5 fighters America SHOULD have gotten 

Okay. I wondered why this occurred. Your response and explanation helps. Mahalo

One wonders whether Lockheed Martin had a better lobby.

It's downfall was that it was more capable than it needed to be at the time. And given how Russia is faring against Ukraine, I think the conservative end of the spectrum was proven right there. We saved money. Probably. Lol.

There’s a lot of factors, upgradability being one of them, F-22 had a lot more space in the airframe to put in newer and redesigned components

@@Administrator_O-5 You also forgot that the F-23 was much harder and more costly to maintain & do routine maintenance on.

F-16 parts and training commonality was just to good to pass up

And it wasn't "just as capable" in many criteria, but the GE APG-67 was amazing for it's size.

F20 was intended for export, not for US service. There was at the time an export ban on the F-16 with regards to the engine. The market window for the F-20 lasted only as long as this ban was in place. Once the ban was lifted and the F-16 was available for export this window closed. It was a no-brainer for countries to buy the F-16 instead.

F20 wouldn't be as upgradable

F20 was an ungraded F5E Tiger II. And it function like the F5E. A very, very quick interceptor. It may have the fastest takeoff acceleration. The improve radar was better than F16 (block A) But have limited hard points. So it's capable for air ground attack, but with it's limited hardpoint, what's the point.

I have also visited this museum and was also stunned by this incredible aircraft. I think there should have been an FB-23 version.

Absurdly large for a fighter though, and forget about visual stealth.

@@maximillianvermontsuperbik2624 You mean like an F-22?

@@maximillianvermontsuperbik2624 Stealth is now old and outdated tech.

The Navy briefly considered a carrier variant of it. Would have been expensive but it would have been epic to have an F-23N in place of the F-35C

Kind of like the story(s) of the Avro Arrow, and the XF-108, with the latter being the escort for the XB-70.

Japan is currently building the Mitsubishi F-X, which looks really close to the VF-23.

It’s a beautiful aircraft!

If the USAF had gone that route I can see use having F23s then current F22 due to cost savings

F-22 for the win

I loved how it looked. But I think the boeing/lockheed people had better contacts than Northrop/McDonnell Douglas did.

@@robertrider1251 why do you think F23s would be cheaper than F22s?

Asking a lot and it would have been very expensive plus it's one thing to take the sled on a long ride , it's another to give it to fighter jocks and tell them to go kill something in the air . Training accidents may have been high .

Especially when you consider that basically as soon as the SR-71 got off the ground and into a flight pattern, it basically needed to be serviced by a tanker. It just wouldn't have been a good interceptor. Too expensive, horrific turn-around time, maintenance issues, fuel issues with aerial-refueling (it ran on JP-7, after all, so it needed its own dedicated tankers), etc. It's just not practical. Would be awesome to see, don't get me wrong, but it just wouldn't be realistic or practical to do. And when you take into account an F-15E is capable of getting up to Mach 2.5 with a clean config... It's not *_that_* much slower with some stores on it. The problem is that at the time getting to Mach 3.3+++ (I am very much in the camp that the SR-71 was much faster than we've been led to believe, I don't think it's the hypersonic "Mach 6 Club" that some think, but Mach 4 or Mach 5 if you're pushing it? ...It's possible. For a short time, anyways.) was just too impractical for an interceptor. Hell, it's still not really practical. (And before anyone goes "But the MiG-25/MiG-31!" - no. The engines on them are limited to Mach 2.83. While the pilot can technically override this and push it to Mach 3.2+, it's at the cost of literally destroying the engine from overspeeding it and is only going to give them a few minutes at that speed.)

@@matchesburn there was only one excuse available for a MIG25 pilot to go at max mach that was he was shooting down a Nuclear attacker.

@@matchesburn Big SR71 fan , read a lot about it . I think Brian Shuel(?) said he hit 3.5 coming out of Libya ( I think thats about max speed ) and and a tech eval I read said Mach 4 was about it for the design if they kept developing it and adding power . Crazy plane , the faster it went the better it's fuel economy became . Kelly Johnson was both a genius engineer and a great leader . Need more of them .

I agree. It was pretty capable from a long-patrol standpoint though, as part of SAC during the cold war. Basically you wouldn't want to scramble them, you'd want some up in key areas "all the time". The bombers did similar endurance patrols depending on the DEFCON rating.

The Swedes have been building badass for decades. They are the epidemy of work smarter not harder.

It's true it's not a novel wing plan, but I don't agree it's being presented as being somehow "invented" for the XL/SCAMP. I take the presentation as simply being new to the F-16.

The 16xl needed canard and the AF generals never wanted any kind F16 .

@@wayausofbounds9255 You mean "epitome". But, I agree. Amazing for a country smaller than the Chicago area in population.

Thank you, I read awhile to see if anybody would remember that sharp and fleet aircraft, good on ya

I knew the Admiral of the pacific fleet and the general of the air force and they told me that you are lying.

@@PetrolHeadWolfComments LOL

What’s Quasar? Who is that pilot? I know who the only pilot is that has flown both aircraft.

When the pilot tells you what the better aircraft is you should listen to them. After all, they're going to be the ones flying it not the DOD!

I last saw my pecker in 2017

Its single engine was a negative factor, especially in the ground attack role. In a twin engine fighter, you can limp home on one engine if the other is killed due to combat damage.

DICK Cheney had a huge role in the Super Tomcat’s cancellation. And now we have….the F35.

ST-21 would’ve been the long range beast that todays navy could use

@@navsparks3192 his name really fits

@@andrewpizzino2514 agree. It had the range, weapons load and sensors (radar/IRST/Video) loaded up in the airframe itself. Not added on like the F/A18E.

And now, ALL F14, on display and boneyard, had been gutted. (Something about Irian will steal the avionics.) Only the airframe left. But I hope Maverick could put his Hayabusa into the stolen F14 and get the Next Gen Tomcat

Not really. The Super Hornet is a far more capable aircraft than the F-14 ever was and has proven this in service.

If by "far more capable" you mean slower, less range, less payload, and unable to intercept enemy aircraft much further from the fleet, then you're absolutely correct.@@dat581

@@dat581; funny joke.

Like what? F18'S Added more pilots to the Navy because Marines fly them also. Now with the F35 are the Marines going to get the carrier capable ones or just the VTOL LHA ones?

@@kurtstergar1042Both and one easy search on google would have told you that.

The F-15 is like a nice sleek muscle car in the sky, and the ACTIVE looks like a vapelord got ahold of it and riced it out lol. Still a cool variation on a proven airframe

I'm not sure what you're talking about molds. Northrop has everything.

Also I would have personally of added the XF8U-3 Crusader III as well.

Honestly, Tigersharks would still be a capable export fighter. Modern radar and sensors and it could hold its own with Rafales or Gripens or Eurofighters or MiG-29s or SU-27s.

@@jjones6606 Everyone who has flown the Tigershark loves it but with a modern radar, fuel, avionics, and hard points, it would have had to be enlarged to have any legs. As a point and shoot it was fine but not for deployment.

@@rudyyarbrough5122 Not to mention the airframe had essentially reached its maximum potential in terms of performance. It was never going to match the F-16 and the only real benefit it offered was being cheaper

@@frankbradley4487 While I like the Super Cruz, I doubt it'd ever enjoy the longevity and versatility of the F4H

Writing and analogies make this unintelligible

@@Administrator_O-5 No that's just an enthusiast conecpt

@@captaron Developing the F-16XL would have been much easier and cheaper because it was based on an existing aircraft . That would save time and money especially in items like the fly by wire control system which was the first of it's kind in a *mass* produced aircraft .

The F16 Viper now has two extra tanks on top of the F16. So fuel range shouldn't be a problem now

@@Administrator_O-5 which is why the F16 XL isn't needed

Yet, Lockheed win most of the contracts. Why? Having a history of working with the CIA gives a lot of leverage when it comes to networking influence with lobbying.

That's not why the F-22 has vectored thrust in the first place, though. Vectored thrust is absolutely a game changer in BFM despite what you may think, but the F-22's vectored thrust was designed to give it a way to maneuver in straight, level flight without using its large, radar-reflecting control surfaces. It's a _stealth_ feature, not a BFM feature, oddly enough.

They are tslking about resurecting it and calling it the Kingviper. I have to say but it would be a winner for a coalition fighter bomber the Eastern European countries and countries like the Philippines and India who are interested in the F-16 fighter would be natural customers for the F-16 XL.

@@joemaloney1019 No. Nobody is talking about the "Kingviper". It's not a real design. Sandboxx invented it and it was just a drawing. Their article said that the Air Force was asking for the Kingviper, but what they really did was take a quote from a general's speech and then draw up a piece of art to fit that quote. It wasn't meant to be taken as a serious design. Just an artist's imagination on what an F-16XL would look like if modernized with lessons from the F-35. However, modern internet journalism is all about speed and copying with little verification, and other websites took Sandboxx's admittedly confusing wording and passed it off as fact.

It was good, but the real successor to the F-5 was the F/A-18 and the F-20 wasn’t doing anything the F/A-18 couldn’t.

@@Justanotherconsumer At $15M a copy, it would have done it much cheaper.

@@spydude38 Not when you factor in OPERATING costs, and the costs of training folks to work on an entirely new design vs a modification of an aircraft they were ALREADY working on.

Macnamara favoring bells and whistles over stone cold practically, if not an outright shill for big corporate over real world capability

+{UCMGpP7AQ7XHxvXhk6eTt-7w} *McDonnell originally pitched Project Phantom II to the Navy as an attack fighter survivable around SAM- and Flak-infested targets;* in this context, the Chance Vought F8U-3N would have been the ideal escort for the F4H-1A, given a fix for the high-G jamming of the quad Mk 12 gun system in the F8U. The Navy saw otherwise; predicted pilot workload in the XF8U-3 was sky-high in an era where the transistor was just past the experimental stage.

far and away better how? worse range, fewer weapons, inferior fleet defense capability and upgrade potential, and horrid A2G capability. The ONLY thing the Crusader III had over the phantom was potential (never demonstrated) max speed and slightly superior maneuverability. There's a reason the Phantom won the flyoff and still remains in service to this day

@@starrynights467 The only possible thing it was better at was raw speed. With proper modification Vought told the USAF that it could be capable of passing to Mach 3. Which is great for an interceptor, not great for an aircraft that's going to be your primary fleet aircraft. Furthermore, Mach 3 or not, as you stated, range is nil.

@@Optimaloptimus Yes, the crusader III was simply the worse choice of the two

The F-20 would have also been a good upgrade choice for nations who were already fielding F-5s. It would have made for a much easier transition for their pilots and ground crew since the F-20 was basically an improved F-5.

@@Riceball01 F-5G before it was renamed to F-20.

And the F-20 probably would've sold if we didn't go straight into foreign sales for F-16s as quickly as we did. I think it was a scenario where it was more politics/corporate collusion than anything else. I mean, countries were still being F-5 variants at the time and there's basically no reason to buy an F-5 variant over the F-20. Even if that would mean operating fewer F-20s than F-5s, it's such a better trade-off for such a small increase in cost that no one should be saying no to it. Unfortunately, the cash strapped nations wanted the largest fleets possible and bought either Soviet and/or F-5s and the nations with cash just weren't going to turn down an F-16 for a Tigershark. There's just too many benefits from adopting the same aircraft that is America's current multirole fighter. The spare parts/logistics alone probably solved that decision for many. My personal opinion? We should've, at the very least, adopted the F-20 Tigershark as a trainer to replace the T-38 Talon. The F-20 would've been a great advanced trainer aircraft. Forgiving, more capable than T-38 or the F-5 and its design and manufacture were easy on the existing logistics while offering ease of maintenance and ease of use. It would've been a fantastic aircraft for pilots to train on.

@@matchesburn I’m still scratching my head why Northrop didn’t pitch the F-20 in the new trainer competition.

@@MildandLazyGuy You mean the most recent one where the Boeing/Saab T-7 Red Hawk won? Northrop did enter, just with a modified/upgraded Hawk airframe: archiveDOTGOHEREph/Wo95F The most likely reason that they didn't pitch the F-20 and didn't seem that committed to the program is because 1.) The F-20 only 3 had prototypes made, so restarting all that and getting the tooling set-up would be a nightmare. I mean, at the time it had been like 36 years since the F-20 first flew. Most of the guys that designed and build the prototypes are either retired or deceased. 2.) Northrop doesn't seem to eagerly go after competition contracts (at least ones like this) anymore because they've slowly caught onto the fact that they've not going to win even if they have the better aircraft. Almost every competition Northrop has entered, they've lost. Sometimes for good reason - The A-10 was a better design than the YA-9. The YF-16 was just a better alternative for the USAF than the YF-17. And... sometimes not so deserving like with the F-20. Or, even worse, where it was outright stolen from them by backroom shenanigans with the YF-23. Add that to the fact that Northrop would be contracted to replace their own aircraft and it was pretty much guaranteed that they wouldn't win regardless, let alone if they pitched the F-20 as a replacement. ...Which is probably fine by Northrop-Grumman, because since the 1990s they've vastly expanded their wheelhouse to have all bases covered and probably make a ton more money than they ever would be winning these questionably done competitions. I mean, they're involved with the SLS program for NASA making booster rockets, they made the new James Webb space telescope, they have the B-21 Raider. And they own Huntington Ingalls Industries which owns Newport News which means basically for the next century or two as long as there's a U.S. Navy with ocean going vessels they'll be making a ton of money building *_something._* I've always said that out of any defense contractor you'd probably be hard pressed to find better engineers than at Northrop-Grumman. Lockheed definitely has the better marketing/PR/second-vacation-home-for-corrupt-leadership financing division/legal department, however. And it shows.

We all do, man.

Two YF-23 were built, and flown extensively. They can both be seen at museums today.

What would have been kind of having both though would have been a carrier capable YF-23. Wouldn't have been the first time the Navy reworked a plane rejected by the Airforce since the F/A-18 started life as the YF-17.

Yes. The Navy doesn't have any standoff capabilities right now. With the advent of hypersonic anti ship missiles, we REALLY need an aircraft that can intercept the launch aircraft BEFORE it gets within weapons range. The Stink Bug just isn't going to cut it. Lacks the fuel range, the radar range, and the weapons range along with the speed to attack aircraft before they get within a 100 mile launch window.

Luckily we’ll be getting the AIM-260 soon, which iirc will outrange the Phoenix significantly, and will probably be guided in by AWACS or stealth groups in the air.

Range is everything for carrier aircraft. It's range that makes the whole $14 billion expenditure work. The Super Hornet just can't do the job for lack of range and that just cripples all those carriers.

While I wish for the same, we'll be getting the F/A-XX in about 10 years time, so the F-14 would finally get a proper replacement

aim 260 will help, but missiles do better when launched at the highest speed. A supertomcat launching a 260 at mach 1.5-2 would go so much farther than a draggy super hornet fully loaded trying to get up to mach 1 at launch of its missiles. A fully combat loaded tomcat has significantly less added drag compared to a fully combat loaded super hornet. Basically cut the top speed in half for the hornet compared to a slick jet. But as you stated, radar is less important as most is done with AWACS and Datalink now. A few stealth drones deployed a few hundred miles ahead of the jet can allow them to launch at basically any range inside the missile WEZ.

doesn't fitting bombs to the exterior of the aircraft ruin it's stealthiness?

The F 14’s mission hasn’t been replaced either . The Navy’s Strike range and weapon load has been greatly diminished without the A6. The carrier groups are now more vulnerable to air launched threats ‘ cruise missiles and bombers , without the F 14 .

baloney, the A-6 mission is replaced very well.

...and the fleet today is not 'more vulnerable'.

@@blackrocks8413 By what?

@@ozzy7763 The US NAVY now does not have a MACH 2.0 + jet... We have jet restricted to 1.8 or even less.

There is still the F5E Tiger II. And the X-29. And the twin engine version the YF-17 Cobra. And the upgraded YF17 became the F18 Hornet. And the granddaddy of the F20 is the T-38 Talon trainer. That was how good and versatile the F5 fuselage is. And if the T38 screw with a F16, the child will be The Lockheed Martin X-59 QueSST ("Quiet SuperSonic Technology"). Cool looking X plane. Do check it out.

The F-20 should have been reverted to the F5H Tiger II - a upgrade for existing aircraft. But I also think the old super Phantom project should have been green lit since it would have made F-4's usable until the 1990's and given much more modern capabilities. Could be I lean towards what could have been budget friendly upgrades.

It had short legs.

USAF opted for a fresh new design instead of an upgraded F-5.

@@dougmillhoff9192 True. It does make sense to choose the more modern design which would have been more advanced and more maneuverable.

F16s have great Range. The XL would be interesting if we reduce weapons loads. A new nose and AESEA would be scary.

I thought at the time that the F-16XL which was designated as the F-16E would be the new F-16 upgraded. And unlike the F-18E/F Super Hornet it would an unqualified upgrade in every objective measure including supercruise capabilty. The Super Bug we all know doesn't have all of the performance as the Legacy F-18 C/D's. The only reason the Blue Angels finally transitioned the Super Hornet was primarily for long airframe time of the C/Ds and for logistical and cost reasons to be in common with rest of the current F-18 fleet.

@@colinw7205 thx! I was curious about the Blie Angels switch. Great info! 👍

The wallet is also an important battlefield.

100% they would. Aircraft that don't make it into production always have a degree of the James Dean effect, whereby their qualities (or potential qualities) are massively overstated - how many production aircraft never lived up to the early hype, while their weaknesses are either ignored or remain unknown because the program hadn't continued long enough for them to appear. Designs can look amazing on paper or as a prototype but going from that to a production aircraft is a massive undertaking where loads can go wrong. People seriously underestimate how much work that involves, especially with getting the systems and sensors right so they'll see a flying demonstrator and think it's almost ready for production, when in reality most of the work hasn't been done yet.

Probably so, we always want what we can’t have.

Definitely. The YF23 would have shared many of the problems that people criticized the F-22 for. The biggest problem with the F-22 is ironically that it's production was cut short, which had huge logistical impacts as economies of scale and adequate spares were never realized

I believe the YF 23 was the perfect platform to field 5th and 6th generation technology.

​@@marseanharper2785but in an alternate reality you believe the f22 was the perfect platform.

I think if YF-23 win, they will have hard time with the internal bay. Unless they change it to Su-57 and TFX internal bay

Only in Ace Combat is where they have these canceled and prototype fighter jets on their own fictional world. Plus IRL and fictional fighter jets as well.

Unless F-23 internal bay not stacking the bomb/missile like YF-23 does, F-23 can't be a better platform. YF-23 internal bay not giving the pilot the flexibility of using the weapon they carry due to how it set up.

what? are you telling me fighter planes dont hold 180 missiles and are immune to G-forces?

yea cause of it design, i think the yf23 may have being a bit more unstable like the b2 and require more computing power to control and with 90s tech, the f22 would have being a more reliable fighter. given tech and computing power just 20 years later, the yf23 would have being a beast in fights and many nation re revisiting the yf23 design for 6th gen fighter now that we have the cp power to manage it design instability.

Yf -23 needs to be put in production

Get a job

The reason why they went to F-22 instead of YF-23 the F-22 had a bigger payload and was more maneuverable

@@Tanker000 I never thought the F-23 was anywhere near as maneuverable as the F-22. I'm just left to wonder why they only made so many Raptors, and why there are so many newish videos promoting the Widow.

One downside to the the F-16XL was that it needed a lot of runway (like, the whole runway) compared to the standard F-16 design. That's mainly due to the extreme sweep of the majority of the wing. It would still have been a great addition to supplement the Strike Eagle fleet.

@@MothMizzle - A good point that proves that there is no free lunch, especially when it comes to aircraft design.

@@ThatsMrPencilneck2U The Raptor production was cut due to military budget cuts. Northrop tried to get the Navy to adopt the NATF-23 Sea Widow, but the combination of the NATF and A-12 programs went way beyond their budgets. The F-23 has gained mythic status, like the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow. People who don't really understand the ATF decision, make all sorts of preposterous claims about the F-23, like it is a "6th Gen fighter". The YF-23 had a higher projected unit cost, and it traded agility for range (and possibly stealth).The Russians and Chinese haven't come close on stealth/RCS to the F-35, much less the F-22. Northrop looked like it had the A-12 and B-2 contracts, the DoD/USAF wanted a second major contractor for stealth aircraft, and the F-22 was better in some important metrics.

An officer in charge of F-14 then F/A-18 wings said for a two-plane mission with the Tomcat, he learned the hard way to always prepare THREE aircraft. And he never had to do that with the Hornets.

It was more politics, yes it was high maintenance at the time, but the D was better and the future upgrades would have been even better. At the time of it's retirement the Tomcat was the premier fighter, dominating ACM/ATG missions vsw bothe other Naval aircraft and Air Force aircraft.

I've never read any accounts that stated that the F-14 was "dominating" ACM missions vs all comers. I've read the basic "pilot skill is the determining factor" stuff, but never that the Tomcat was simply the best dogfighter available. Most accounts I've read from pilots squarely puts the F-15C in the lead over the F-14B/D in most scenarios not involving the AIM-54 at extreme ranges. The Tomcat could turn tighter if the speeds dropped and those huge wings extended.. but the Eagle enjoyed massive thrust-to-weight and sustained turn at speed advantages.

@@control_the_pet_population Was on several Red Flag detachments with 2 different Tomcat squadrons (VF-41 and VF-14) mid 80's to early 90's and our pilots came back victors more often than not in the ACM flights as both aggressors and defenders. That was with the A model.

@rodneywillissr9489 Fair enough. The Israelis tested both and considered the Tomcat a distant 2nd place and bought the Eagle... I'm sure a big chunk comes down to individual pilot skills, tendencies, training, etc. Both were undoubtedly quality aircraft.

It was not cheap lol. It was pretty much a complete redesign of the airframe. F15 was much simpler as it didn’t require almost an entirely new production line and tooling. Let alone the tech to mass produce the XL wasn’t available at the time.

@@dondelchulia3189 I doubt it was a "complete redesign." They likely had alot of interchangeable parts that would have saved alot of money.

@@Noisy_Cricket It was a complete new design. Nearly zero of any part of the structural airframe of the XL had any commonality with the F-16. Coupled with the fact that the F-15D already existed and with a full production line, and the resulting F-15E outperforming the F-16XL in every single performance metric there is in term of deep interdiction and strike.. this was an absolute no-brainer. As taxpayers, at least we know we got our money’s worth with the correct aircraft. This is evident with the Strike Eagle’s stellar combat record and incredible amount of exports.

@@dan725 While I agree with you in general, that the F-15E was the clear winner of the competition and made much more sense from a production standpoint... the XL wasn't a "complete new design". Both XL airframes were rebuilt F-16A's. They share the same nose, fuselage, landing gear and vertical stabilizer. Granted the fuselage was extended with plugs... and I'm sure the landing gear would have required additional strengthening for the production model... but they had a level of commonality that was much higher than "nearly zero".

Thank Dick Cheney, the 1991 secdef who wanted the Super Tomcat killed due to a raging hateboner for Grumman.

@@ricktoconnor Do you know why he hated Grumman?

Logistics cost maintenance and operational issues have entered the chat

The Super Hornet is actually a completely new design. McDonnell Douglas and the Navy made it look like the F/A-18 to slip it in as an economical "upgrade". There is practically no parts commonality between the two planes.

Thx old guy. Didn’t the Hornet lose to the F16? I heard they are maintenance intensive.

@@TamagoHead F18 won for the Navy due to the Navy huge preference for dual engines on aircraft when possible.

@@bricefleckenstein9666 👍I think dual engines is almost a must for carrier-based air assets.

@@TamagoHead None of the World War II carrier fighter designs were dual engine - but the Navy has been insistent on them for jets where possible. There have been exceptions though, like the A-7.

@@bricefleckenstein9666 Thank you. 👍 My dad was in SAC and there is still some mild rivalry.

YF-22 "ready for production". And yet it took 6 years from contract award to first flight. As IIRC the first planes were missing a lot of capability. Would McDonnell Douglas have done worse than that dismal record? Who knows.

Both YF-23s did less than 60 hours testing, any ideas that the YF-22 were "better dogfighters" were perception not proven. Also the F-22 suffered years of delays, setbacks and cost overruns to the point that the airforce cut their orders to a fraction of what was originally ordered.

@@corporalpunishment1133 Yes, there is irony to thinking Lockheed wouldn't also have massive cost overruns, but that was the hope. The Lockheed team had a more aggressive demonstration program, that really showed off its thrust vectoring. The YF-23 had not included thrust vectoring for better stealth, and its demo pilots did not push the envelope as far. The perception was that F-22 would be the better dogfighter, and a simpler design. The YF-23 also had a slightly higher projected unit cost. Read the history!

Might want to actually see the documentary about the ATF... USAF was pretty much already locked into getting the Raptor, and basically just gave NorthrupGrumman a pity test aircraft contract almost outside of the window where they would have had time to build a flying prototype. They didn't expect the plane to be produced in such a short time and be as good as it was. However, the Air Farce cut the testing period short before the YF-23 had any shot at really proving itself. Yes, the development weapons bay was a mess but would have been resolved before full production like the issues in the Raptor (remember, 6 years between the ATF competition and full production... this is a lifetime in aircraft development). Who was SECDEF at the time of the ATF? That would be "I have a beef with Grumman" Dick Cheney, the same jackhole who killed the F-14 Tomcat.

@@danielvogel5252 There were legitimate reasons to choose the F-22 based on performance, and other factors beyond how the YF-23 fared in the fly-off. Because the YF-23 wasn't chosen, it has gained mythic status, much like the Avro CF-105 Arrow. People make outrageous claims like the YF-23 was actually 6th Gen, when nobody has even defined what distinguishes a 6th Gen fighter. Similarly, there are Canadians who claim the CF-105 Arrow was so advanced, it would still be in service today, in place of the CF-18. The YF-22 and YF-23 each had their strengths, and despite some claims the YF-23 was stealthier, the F-22 Raptor remains the stealthiest fighter in the world, by a large margin. The ugly truth is the Air Force is run by Generals who are mostly former fighter pilots, and some extra agility due to thrust vectoring was probably more appealing than extra range. The F-22 just seemed more fun to fly, and that was a large factor.

You do understand that all the Tomcat needed was a couple more upgrades and they compromised by taking an aircraft that is less capable AND a fully new build aircraft, right? There is ZERO commonality between the legacy Bug and the Stink Bug other than the engines and the basic shape of the plane.

@@danielvogel5252 the Tomcat was too heavy, too complicated and too air to air focused. The F14 is a fine aircraft. However, aircraft like the Hornet and Super Hornet win wars. F14s are excellent for aerial superiority, but are outclassed in every other aspect of combat.

@@jimmyw7530 Obviously you have not been paying attention to US Naval aviation in the past 20 years. In the F-14's finals years of service it demonstrated excellent air to ground performance with the addition of some USAF FLIR pods and other equipment. Remember the "Bombcat" ??? The F-14D did hundreds of long range air to ground sorties with big payloads that the F/A-18F's can't now do. At least without massive buddy tanker support.

@@colinw7205 so the F14 Bombcat was replaced by some stand-off munitions carried by more modern aircraft at a fraction of the cost. Let it go, the F14 has had it’s day and now the world has moved on. Iran scored most of the air to air kills in the F14 anyway. The US Navy made it’s decision, it’s time for the fanboys deal with it.

@@jimmyw7530 No I'm being an overly emo F-14 fanboy. Any objective observer can see that the USN has lost significant capabilities since the retirement of the F-14D's that it desperately wishes it wants to have back now. Not only in a peer to peer hypothetical conflict with the PRC but also these so called "low grade" conflicts like the Afghanistan War that we constantly find ourselves getting into. This is my origianl post I made today. Give a gander. USAF's massive purchase of the F-15 EX Eagle II is proof positive the they learned the lessons of the their USN Naval Aviation's brothers' debacle of the Super Bug compromise in their not picking the ASF F-14 Super Tomcat. The new secret sauce for the 21st century is not the Hi/Lo mix of the 1970's ala F-15/F-16 and F-14/F-18 but a mix of Gen 5 (stealth) and Gen 4+++ with increased firepower and payload along with state of the art avionics over their original iteration of the 1970s. The F-18 E/F are Super "Meh" aircraft for a combat aircraft that was deployed in the early 21st century. Though it has more range than their Legacy C/D counterparts but they are not as maneuverable or as fast (though marginally less so than the C/Ds.It can't go supersonic a sea level something which modern fighters from the 1960's were expected to do). While it is a major upgrade of air to ground capability to the Legacy Hornets but it is also tasked with fleet defense for the foreseeable future while it is a serious downgrade to it's predecessor and while the potential adversary has increased their capabilities. Let's face it the best flattop based fighter in service in the world today is the French Mirage Rafale-M

Surprise pikachu face

I think but I may be wrong but I’m almost positive that the yf-23 already had its internal weapons bays built into the airframe and I’m almost positive it was even carrying missiles but just did not fire one off in its demonstration as where the yf-22 actually fired one off while doing one of its final demonstration runs and if I’m not mistaken it may have had a bigger weapons bay thank the F-22 also

@@viktor_v-ughnda_vaudville_476 agree

I think they went with the EX because of compatibility and easier to maintain with an already existing support infrastructure and experience.

@@fingerzinger5799 the F-22 was suppose to replace the F15 but price tag, the 2001 and 2008 economic crash make the F22 too expensive so they were force to keep the remaining F15. the F35 was design for for multi-role so air superiority was still maintain by the aging F15 and new F22. F35 multi-role were to replace the F16, F18 and harrier. Since F22 is closing to 30 years already, rather then re-open production for it, they would just replace aging F15 with the new F15 EX and hold out for the 6th Gen fighter.

Air Force magazine info-graphic. www.airforcemag.com/PDF/MagazineArchive/PublishingImages/2019/May%202019/F-15.F-35_Vertical.v30.pdf

The navy has no real need for an F-22 equivalent and it would have been insanely expensive to produce and field. There's a reason we saw less than 200 F-22s produced. The F-35 is neither slow nor fat and with its new engine that is going to be integrated into airframes starting very soon, it will only get faster. The A variant has maneuverability that matches (or even exceeds) that of the F-16 and the B and C variants are not far behind. The F-14 program was far too expensive and the additions would have made it more so (The F-14 costed roughly the same per airframe as the F-22 when adjusted for inflation). It was also a nightmare to service. While it was an extremely impressive and capable aircraft, it was just too expensive to justify the cost.

Not really. They’re similar in looks only. The design goal of SCAMP was to test the supersonic transport wing design on a fighter jet; so each had completely different design goals.

@@dan725 >> Agreed. F-16XL was a cranked arrow, Draken was a double delta…both supremely innovative though! Draken is one of my favorite planes ever.