YF-23 DEM/VAL program presentation by YF-23 Test Pilots Paul Metz and Jim Sandberg commemorates the 25th anniversary of the first flight. Produced by Jarel & Betty Wheaton for Peninsula Seniors www.pvseniors.org
Been amazed by the YF-23 since its first appearance and played the game "Jetfighter II" decades ago. Now, I'm designing the scratchbuilt YF-23 parkjet with my friends Ian and Jeff, and dedicate the parkjet to all YF-23 team. YF-23 has been my dream jetfighter of all time. Thanks Northrop and McDD for creating such legendary jetfighter, way ahead of its time.
From a non aviator, patriotic citizen, I find this video very enjoyable, educational, and refreshingly honest, and non political. I have watched nearly all of Peninsula Seniors videos, and absolutely loved everyone of them. Thank you for your public service
This account is a jewel and this video is proof of it. How wonderful is to have these 2 gents explain the YF-23. Just amazing. Thank you @PeninsulaSrsVideos
One of my fav aircraft and without a doubt one of the best fighter jets ever created. I think if any rejected design deserves a second chance it's this plane. If these people would've had the same time and money that Lockheed were given later for further developement - or rather to make that raptor thingy actually work properly - .... But maybe one day there'll be a Black Widow III.
This was always my favorite, but the F-22 is what we got. I can’t wait to see what they unveil next. We’re getting updated jamming pods for the Growler and new radars across multiple platforms. The F-35 seems to be a step towards mass production. The limitations seem to be materials and economical construction and maintenance costs. It all makes more sense when you stand on a flight line of any Naval air station and see 6-10B in planes. It’s pretty cool.
She wouldn't look out of place 50 years from now. The YF-23 programme could be reactivated any time. My favourite fighter i have a scale model i'm building of it.
It seems like the same reason why the f-14 was taken out of service. Number one reason was probably money(which can be fixed by a good economy), but deeper it seems like there is a distaste for airframes with engines far apart, even though the f-14 proved many advantages to a large airframe with engines far apart. The larger airframe provides extra lift at at high angle of attack at slower speeds.
It was a bad time for Northrop when it came to it's relationship with the US government because they had just been caught lying to Congress about the cost of the B-2. Also, the YF-22 launched live weapons from it before the decision was made and the YF-23 never launched any munitions from it at all. Also, the ATF was a competition where Congress wanted an air superiority fighter no matter the cost. Northrop made cutting the cost of the YF-23 one of their major selling points when they did not need to. Northrop showed that their plane was really good and so did Lockheed. The difference is that Lockheed did more int heir testing than Northrop did and if you are trying to sell to someone that doesn't trust you then you show them every detail of what your product can do. I am not saying that the YF-22 was better or worse. I honestly don't know and nor does anyone else on here because Northrop never tested it with live munitions so while it is an amazing aircraft in every respect that it was tested for Lockheed had more data and more tests done on their air frame then Northrop did and that is too bad because they did have a fabulous design. To me it is too bad because the engineers worked hard to make a great design but when it cam to pushing the YF-23 to it's limit as an air superiority fighter Northrop did not do that.
Blueprints is just a manner of speaking. AutoCAD, FASTRAN, whatever is being used these days. Probably AutoCAD, plus custom aero and finite element simulation.
YF-16 was changed into the F-16FSD when the USAF added 8,000lb to it so it could have radar, ECM, databus, and other avionics. Made it longer, larger wings, heavier, less performance for maneuverability, but more weapons systems and electronics. YF-17 was canned, even though the LWF program managers thought the YF-17 had it in the bag. After they returned from Groom Lake for HAVE Doughnut evaluation, all the pilots said the YF-16 was easier to reverse in when defensive, was harder to see WVR, and had better visibility from the cockpit.
i think we should have built both f-22 and f-23, would be good to have a little variety in the fighters with the f-23 being a bit faster and longer ranged while the f-22 being a bit more maneuverable, i think the two designs would have complimented each other quite well, perhaps not unlike the p-51s and spitfires did back in ww2
Congress would love that fiscal argument. I agree it would have been great to have them, one as a deep penetrator/interceptor, the other as strictly air dominance, because they're using the F-22A to do JDAM missions now in Syria. The costs of keeping 2 lines open and funded would have been substantial from a defense budget perspective, and I don't think the USAF would be willing to sacrifice other programs to foot that bill when they could have one plane do the mission.
Three ways the spider; eerie radar signiture, the caution markings red paint on ventral duct, and that beaut night fighter P-61! I hate spiders but I love the YF-23!
So I know the YF-23 top speed is classified, and in the documentary for National Geographic they say it’s very VERY fast. At 45:19 there is a slight slip of the tongue and he almost says Mach 2 something but corrects and says Mach 1.5. Through the process of elimination am I to assume this plane is capable of Mach 2.5 or 1900+ mph. If so then that’s a damn fast plane.
Paul Metz says they never went past Mach 1.85 in this video, and the graph at 36:10 shows the relevant max speed, altitude, flight number, flight hours figures. A YF-22 test pilot, Tom Morgenfeld, said he took YF-22 PAV-2 to max climb rate, max altitude, and max speed over mach 2 in one flight, and that the GE YF120 motors turned the YF-22 into a different airplane compared to PAV-1 with Pratt & Whitney motors. The YF-119 rated 30,000lb of thrust in AB, whereas the YF120 rated 35,000lb. When the YF119 was selected, it was uprated for 35,000lb for the F-22A in the F119-PW-100. The YF-23 inlet boundary layer control system couldn't mitigate the inlet flow at higher supersonic speeds, and was one of the main things they were going to change on the F-23A production proposal, along with reducing the volume of engine nacelles since the thrust-reverser requirement was dropped. The YF-22/YF120 was faster and more maneuverable with better climb rate than any of the 4 prototypes. Production F-22s are Mach 2+ capable, and they used those kinematics in the initial F-22 tactics development exercises out around Nellis, to include supersonic closure rates against fleeing F-15Cs that were traveling Mach 1+. If you ever look at how the transonic region is managed, they don't hang around at Mach 1 due to the waveform drag, so Mach 1.2 or more is where they prefer to be. Gives you an idea of what the Raptor can actually do. Test pilots said they were bearing down on the fleeing Eagles with over Mach 1 of closure, which is just insane.
In the documentary from the western museum of flight, one of the engineers who worked on the design says he believes the YF23 was able to reach at least mach 3.2
the 23 was a gorgeous aircraft, and I am a firm believer of "if it looks good, it will fly good". And on that parameter it must be the better plane then the 22...
Another thing to think about is that we are just learning why the YF-16 won the LWF competition over the YF-17, and it was based on parameters that have never been discussed in all the aviation journals, articles, and media before...and for good reasons that become obvious when you learn what they were. Something you Have with your coffee...
I wish the Air Force would choose to build that airplane anyway and use it to further build up the number of aircraft we have on active duty. I love their design, and the DOD should have gotten more of the F-22's to put in service also since we may need more.
There is a feeling, with me at least, that the AF has hard feelings against Northrop. Looking at SAF Symington's conversation with J. Northrop, as related by Jack (B-49 vs B-36 hassle), the Secretary was predisposed to hurt Northrop. Now, with this video, it was the Secretary, again, who simply threw away the better technology.
WoW! Thank-you for sharing the video. I will always have a weakness for the awesome design and engineering of the YF-23, _more so than the F-22_. Both Paul Metz and Jim Sandberg are amazing characters and told their story so well. I understand why the U.S. Air Force selected the F-22, but I don't understand the simple manner in which they discarded such a master machine.
Wait so basically the YF 23 is a "B2 Jet Fighter" and they preferred the F22 ? LOL I'm sure they're thinking about to restart the YF 23 program ! I mean I love the F22 okay but my fav jet fighter is still the YF23 !! So classy and just beautiful. The YF 23 is clearly a 6th gen fighter ! :)
Maybe the reason they did not choose the YF-23 is because the Air Force was just looking for the 5th Generation fighter but the YF-23 is a 6th Generation fighter.
Would have been neat to see what the 23 would have done. shame they didn't use both the 22 and 23........both are advertised Mach 2 machines. haha if they will super cruise at 1.5 they are probably 2.5+ easy lol.
Engine exhaust is kinda funky.. looks more like something you'd expect from a bomber. The Raptor looks leaner and more like a fighter - the name is fitting. In general I see the YF-23 as a high-speed interceptor, I think we all know based on how he stumbled through the thrust vectoring question that it was a significant limitation for the design. By his own admission in the beginning he mentioned that WVR dog-fighting capabilities were important to the design. Who cares if "they both met the requirements" - if all is equal, what's the first thing they'll start looking at? Who exceeded the requirements. Saying the YF-23 can achieve the same 60deg AOA is pointless if it can only do it at a min airspeed, then remain a sitting duck with no directional control as its' airspeed drops. 60 deg AOA is completely different with TV - you can kick into it and either maintain position (both planes had higher than 1:1 thrust ratio) or kick back out of it. Watch the Raptor demos - they achieve high AOA, but remain completely controllable. It's kinda laughable that he states the YF-23 could "also achieve 60deg AOA" as the aircraft would essentially be uncontrollable afterwards, even with those massive control surfaces (relatively speaking, the raptor actually had larger control surfaces as it had both horiz/vert all-moving tails.) This situation is replicated by the Mirage "F-22 kill" where they violated multiple ROI and the F-22 wasn't even in the fight anymore. In order to get the claimed gun shot (while the F-22 was no longer maneuvering) the Mirage pilot dumps all airspeed and stalls the plane multiple times in a "snap shot" which wouldn't result in a kill anyways. Like the YF-23, this leaves the Mirage with zero energy to recover without trading altitude (regardless of a
I agree. The 22 was an air superiority fighter and the 23 was more of an interceptor. But then again it doesn't matter how powerful an aircraft's engines are they must still perform as desired and when the GE engines were having the problems that they had int he air to air refueling then that isn't exactly a great selling point. Also, in a presentation that Paul Metz gave on the 22 he did say that there was a reason for Lockheed to fire that missile and that it was not just for selling. They did it because when you are launching a missile from an internal weapons bay where the hot exhaust of the missile will go into the intake then the aircraft must be able to breathe in that hot exhaust without stalling and that is why Lockheed did that. They did that to say we can fire the rocket not problem at all and Northrop was like lets put the inlets directly behind the missile and then not demonstrate that our aircraft can take that hot exhaust. Now, that was not a requirement but when Lockheed showed that to the DoD they explained to them why it was a big deal. I did not like that part of this presentation because it makes it look like the DoD is run by a bunch of idiots who have no clue what this nation really need but the engineers at Northrop they really know. And on that note... I once saw a meme on Facebook that said that sometimes a mechanic's worst nightmare is an engineer. My father in law was a mechanic on the Nimitz and worked on the F-14 and F-18 and pretty much every Navy aircraft at the time of the 80s. After he was in the Navy, he then worked for Northwest airlines. He had a 21 year career working on jet aircraft. I showed that meme I saw on Facebook to him and he laughed and replied that it was totally true. I have had conversations with him about what aircraft he worked on and he said that the F-14 was terrible to work on. I think that we all know that the F-14 was an engineer's dream. But it was terrible from his perspective. He said that nothing on it was simple and no repair was simple and sometimes the same job on the F-14 would take three times longer than on other aircraft. So while engineers loved that aircraft and it was fantastic in the air the fact that it took that long to fix anything means that it was not a combat effective aircraft.
hallo sir paul mets . my name is david and im from northern ierland . i would like to ask you somthing sir .. do you think the yf23 could complet the cad west RAF training in county walse in the uk ? i resantly seen USAF f35 complet it and im just wondering could the black wido have completed the terain on a thereatical point of vew ?? if you cant tell me i understand sir and i hope you dont git back to me ☺
It was rumor that Lockheed’s marketing went even further as to state that the YF-23 was actually way more stealthy than needed = wasted money and higher/more difficult maintenance due to working around the coating/access to panels etc.... rumor ofc.
It doesn't seem to have all the panels and "masking tape " that cover the F-22 and F-35 , making them look tatty in my opinion . Lovely plane , hope the Japanese can get something from it ? Wales UK.
I wish they could have told us more about the actual capabilities of the aircraft. Like how fast could it supercruise. What was the top speed in burner. Also maybe it wasn't as maneuverable as the F-22, but the F-35 can't maneuver at all and they don't seem concerned. We should take all the F-22 and F-35 tech and produce F-23's.
Well you probably didn't see that because what Northrop says that the YF-23 could do and what it actually did were two different things. It is not to say that the YF-23 was not a great plane. It was. It is just that Northrop promised the world with the YF-23 and it couldn't deliver. Lockheed was very up front about the capabilities of the YF-22 and while the YF-23 was a great plane Northrop was not up front with the Pentagon and the Pentagon went with the YF-22. Testing showed that the designs of both aircraft were fabulous but Lockheed was up front from the start and Northrop was not.
I remember that back in the early 90s, during the Advanced Tactical Fighter jet program, me and my friend were betting on this fighter to win the competition because of it's more stealthier and advanced design, lower radar cross section (RCS), higher top speed, especially when the GE engine is used, longer range, lower infrared detection signature, and higher maneuverability at high speed over the competition. The only advantage that the YF-22 had over the YF-23 is that the YF-23 did not utilize the thrust vectoring engine which the F-22 did. This feature could have been added later to the final production of the F-23 with little modification should the USAF insisted. It's designers felt it is not necessary because the YF-23 is very maneuverable at high speed (which is the combat speed) even without thrust vectoring engines. The nozzles of the YF-23 engines have heat dissipation feature, making it more difficult to be detected by the infrared detectors of the Soviet fighters and air to air missiles. But for some reason, (maybe political red tape in the government, bribery or just plain stupidity) the F-22 won the competition.
YF-23 didn't need TV with the size of the rear wings/tails. The YF-22 had many advantages over the YF-23, including speed, maneuverability, more weapons count internally, demonstrated weapons separation already, and better visibility for the pilot. Frontal aspect RCS on both of the RCS demonstrators was good. There were compromises with each, with a more conventional boundary layer splitter plate for the YF-22, and the YF-23's serpentine arrangement with Boundary Layer Control matrices that didn't allow it to reach speeds the YF-22 did. Both met the requirements, but there were a lot of things the YF-22 did that made it the better choice at the time, despite how much sexier the YF-23 looks.
I think they should've used this as the JSF rather than the F-35 the fact she has trapezoidal wings means she could easily be used on carriers the wings could fold up.
I like the design better then 22 the Russians took more from this bird rather then the 22 including the engine design is similar in the new Pakfa engine
PAK-FA uses Saturn AL41F motor derivatives of what's in the Su-35, still trying to play catch-up to the US 1980s Improved Performance Engine program for the F-16 and F-15E, while suffering failures that we solved in that era. In the MAKS 2011 air demo, they had a massive flame-out on take-off, and quickly aborted. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RoXqG45ThYA.html
Also rumored that the 23 was faaaaaaasssssstttt! Like stupid fast and could do certain things after you bled a lot of energy if you got into that regime even though we the public were told that the 22 was actually more agile within the required envelopes. Food for thought and a great debate topic for aerospace engineers looking at paper data from afar.
It has a lot of wing and a lot of power, with pretty sleek leading edges and only 2 sets of wings/stabs, versus 3, which helps with drag. The spread intakes are probably the most draggy aspects of the bird, aside from the wings, but they blend in rather well. It's a combination of exceptional beauty when looking at all the other requirements for the ATF.
Nico Montinola Reports said they were offered a hybrid F22/35 design or the YF23. Either would be game changing for that entire region. 💪 presence for 🇨🇳 🇷🇺 🇰🇵 🇮🇷 🇸🇾.
the F-22 tooling was destroyed but northrop kept the YF-23 tooling and uses some of it for ucavs. We can build this plane and cheaper than we can build a new F-22
The tactician has to win over the aerodynamicist, and the YF-23 and even F-23A proposal with an additional weapons bay did not carry as many missiles as the YF-22 and F-22A. The YF-22 also exceeded Mach 2, something the YF-23 did not due to inlet design issues, not because of the airframe. Tom Morgenfeld said the YF-22 with the GE engine had so much excess thrust, it was a totally different feeling airplane than the YF-22 with the Pratt engine, but the GE engine variable cycle stages weren't up to snuff for reliability.
So I left a bunch of comments on the YF-23 black widow ii video uploaded by the Western Museum of Flight. Rather than repeat what I said there, if any ATF-23 program personnel ever happen by this video I'd love to know how they planned to deal with the visibility of the engine fan blades from certain aspect angles? The F-22 did not have that problem, the fan blades were completely invisible to radar. Engine fan blades are one of the largest radar reflectors and a very powerful way to not just locate an aircraft but to ID aircraft type (non-cooperative target recognition). F-23 EMD plans released on the internet show the problem would have remained. Not sure how F-23 could be said to have lower overall RCS with that issue.
***** Yeah, I guess that makes sense. Once more, I'd expect Northrop Grumman to have coated some parts of the intake with radar absorbent material to further reduce the effect of radar bouncing off of the turbofan.
+OmegaEGGY Actually may have been a bit of an error on my part. The EMD design did feature bumps in the intakes - kind of like the Boeing X-32 - which were intended to help shield the fan blade faces. But the best resource on the net for the YF-23 (yf-23.net/F-23A.html) says no, they would have been exposed. See the first pic. But I know nothing of the person who did the simulation. Could just be some dude on the internet, could be an expert.
+hckyplyr9285 And thanks for the response, I get what you're saying. I have no idea how significant such visibility, if it existed, would be. Anyone know how close the production F-22A is to the EMD proposal Lockheed made? I have read that the Air Force insisted on a boat load of changes that drove weight up and may have compromised performance a fair amount. The YF-22 was supposedly capable of a range of 800 nm including a certain amount of supercruise, whereas F-22A is given as having only 410 nm range w/supercruise. Supposedly this was due to loss of fuel fraction in EMD?
+XaHyMaH The Sr71a had chines and canted vertical control surfaces inward (not 90 degree ,Straight up) this meant it was the 1st generation of stealth aircraft.
+XaHyMaH Actually, the SR-71 had a completely different form of stealth. It wasn't the heat that made gave it away, but rather the massive amounts of turbulence. Radar guided missiles detonate upon entering this turbulence a mile or two behind the aircraft, so in a sense the turbulence functioned as sort of continuous counter measure in order to hide the SR-71 which itself had a low radar signature for the time, therefore making it a generation 1 stealth aircraft. Also, anything with an IR guided missiles would not be able to get in close enough to the SR-71 for a missile shot.
The SR-71 was not stealth compared to the F-22 but the F-117 Nighthawk wasn't either. I saw an interview with a designer of the SR-71 and he said that it was designed to be stealthy enough that the enemy could not see it until it was too late to lock onto it enough to shoot it down and it did that very successfully.
For it’s time it was the best thing available. I’m sure in 100 or 50 years we will look at the F-22 and say that’s not real stealth, it’s all relative.
despite addressable shortcomings, The F-22 was sufficient to keep air superiority. The YF 23 was so far advanced despite handling and other small issues That it should have been hidden away and further developed. It was too far advanced to risk. The F-22 was sufficient to best it's competition for years. The money to develop this sixth gen fighter is hidden in the cost over-runs for the raptor and joint-strike fighter as well as the F-35. That's why neither political party is demanding audits or casting blame for budget over-runs. Just as the b-1b hid the F-117 budget with $10k toilet seats and $700 hammers, Our latest trillion dollar project is is a padded, black ops Skunk works charade. If we suddenly allow sales of the unbeaten F-15 air frame, it would further suggest we're at least three tiers above it's capabilities.
No it was not. On paper it was but when it actually flew it was not. As the speaker said, they used a lot of parts from other planes, such as landing gear from the F-18. That means that they were using parts not designed for that aircraft. Every bit and piece built for the YF-22 was designed specifically for it so it performed exactly as they said that it would. Yes the YF-23 was a great design but it messed up because Northrop told the Pentagon that whatever the YF-22 could do the YF-23 could do it better and then come to find out it was not what was advertised and the YF-22 was exactly what was advertised. Lockheed did not promise as much as Northrop did but Lockheed delivered on all of it's promises. Northrop promised more than Lockheed did but it could not deliver on all of them and that was not a good reflection on the YF-23 program if it could not deliver all of Northrop's promises.
The YF-22 was more than sufficient, as was the YF-23. They met or exceeded the program expectations, which were tactical fighters that could out-maneuver the Su-27 and MiG-29, while being able to operate in a high radar threat environment, super-cruise, internal weapons storage, thrust:weight greater than 1:1, advanced avionics, AESA radar, advanced cockpit, thrust vectoring, DFLCS fused with DEEC, etc. The F-22 ended up having a smaller RCS than the F-117, and excellent maneuverability, while still being able to super-cruise at 1.6 Mach.
IDK I want to say they gave up on fighters and moved onto just building Aircraft Carriers and Laser weapons. The new Aircraft carrier series is there model. Fingers crossed on a 9th Enterprise, the 6-8 were very honorable ships, well... The 6th one was freaking lucky lol. It was fairing cargo between two ships, lost a lot of shells that fell into the ocean, and somehow that ordinance drifted into enemy territory and killed a Cruiser or Battleship. First time a dinky boat that was around the size of a landing ship killed a cruiser or battleship XD
One of the biggest mistakes in air force history was not to build the yf23 the fact is that it was the superior plain. It should be looked at again modes made and produced the evidence that the 23 was superior is that tech was taken from the 23 and put into the 22.
"The fact is, they never tested the maximum speed" That's a load of crap. They stretched both of these planes as far as airspeed and acceleration to decide what engine to use and so they would know what kind of speeds the airframe would see and other important aspects of flight testing. They know how fast it went, and probably still smile about those numbers, but the REAL fact is, that number is classified and will be such for a long time!
8:00 It is considered very rude to shoot at the pilot hanging in the parachute. Now lets see what happens when you shoot at a target with a strong motivation to live and the ability to survive. One reason the SA-2 SAMs were so "successful" in Vietnam is because they fired so many. I know one pilot who told me he had 15 SA-2 missiles shot at him in about 30 seconds. None of the 15 got him. The success rates for the SA-2 in Vietnam were less than 1%. The missiles also did not have a self destruct device that could be fired in case they missed. These missiles typically crashed back into the city causing nearly all of the damage caused by the "indiscriminate" American bombings. They were especially pleased when a hospital or school was hit, because the Americans went out of their way to avoid hitting these, even by accident. Extremely sick, if you ask me.
Love raptor but if it's more stealthy and faster that's what the Pentagon was wanting why choose something that's less as good just what happens when politics get involved in the choosing the best plane. Love raptor but this is more on 6th generation design.
