stealth contract to Northrop, so Lockheed was pretty much a shoe-in...
If you starve either of your big contractors to death, no one wins... Since the F117 was up for retirement, and lockheed needs a new project, you get the F22.
Sorry to suck the romance out of it... But there is no thing as fair competition when the Cheif's of Staff decide on who gets the big green. I mean jeez, when they were thrown a stealth Submarine proposal the navy tossed it out because "It doesn't look like a submarine should"... Its not like we're talking about the brightest bulbs.
-
Wow. Never imagined the F-15E was so costly. Moreover, I never dreamed of the F-16 being so costly. Guess thats they way it rolls these days.
What aircraft competed against the B-2???
And I guess my cost comment was more directed towards the F-35. I have heard a lot of awesome remarks about the aircraft, but I have also heard just as many nay sayers totting the 3 in 1 aircraft isn't necessarily the best in all of it's rolls, but it best fits the budget Congress is giving
-
Originally posted by eagl
You'll be interested to know that using the same sort of math that shows the F-22 to cost about $120 million each, the F-15E costs over $85 mil each. And that's for a mature design without the latest radar, electronics, brand-new power distribution and hydraulic system technologies, stealth, composites, unobtanium parts, 50% more powerful engines, etc.
The latest F-16s cost around $65 mil.
I'm not one to generally doubt everythnig I hear, but where are you getting these figures?
-
Originally posted by cav58d
What aircraft competed against the B-2???
The entire competition was classified. The public was only made aware of the program after the Northrop design was chosen and finalized.
Lockheed submitted a very good design. It looked similar to the B2.
And thats all you know. :D
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I actually heard that the YF-23 outperformed the F22 in every category. Including Sexiness.
I seem to recall that the YF-23 produced vapor trails under high G while the F-22 did not.
-
Neubob,
I got them from various aviation week articles over the last few years. It's tough to find a single cost but if you add up various options, that's about what you get.
As an example, if you try to find the cost of a basic F-15E, you might find a number as low as $55 mil. But that's for a -220 engined plane without CFTs or LANTIRN nav/targeting pods. Add the extra for -229 or -129 engines, the latest targeting pods, a V-1, V-2, or V-3 radar, the latest GPS/INS, and the central computer upgrade, you're easily looking at $85mil.
The latest new-build export F-16s with sniper pods, conformal fuel tanks, AESA radar, and the latest EW suite runs about $65 mil.
The global hawk is the same way. Find a price for the global hawk, and you'll see that it doesn't include any sensors. The sensor package costs about as much as the plane itself, so by the time you're done adding it all up you're talking nearly $100 mil each even without ground control stations.
I wish I still had my 2006 aviation week sourcebook because it lists some of this stuff, but I tossed it out after reading the articles.
-
YF-23 is such a sexy plane.
much better than that monstrosity which is the F-22.
On another unrelated note which i dont think should be a separate post, the RAF has had its first 9 ship Typhoon formation: -
Picture 1: RAF pilots form a 'Diamond Nine' formation for the first time ever with Typhoon aircraft [Picture: Mark Dixon]
This year saw RAF Coningsby become the first RAF station to operate the RAF Typhoon aircraft. The Typhoon has been acquired by various
countries around the world, but the first nine aircraft demonstration of precision flying, in a 'Diamond Nine' formation, was conducted by a Squadron from RAF Coningsby, Lincolnshire, as crews prepared for this year's Remembrance Day and New Zealand Memorial flypasts on the 11 November 2006.
(http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DCB30256-6E1C-46CB-AB06-3793F1F4DEFB/0/typhoon1.jpg)
-
Thought this was a pretty cool paint scheme too, pimp my hawk!
(http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/images/limage_06_04_02.jpg)
-
(http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/images/limage_06_04_07.jpg)
-
I hope we choose the Eurofighter next year as a replacement for our F16s. The other two still in the running for the contract has some serious flaws as well as some _very_ good stuff.
Overall the Eurofigher is the best choise and tops one of the competitors and is abit further ahead of the third. Sadly I think the overnment favored the least appealing choise from the get go as we have bought our fighters from them over the last 60 years or so.
-
Thought the F-35A was replacing the F-16....and A-10:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by cav58d
Thought the F-35A was replacing the F-16....and A-10:rolleyes:
and the hornet.. in time
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I hope we choose the Eurofighter next year as a replacement for our F16s. The other two still in the running for the contract has some serious flaws as well as some _very_ good stuff.
Overall the Eurofigher is the best choise and tops one of the competitors and is abit further ahead of the third. Sadly I think the overnment favored the least appealing choise from the get go as we have bought our fighters from them over the last 60 years or so.
The Saab Gripen is better than the Eurofighter IMO. They also can takeoff from a 2625ft. length of runway IIRC.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
The Saab Gripen is better than the Eurofighter IMO. They also can takeoff from a 2625ft. length of runway IIRC.
True and that is one of the reasons it also ranks so high with me.
The main advantage of the EF is that:
A: It is alot faster and can actually meet and greet the russians up north and not be left looking stoopid when the russians fly circles around them. To save money the airforce is closing down a few airfields and the distances they need to cover will be greater. The super cruise that the EF is capable off will also get them there quicker. The EF also has longer range.
B: It has two engines and that can come in handy on those long patrols over the vast ocean and mountain ranges of northern Norway. the majority of the F16 we have lost over the many years we have enjoyed them is engine failiure.
If it were not for A and B then the Gripen would be by far a better choise imo.
-
All pale in comparison to the greatness of Zippy the WonderJet.
(http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRfotmil/F-18EUn.JPG)
/sarcasm
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
True and that is one of the reasons it also ranks so high with me.
The main advantage of the EF is that:
A: It is alot faster and can actually meet and greet the russians up north and not be left looking stoopid when the russians fly circles around them. To save money the airforce is closing down a few airfields and the distances they need to cover will be greater. The super cruise that the EF is capable off will also get them there quicker. The EF also has longer range.
B: It has two engines and that can come in handy on those long patrols over the vast ocean and mountain ranges of northern Norway. the majority of the F16 we have lost over the many years we have enjoyed them is engine failiure.
If it were not for A and B then the Gripen would be by far a better choise imo.
I'm thought that the Gripen is faster? I didn't know the Eurofighter was "suepr cruise" capable though. That is a good benefit economic-wise and safer at the same time.
I don't know, I've always loved the look of that Gripen compared to our Hornets (never cared for em), 16's (bleh). Only 2 US fighters I like are the now phased out Tomcats (SOB's for doing it too), and the Eagle (gonna be phased out).
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I'm thought that the Gripen is faster? I didn't know the Eurofighter was "suepr cruise" capable though. That is a good benefit economic-wise and safer at the same time.
I don't know, I've always loved the look of that Gripen compared to our Hornets (never cared for em), 16's (bleh). Only 2 US fighters I like are the now phased out Tomcats (SOB's for doing it too), and the Eagle (gonna be phased out).
The gripen is 1,8mach i think and the EF is above 2.
The Gripen looks great for sure and the Gripen N that we are beeing offered is a vast improvement on the one in production right now. Afaik it is not faster than the current version tho.
I guess it all comes down to what the politicians favor. Either its the JSF because its american and will be perhaps the best for over-seas offensive operations, or they go with the EF because its the best for defending the country, or the Gripen who is neither bird nor fish but has some other good qualities both politically, economically and in terms of industrial cooperation.
-
Can someone explain to me the reasoning behind replacing the A-10 with the F-35???? Maybe my lack of expertise is showing, but how is a single engine "stealthy" fighter supposed to meet and exceed the roll of a twin engine flying tank in the CAS roll?
-
Originally posted by cav58d
Can someone explain to me the reasoning behind replacing the A-10 with the F-35???? Maybe my lack of expertise is showing, but how is a single engine "stealthy" fighter supposed to meet and exceed the roll of a twin engine flying tank in the CAS roll?
I have wondered the same thing.
It is prolly cheaper to use the F35 and go with fewer types of aircraft in terms of training, maintnance and support etc. Starting up a production line for the A-10 again is going to be super expecive.
-
I just hope that at worst, the F-35 can boast a combat record equal to the A-10 in terms of keeping pilots alive, and providing efficient CAS
-
A little question about the A-10...
They say the 'bathtub around the cockpit can stop a 37mm round. Now, is this a direct hit from an AP 37mm round, or just a near-hit from a fragmenting 37mm HE round?
If it's the former, exactly how thick does that tub have to be to stop something so substantial dead on?
-
It's a titanium tub, for one, so that helps. It's 3.8cm thick, so pretty strong. Dunno how well it does against 37mm direct fire, but it'll take a beating, along with the rest of the plane.
-
(http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/8656/wingcu8.jpg)
-
Look at that wing! Now did the YF-23 have Thrust Vectoring?
-
Nevermind, don't really see how it could.
(http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/4725/02wmfyf233hy9.jpg)
-
hey thats sexy, bet you I could fly one of they let me.
-
i think the P-40 performance on mogas was overmodeled:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
-
Originally posted by cav58d
I just hope that at worst, the F-35 can boast a combat record equal to the A-10 in terms of keeping pilots alive, and providing efficient CAS
They've been trying to replace the A10 with something sexier for years and years. Yet the A10 just goes on and on. The A10 is up there with the it's namesake the P47 Thunderbolt as a classic CAS aircraft. It will probably drag out it's service for years.