Japan Brings Back To Life Modernized YF-23 

Funny the F-22 turned out being cancelled because it was so expensive and behind its expected production date.

Is there a quote or statement you could provide a reference to? What was the commander's name?

The irony is painful

Actually both aircraft met the requirements that's what 1 of the 2 test pilots said, I think metz said that.

@@liamseven1604 Yes. Maybe I wasn't clear. They both met the requirements. The F-23 was better, but the F-22 also met the requirements and was cheaper.

these faux military news channels always work like this. none of these videos are ever worth watching

Exactly 👍🏻

Yeah, there is already another video on youtube about this from about a year ago.

Thanks for the TLDR

i remember hearing about a year ago that northrup is gonna help japan develop a new stealth bomber with the yf23 design, now it turned to fighter? dunno what's up

......and the F22 DOES possess supercruise capability without afterburner.....

@@snoopy9568 not only that there is one man who flew both the YF-23 and the YF-22. There is a reason why the YF-22 was picked. Being able to turn in zero air speed and get a missile off completely decimated the YF-23. The YF-23 had no answer. So you could set up a scenario with the YF-23 trailing the YF-22 and the YF-22 could in essence turn around in defense and fire at the YF-23. If it is the other way around the YF-23 is completely defenseless. All of this is hog wash anyways. There is a reason why F-22’s are no longer produced. The next generation are unmanned AI jets. Exceeding speeds past the SR-71 Blackbird and pulling G’s not humanly possible. There is a top pilot that went head to head with AI and lost 5 times in a row, in simulation. What we are seeing is the last generation of manned jets.

@@kingsolo6241 I hear what you're saying but there are so many variables to be accounted for in a combat environment. Since most close in air combat occurs in the 350 - 450Kt regime, there is little opportunity for fighters to bleed off that much energy to get to zero air speed fast without making a mess out of the pilot. This is very similar to the type of tactics German pilots used in WWI flying the Fokker Dr1 which could achieve a momentary direction reversal to fire off a burst but at a much slower airspeed combat environment to begin with. At the end of the day, this is a defensive move (which is why the Dr1 was replaced in service) and in today's environment that manoeuvre induces extreme g-forces on the pilot and assuming he hasn't blacked out, he has to attempt split second gun/missile acquisition, lock-on and release making the real world a little harsher than a fly-off between two very large fighters (and maybe the F22 needed vectored thrust in the first place to make up for a loss of manoeuvrability due to size/weight??) In any case, I don't know of any documented cases of this occurring in combat. The literature I've read by different analysts all negate the possibility of this tactic being successful in the real world - just like "viffing" in the Harrier. Too many questions, not enough answers..... My understanding why the F22 was withdrawn from service was because its operating costs per hour were extremely high, the O2 generation caused harm to the pilots and it was not multi-role - features which the F35 was supposed to alleviate (I don't know how give the tiny weapons bay and the flight software problems that still exist!). I agree regarding AI Drones, however, my original remark about hardware/software still stands - not too long ago, Chinese manufactured computer hardware provided backdoors into FBI servers which begged the question at the time, how many other occurrences of intrusion have not been detected - think Huawei. This could be a catastrophic problem in any future AI program. Add to this, digital/hive communications need to be made far more secure - especially with so many Chinese military satellites being launched just in the last twelve months. I think you are right about manned flight, but I hope not - I'm terrified of Skynet! Change the rules - Gravitics!

@@snoopy9568 it boils down to this. If a F-23 is trailing a F-22, the F-22 has great opportunity to turn and retaliate. Being at zero air speed gives you the moment to get a missile off. If it is the other way around the F-23 is defenseless. It has no counter. What the whole F-22 vs F-23 was about was the pilot being able to get home safely.

​@@kingsolo6241 I may have misunderstood your meaning. I thought you were arguing that in close in combat (dogfight) this tactic would be used but I now think that you are saying that at BVR or just inside, and if this is so, I agree that the tactic (although zero airspeed is a stretch, but I take your point) may be used with a good chance of loosing off a missile - but so does the aircraft closing in - an opportunity to retaliate does not in itself guarantee success. However, in a dogfight, which is what the original thread discussed, all would agree that there would just be no time to acquire, lock and fire a missile - the best that can be hoped for is a quick squeeze of 20mm, and hence why analysts like Sprey argue that previous gen fighters are, all things being equal, just as capable without the overblown costs - particularly when dealing with a determined or numerically superior enemy. The past 30 years has not produced this, but the future may provide a rude awakening for us if current events are any indicator. In a previous life when I worked on several fighter types, F-22 pilots stated how embarrassingly easy it was to close in to F-15s who hadn't detected them and achieve first shot success on exercises - normally at BVR or just inside, however when close in, the advantage was quickly lost and it came down to the better pilots who had to rely on cannon and since most combat occurs in this regime, the situation rapidly changes. (Even the aircraft shot down by Navy F-14s carrying 110nm range Phoenix missiles used shorter range missiles because they had to get in close and ID the targets). This speaks to mission parameters. Fighters aren't sent into action just so they can come home. With fighters it is generally, air supremacy, interception and escort (unless MR like the F-18). These roles are about achieving mission success and stopping the enemy from achieving theirs and/or controlling airspace and this is the main rationale behind stealth - get in unseen and fire first. Getting home is what you think about after all of that is done.

Thank you about to point out the issues my self

I appreciate you points and corrections. They are well listed and detailed. The F-23 was the faster of the two without afterburner, it was especially fast in supercruise with the GE engines. The F-23 was the stealthier of the two. The F-23 was however a higher risk program that would likely have had more cost overruns and time delays. With its longer range the F-23 would be a great addition for Japan to defend their large amounts of ocean. That is perhaps the real subject of this video. These were nicely detailed points you made

Yes this video is all fantasy, full of misinformation and stories. YF-23 looks pretty, compared to the F-22’s more utilitarian style, but the F-22 was superior in every way - more stealthy, more maneuverable, better dogfighter, equally capable of supercruise and similar speeds, etc. There’s been a weird resurgence of interest in the YF-23 on RU-vid lately, but the F-22 was the superior aircraft, the right design approach, and the right choice for the Air Force.

@@andrewday3206 F-23 was not the stealthier of the two, the F-22 was. Lockheed invented stealth with the F-117 and had the top-secret computer algorithms for shaping an aircraft to maximally deflect radar, and those had only gotten better by the time of the ATF project.

@@5133937 With respect, you need to do more research. The F-23 was the faster and stealthier of the two. The F-22 was more nimble and was less risky from a development point. No Northrop was not behind in the stealth field, they built and designed the B-2 Spirit! The B-2 used more advanced computer modeling than Lockheed used. That is why the Lockheed Have Blue and F-117 used flat surfaces. It is also why the Northrop Tacit Blue and B-2 used curved blended surfaces. The F-22 was an easier, cheaper and less risky project. The F-23 was faster and stealthier. The F-23 also had longer range.

People who keep saying "by the time you built a 1990s concept jet, the 6th gen jet will already have arrived, too" are saying you shouldn't buy your current top end iPhone or Samsung... you should wait until the next phone arrives. That is silly, since when the "next phone" arrives, you could use that same logic and say, "I'll wait until the one AFTER this one, too" to buy it. Anyway, as you noted: NG has already tested two YF-23 with its truly semi-revolutionary tail-end design (totally different from all other fighter jets from the early 1900s to the F-22 and F-35, all still very traditional in their vertical stabilizers). Japan doesn't need to spend $2B - $5B doing all that heavy lifting that NG had to do in the 1980s and 90s. You make about 30% refinement and modification to the YF-23 and you will NOT get a "next gen jet" better than it is for another 30-50 cycle of years, of top end fight jet building... so building the semi-revolutionary YF-23 isn't building a 1990s concept fighter jet. Rather, it is building a fighter jet that no other traditional fighter jet, not even the F-22, could match (again, in the next 30 - 50 years) in speed and in stealth --- the two most crucial metrics Japan must have, for it to deal with a giant and aggressive neighbors like China, which does have decent stealth jets... The engine, electronic, avionics, computation, coating, fabrication, etc. are, of course, going to be at least as modern as what the mid range F-35 has. Japan's own Mitsubishi Heavy Industries-licensed/built F-15 and F-16 are about 2-3 times as expensive as America's F-15 and F-16 and at least twice as good, too, so there's no doubt, working with NG, that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries would crank out a modified F-23 that would just blow everyone out of the water, for now and for the next 30 - 50 years... From Okinawa to its most remote little islands by the east coast of Taiwan wouldn't be any problem, for an F-23 size jet, with two engines, almost twice the upper speed, and about twice the fuel the mid range F-35 has.

@@kiabtoomlauj6249 Your points are all valid, that is why I suggested it could be used as developmental base platform for the the cost savings in R&D. That is not to say build it but improve upon. All the preliminary tests are done.

the YF23 airframe is a dated design. we have since greatly improve on aerodynamic. and since everything else is build for the airframe, changing the airframe mean everything would be obsolete. you are better off starting from the ground up. especially when designing an aircraft, the biggest factor is it operational requirement and japan is physically a very different country. we can see this gap different in the chinese variation of aircraft. asia pacific fighter requires longer operation range to cover the ocean, there are no bases for them to land. US fighter are never design for this. while the F16 and F15 could be equiped with confronting fuel tank, you can't do that with a stealth fighter, it is either design for that range, or it isn't.

@MrMagOOo Documents? Im sure that stuff is all stored electronically and easily searched by typing in relevant terms.

@MrMagOOo I’m not saying you are totally correct But I’m saying I feel this pain Edit- fell to feel

Don't forget that he kept saying the f-22 had to use after burners to reach mach 1.5, which is completely incorrect

yeah, the tails on the 23 were nearly the size of f 35 wings. it didnt need vectoring, the issue with the cooling tiles and replacing them was a little issue to, but im sure that technology has since evolved tenfold.

@@profo4544 yeah, the tiles were all hand-laid Mertz said. They simply did that because it was more expedient than trying to make a jig and a process JUST for the two prototypes. Had they been selected, they'd have of course improved that: it would not have been a by-hand installation for mass production. I can't admire the YF-23 enough, I think it was simply the bad taste the USAF had over the B-2 and its delays, along with the requisite politics involved that led to the 23 being down-selected. Like many I believe it was the better jet....

The expert company who invented the incredible F15... got shafted. That pretty much ended the beneficial diversity of American aerospace.

seems like this guys channel always has wrong info..

Macross

By 2040 the tech behind the YF-23 will be obsolete. The 6th generation fighters currently in development will be the future.

@@martinjrgensen8234 not entirely, the body design of the yf23 would still be valid in 2040. It's not like they will use old tech, and old engines. They would more likely use the YF23 frame as the base for their new Model.

2030 is the new timeline to replace F-22

US already has a 6th gen fighter designed and flown. . that will be the replacement for the f22 around 2030. What this does is give an ally a great acft but also opens up the possibility of the US ordering some off of the Japanese funded assembly line.

THE F-23 WOULD RARELY BE PUT IN A COMPROMISED POSITION BECAUSE OF ITS SPEED AND STEALTH IT TRUELY COULD PICK IT'S BATTLES AND WHEN THE CHOICE MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE

I totally Agree! It would be a monumental waste of Superior engineering to let the YF-23 just fade into oblivion. I am sure in the hands of the Japanese it will be amazing! I hope they get it!

They won't buy any, they're developing a new aircraft. I love the YF-23 but it's old tech, hopefully whatever Japan makes looks as sexy and performs as amazing (if not better) as the YF-23.

Especially since Japan (as close as it is to China, not to mention that their many islands are quite spread out, so the ability for super-cruising is even better - especially since Japan is currently establishing a military base on an island close to Taiwan! They are one of Taiwan's closest allies after all and might even defend it when China invades!) needs the capabilities and range of this craft (seriously: 6 Minutes of supersonic flight for a modern combat-aircraft? Who approved this? If that guy is still around: FIRE HIM! Seriously, that is so underwhelmingly bad that it boggles the mind!)...IMHO over all the YF23 looks like the superior aircraft, especially since dog-fighting is a thing of the past! Modern aircraft use missiles and avoid dogfights (especially since they are riskier on the pilots themselves - high G-Forces, chance of passing out etc.!)

@@dreamingflurry2729 Are you smoking weed? Japan isn't going to defend anyone. They "might" defend themselves....The Japanese people are not going to lift one finger to send troops to Taiwan's aid.

Home Court Advantage especially in the South. 😉

i remember that, you are right!!!

political mitivated

...any more, I look at the personal and political advantage rather than best qualified. Politicians are not what they used to be and have a different set of standards. I too think the YF-23 should have scored higher based on all the information available online.

No. It had better stealth and longer range and the raptor better maneuverability and a couple more internal spaces for missiles. The main reason it lost was Northrop Grumman’s reputation for test fraud and massive cost overruns ie: B-2 Spirit.

Ah Macross Plus, brings back good memories.

Yes. The YF-21

Well imagine , they made Gundam statues and a movable Rx-78 , i wouldn't be surprised if they actually develope a VF-1 or Vf-0 pheonix, but itll be fucking badass to see one

@@hi-macsiii9039 why can’t we do more cool shit like that stateside. I mean just make a giant mech for the thrill of it. So badass.

@@noneed4me2n7 agreed

It is a beautiful aircraft!

Well yf 23 wasn't a 5th gen it's actually a 6th generation fighter.

@@RSC0011 the YF-23 and s actually just a very basic demonstrator and not even close to being a 5th Gen fighter because It was never developed!!!

@@xyzaero ok then

The us navy should’ve pushed for a naval version of the yf23

@@charlesfollette9692 it was always one of the other never be both. The issue with new air Fighters is you can't just split a contract and order a few from each. Did you see three companies competing for the government contract and the more fires that are ordered the lower the price gets on the fighters. It's not a small difference in price, because they have to recoup the money that they spent I'm building new construction yards, new assembly lines, fire new labor, paying the technicians and Engineers who don't get paid per aircraft that's sold. So to even make it worth a defense contractors time to invest all that time, work, and money besides the size of the contract has to be discussed ahead of time. Say for example Hereafter 500 Fighters over the next 10-15 years, you can't wait till they both design the final prototype and that's only say you know what I only want 250 from each of you. They would both walk away from the deal and you want to get either. The only way to have gotten both of them would have been to by the prior agreed on number of crafts from each of the defense contractors. Which means you would have to literally double your 5th generation air superiority defense budget, which Congress would never agree to. Now say as an example you want a small contract to buy like 20 f-15s, you'll be allowed to do that without having to pay for a huge 500 more aircraft contract. That's because the F-15 construction yard, assembly lines, and F-15 Workforce is still assembled in filling orders for other countries so they wouldn't have to pay all that money to do it all over again. The only required to buy big contracts with any fighter project who currently doesn't have a base of operations and assembly line active. We just went to that issue last year when they were debating in Congress on whether or not to relaunch the F-22 program. They said it would cost just about the same amount of money that we're going to spend on the sixth generation fighter program. They knew that Chinese and Russian 5th generation were close to being complete, so they had to decide between two possible projects. The first option was relaunched the F-22 since we already have blueprints for a working model will be much quicker than the 6th generation, but you take the Gamble that if you do that and China's and Russia's 5th generation Fighters end up being stronger, then your shit out of luck cuz it won't be enough time cancel it and focus on the sixth generation. The second option was just invest towards the sixth generation which will take longer, but it will have 100% guarantee to be much more powerful then the Chinese and Russian 5th generation. And since they started using 3D printing technology and computer as well as computer simulation programs they can reduce the timeframe needed for research and assembly down to about 1/10 of the time is it used to take. So because of everything listed above the door of opportunity for the US to own any new F-22 or yf-23 anytime in the future is forever closed.

No,you're not the only one.

If they stayed out of Godzilla's range to just reach up and grab them for once, a biplane would be more effective against Godzilla than what we've seen.

It Seems the design of their F-X 6th gen fighter is based of of the YF-23

The Cobra is an overrated move. It has no application outside of an airshow. In combat all it would do is make you more vulnerable.

@@davidrice4165 Would possibly give the pilot a last chans for a snapshot. But if missed Im guessing you´re a sitting duck since you bled of all speed.

@@hansoskarsson9985 assuming it's 1v1 that's a very slim maybe. His trailing aircraft will see him slowing down, and just go vertical. The cobra aircraft might have half a second of time to acquire and shoot. All that means nothing if the opposing aircraft has his wingman with him.

@@davidrice4165 "His trailing aircraft will see him slowing down, and just go vertical" Or maybe just blast him out of the sky. When you pull up sharply without introducing an element of roll while shedding shit tons of speed like that you are as close to a nice neat stationary target as it gets in air to air combat. And you know what's nearly as bad? You have also made yourself as big of a target as is physically possible by neatly presenting the top of the aircraft to shoot at.

@@hansoskarsson9985 In a DOGFIGHT this is a not very good move. Ground based SAMs on the other hand have doppler radars which lock with the frequency shift that you have when flying towards or away from the radar. A Cobra manoeuvre can make a ground based SAM lose lock because you are now standing still relative to the radar.

Me too, The YF-23 has a better shape is looks like a futuristic sci-fi airplane

The YF-22 was the better aircraft which is why it was selected. Maybe not as pretty as the YF-@#, but a better performer.

What? It's not even pretty at all

@@j9313150a no, the wing angles are all wrong. It looks like a flying kiwi

@@davidrice4165 You should do more research lol.

The YF-23 WAS my favorite. I hope it comes back.

Agreed, “you can see a long way on the shoulders of giants” great head start

@@steverichardson6920 head start being that the plane is already completed, we did all the work , and it is over twenty years but still appears well beyond anything out there ,all they may want to is add a few things, also this would put them ahead of the threat they now face rather than playing catch up, it's to are advantage if the Japanese are better able to defend themselves I think most would agree, thanks for your reply.

10.10.9875.

Throw in a 55mm GU-11 Gatling Gun Pod, and I'm all on board!

Have you seen the size of the Chinese navy? It's airforce? It's army? I don't think they are too worried.

@@billharrington4247 As a retired Marine with tactical experience , I can tell you , it doesn't matter how big China's military is in comparison to America's military, China would be devastated by the destruction of their command and control as well as being out flanked in the South China sea by USN carrier battle groups that are almost impenetrable, this does not take into account the Japanese and UK navies, one more thing China has no battle experience on the high seas or air to air. These are HUGE factors.

@@michaelmancini5773 What country has experience on modern warfare?

Good point

So does all fifth generation aircraft including the YF-23. The YF-23 has a higher supercruise speed than the others.

@@joeclaridy Just saying this video facts are either completely wrong or very misrepresented, for one the YF-23 and F-22 have the same super cruising speed (Define as going super sonic without afterburner) which is Mach 1.8 and only the F-22 and YF-23 are the only 5th gen fighter jets to to be able to super cruise.

The F-35 can't supercruise. It was in the initial requirements but it was dropped because the aircraft had to be relatively fat (bomb bays + a lot of fuel) but short enough for the amphibious assault ships lifts used by the F-35C version.

@@manuairborne- Technically, you are correct. However, the F-35 can do mach 1.2 dashes for a short duration, without the use of afterburner. It just can't maintain that speed for an extended length of time.

the f35 cant supercruise.

What are you talking about? The F-35 is famously known for being a poor dogfighter. Poor instantaneous turn ate AND sustained turn rate. It just loses energy too quickly. The only thing it really has going for it in a dogfight is the aircraft's ability to track enemy aircraft that fly into a blind spot and display it to the user. That said, it'll win against a 4th gen fighter nine times out of ten before it even gets to that point.

Thrust vectoring doesn't bleed too much speed per say. The relation is that, thrust vectoring allows the aircraft to pull high angle of attack, and that logically bleeds speed. The YF-23 having comparable maneuverability, even without the use of thrust vectoring, would still result in a similar energy state. That aspect would rather be impacted by the airframe design (including everything really, its curves, weight, thrust output etc.)

Just make it a Macross YF-21 or VF-22 then I'd be happy.

Or giant moths.

Mecha-Godzilla.

transformable mergeable giant flying jet that can shoot bullets, missiles and kamehameha, and have to be piloted by a man and a woman simultaneously from the only single seat it has. /too much anime.

Or rebuild WWII battleships into spacecraft!

Which one?

@@Matthew-Anthony both

@@catcat7910Which one has the better stealth system?

@@Matthew-Anthony good question. I assume that it’s pretty much the f23 when it came to stealth

@@catcat7910Is the F23 better than the F-22 Raptor?

oh elon musk you mean the guy who "came up" with concepts that are over a hundred years old such as the subway and calling it the hyper loop... yeah no one cares what the opinions are of a rich guy whos though processes are akin to that of a childs. "flying rockets will replace airlines", " will build tunnels under the ground and vacuum all that air for improved efficiency."

We're still far away to developing AI smart enough to behave like human pilot.

It would lack creativity and ability to adapt to the situations.

@@mitri5389 agreed, but he's on the right path for rockets and cars though...

@@ilham7345 Actually, AI pilots are already beating human ones in one-on-one fights

Oh I don't know about that. If the YF23 was going to be adopted it would've been used as an interceptor because of its performance characteristics. The F22 actually has the ability to create angles of attack that make it perfect for a dogfight.

F22 shouldnt dogfight, it is a jack of all trades, but it would be too risky for dogfighting

the reason why the YF 22 won is because it has better maneuverability

money laundering is done much easier on things you work on rather than having reliability.

f22 was never exported to the rest of the nato and its production line is no more. f35 was rated a flying pig by australia's air forces and was rated as a bad aircraft even by the us. the russians had a vtol , the yak 141 but it was cancelled. vtols are far too expensive and need FULLY INDEPENDENT ENGINES to work correctly. you cant drain energy from another engine and split it into more. it is too slow.

@@d4r1us18 What American ever called the F-35 bad, Sprey?

@@t65bx25 one of the countries where the f35 was exported called it a flying pig.

Agreed

I agree . Politics killed the YF-23

@@jamesmitchell7281 many people knew that Cheney is Lockheed man.

You know what was unconventional? The F-117. The Air Force loved that plane. Shoots your bullshit statement to hell.

@@davidrice4165 LOL F-117 is Lockheed, which means the AF had to love it, due to all the bribes that Lockheed pays to generals and congressmen.

Both "matched and exceeded" all requirements. But Lockheed had more convincing and aggressive flight schedule (that's how F-14 won Iranian deal in time), Lockheed not only build to requirements but asked USAF what they really want and answer was "Super F-15" and Lockheed built exactly that. YF-23 had more controversial and less spacious weapons bay. Also, Lockheed wasn't building any fighter back then, and Northrop had hands full with Hornets and B-2 (with cost overrruns). Also, for some reason Navy was still allowed to vote. Note that both ATFs are vastly stripped down compared to original specs ( F-22 doesn't have side looking radar arrays ) and YF-23 was more sophisticated, but also most risky, given that it required YF-120 GE engines to reach full potential. Today has proven that even F-22 carries to few missiles (not to mention inferior YF-23), that indeed supercruise and range would be better served with GE engines and YF-23 aerodynamics ....

In my opinion, it was the maintenance difference between the two planes. There are several systems on the YF-23 that were very difficult to assemble by the engineers that developed them, I dont know if they trusted handing that off to air corp maintenance

Where do you get your propaganda from?

From what I have read, the Su57 is poorly constructed with exposed rivets and panels that don’t meet flush. That might just be the prototype; but one would assume that a prototype would be carefully constructed. 🤷🏻‍♂️

@@BigSmartArmed Dunno? Where do you get your propaganda from? 😁

@@keirfarnum6811 That's the point, you repeat dumb ass propaganda lies. What do you do that?

@@keirfarnum6811 That has to be completely false Keir. Maybe someone saw a plywood mockup at a town festival or something?

Apparently northrop were struggling to meet deadlines and the f22 cost less which tipped it in lockheeds favour

The only clear advantage the YF-22 had over the YF-23 is in the low-speed portion of the flight envelope. I assert that the YF-23 had maneuvering advantages at most fighter speeds encountered due to specific excess energy advantages.

If anything stealth is bringing the dog fight back, only at low level and with missiles

The reason the YF-22 won was because Lockheed has been bribing generals, congressman and countries to buy their trash since the 40s, because James Symington was invested in Corvair and Lockheed. The reason the YF-23 lost, just as the F-20 lost, just as the YF-17 lost, is because James Symington threatened Jack Northrup with "You'll never get another frontline contract" after Northrup refused to give Corvair the YB-49 design. That's why Northrup was relegated to making target drones (also why they are so far ahead of other companies in drone tech).

F-35 can't supercruise. It can only coast some time at supersonic speed after first using fuel guzzling afterburner to push it to high speed. That shorter fatter airframe just wasn't designed to be top performance fighter, unlike F-22.

No. The YF23 has a bigger internal weapon bays. The only reason why the YF22 was selected is mainly because of the Navy. The YF22 is more of a normal fighter aircraft like the F14/F15 at that time. The YF23 on the other hand.. that thing is massive. Making a carrier capable YF22 will likely be cheaper and not a big risk to take. This have been proven on the navy variant YF23 the " NATF-23 ". The YF23 will require a lot of modification an refiguring just to make it carrier capable. After the YF22 was choosen. The navy said they did not want to operate F22. If we had known this earlier.... we might get the YF23.

I BELIEVE THE 23 HAD THE LARGER BAY

Yes, the F-22 had the bigger bay. The YF-23 only carried 5 missiles, (3 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders) where as the YF-22 carries 8 missiles.

I wonder just how much Ole Uncle Sam would have saved in fuel alone over the life of the program? From what I understand the YF-23 did meet all of the super maneuverability requirements without heavy&complex thrust vectoring nozzles(which I'd imagine would coat more). Those V-tails were especially powerful&looked soooo cool too! In the end the Airforce wanted an ATF which because of the high angle of attack the F-22 achieved at 60° with sharp 9g turns that tested the most fit of pilots. The Airforce got just that. Tbh I think it was more politics at play? Especially after the B-2 had huge cost over runs, the top brass was probably leary especially if they had to answer to Congress if the YF-23 had similar issues concerning costs? Both are beautiful Ladies no doubt, but only one could be Home Coming Queen. Despite just how beautiful the YF-23 is, I mean she looks like something that would give the X-Wing in Star Wars a run for its money Lol. I certainly do hope the Japanese do what they've always done Wayne, make vast improvements. Because if ever a fighter deserved a 2nd chance? It would be the Black Widow II

AdvanceT Frontline fighter

Advanced Tatical Fighter is the correct terminology

@@talkingrock7011 yes, but in the vid he misspoke and called advanced frontline fighter. Just a bit of tongue and cheek

Not quite. Lockheed gets contracts because they have been bribing generals and congressmen since the 40s.

@@Ziggy_Moonglow I think you hit the nail on the pork barrel lid. Better bribery for a better corporate future.

the YF-23 had a very slim and negligible advantage in speed . Range was the only area where the YF-23 seemed to have a clear advantage. The YF-22 had clear advantages in Maneuverability and Weapons capacity.

Imagine thinking that the plan of a top secret fighter could just be “stolen” like that lol

I think the decision was based on the fact that the YF-22 included Blu-ray Disc player from the factory whereas the YF-23 went with the ill fated HD DVD

@@DeactivatedCharcoal yf-23 had more modern stuf then the 22

@@tristan-lp7uw Can you imagine the price tag on any weapon sourced from Apple?

@@DeactivatedCharcoal most likely -and it looked ugly

As I understood it at the time, the air force considered both aircraft equally capable, but the yf-22 seemed a lower risk in terms of getting into production.

Gripen E aint going to be bad besides Gripen can fly in cold climate with ease

@@Groza_Dallocort agreed fully, great jet, great company, willing to build here. Work with local talent. Much better deal than the F-35’s I believe.

@@missesmew sure the F-35 is a good plane but it's expensive as well and require alot more maintenance then the Gripen E and sure the Gripen E might lack stealth but it do got STOL capabilities

We’re going with the F-35. The superior aircraft the RCAF deserves, not a 3rd gen knockoff like the Gripen. Stealth with interoperability and a host of other features we need. Also now as cheap as a Gripen. 88 will be ordered.

@@bevpotter9938 I’m kinda on board now after seeing what the drone technology is doing to Putin. lol The Gripen was good if it’s two months ago. But Putin changed our world, and your right. If it’s on and it’s looking more and more likely that it is, we’ll need what the F-35 is capable of. lol Money is no object if your enemies aren’t just sabre rattling anymore. But I’m also thinking that perhaps the Swedes are right about their own electronic warfare system. They’ve been working against the Russians for years and look at how the Russian jets aren’t so awe inspiring in actual combat. Maybe they (the Swedes) know what their talking about? lol

Also mentioning the yf23s p&w and GE engines as if they were a feature and not a predetermined requirement that both companies develop a version of their aircraft as a testbed for each of the two power plants, as both engines existed before the planes. Too many whoppers in this video to mention

Jim Marburger From one report from an F-22 pilot, he claims the supercruise feature of the F-22 is not a viable option because of very high fuel consumption.