"The first YF-23, with Pratt & Whitney engines, supercruised at Mach 1.43 on 18 September 1990, while the second, with General Electric engines, reached Mach 1.6 on 29 November 1990. By comparison, the YF-22 achieved Mach 1.58 in supercruise. The YF-23 was tested to a top speed of Mach 1.8 with afterburners and achieved a maximum angle-of-attack of 25°. The maximum speed is classified, though sources state a maximum speed greater than Mach 2 at altitude and a supercruise speed greater than Mach 1.6. The aircraft's weapons bay was configured for weapons launch, and used for testing weapons bay acoustics, but no missiles were fired; Lockheed fired AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles successfully from its YF-22 demonstration aircraft. PAV-1 performed a fast-paced combat demonstration with six flights over a 10-hour period on 30 November 1990. Flight testing continued into December. The two YF-23s flew 50 times for a total of 65.2 hours. The tests demonstrated Northrop's predicted performance values for the YF-23. The YF-23 was stealthier and faster, but the YF-22 was more agile"
According to this, the YF-23 is stealthier in shape and faster in design. However, the lack of Thrust-Vectoring made it less agile than the YF-22. The stealth alone may mean that it can remain hidden for much longer than the YF-22, making it slightly more superior than the F-22, thus, giving it an easier time with the F-22's current competitors.
Do you think the government made the wrong choice picking the F-22?
It was murdered by the politics...
It was such a masterpiece and it has so much more but most of the people dont know.
Problems that made the YF-23 pav 1 and 2 struggle during the tests was that the weapons bays werent ready for test due to failures and they decided to fit 8 missiles in the weapons bays but the plans were to fit 10 (two extra on the back weapons bay doors). The canopy(polycarbonate with stealth silica coating) didnt dry well too and had to be replaced once on the pav 2. And now about its maneuverability, the YF-23 had lower wing loading and more wing area than the YF-22 wich means it didnt need thrust vectoring to reach super maneuverability. The YF-23 had also large slats that could make it maneuver in slow speeds easily. The YF-22 needed thrust vectoring nozzles or it wasnt going to be super maneuverable. The nozzles made the YF-22's radar cross section in the back larger so it was less stealthy. YF-22 could fit 8 missiles (6x AIM-120 Amraam and 2x Aim-9m Sidewinder). And remember, YF-23 is still a prototype. Just imagine how succesful its final production version couldve been. I am really dissapointed why it didnt go into production. I hope it will revive like the YF-17 in to the F-18 soon.
Yes they did, they just where thinking about then and not now!
@ChiChiWerx Huh, didn't know that. Thanks for sharing. :)
@EngineerOtaku as for cost...IF (and that’s a big IF...I worked several budget cycles on the ACC Staff at Langley, and no one, I mean no one can make sense of actual costs. Lifecycle cost, acquisition cost, BOS cost, all this things are mixed and matched to present the lowest possible dollar amount when competing for funding), I estimate that the USAF could have bought approximately 1.1 F-23s for the cost of an F-22. If the F-22 was the least expensive platform, I estimate that the USAF could have afforded only .9 F-23s for the cost of an F-22. “Less costly” is measured in percents, not whole numbers. It would be wildly inaccurate to assume we might have afforded 2 or 3 F-23s for the cost of a Raptor.
@ChaMikey I like both jets also. The YF-23A would be great research aircraft, so it's a shame that they've been relegated to museum pieces.
.
As for cost, we already know the Raptor has become a pricey fighter. How many more F-23A could we have gotten for the same price though? Maybe 5, 10, 15 at best?
.
@ChiChiWerx Good point. How much do we actually know about these jets? If that recent story about the Eagle Dynamics employee says anything even old jets still have classified data in the TDP. Not unlikely the Raptor and Black Widow II hid secrets as well that led to the AF choice of adoption.
the US government was wrong about their choice
serious note though ; both are awesome, and given the chance, the YF-23 would be better than it was in experiment.
I do. list of professional judgement made by yours truly (me) are as follows ;
1. YF-23 is sexy
2. YF-23 costs less (I think, I read that somewhere and cant find the cost of it)
3. is faster and stealthier
4. lower wing loading, faster roll.
5. Sleek design
6. Technically speaking, the YF-23 is more agile than the F-22. But luckily the F-22 had thrust vectoring to compensate for its roll rate.
7. It looks awesome
No, I do not think the AF (not the government) made a mistake with the F-22. Don't forget the F-22A is a significantly different fighter than the YF-22 prototype. If you haven't see this, compare the outlines of the two aircraft, here. Who knows just how different the internals are? Second, there are plenty of classified information the public isn't aware of which goes into these types of decisions; that, more than public information on speed and maneuverability, probably informed the decision on which aircraft to select. Lastly, I don't think the AF would have made a mistake with either aircraft, the F-23 would probably have evolved into a fantastic fighter, but we KNOW the F-22 has evolved into a fighter which can fly with near-impunity against today's adversaries. But it's all academic, as we'll never get to compare the definitive version of the F-22 with what would have been the definitive version of the F-23, which is how a better comparison might be made.