[NYYS]

I'm not overly well-versed in this area, but it is interesting to me. Why did the USAF choose the YF22 over the YF23 for the ATF program? The official line is maneuverability, but I have read some articles suggesting other reasons, and that the YF23 was stealthier and faster. Could it have to do with Lockheed's successful F-117 program vs. Northrop's failed A-12 making the DOD trust Lockheed more?

I'm mainly interested because of the single most important factor in aircraft effectiveness: how cool they look. I really like the look of the YF23, although I do think the F22 is awesome a well.

[Typhoon]

I'm not overly well-versed in this area, but it is interesting to me. Why did the USAF choose the YF22 over the YF23 for the ATF program? The official line is maneuverability, but I have read some articles suggesting other reasons, and that the YF23 was stealthier and faster. Could it have to do with Lockheed's successful F-117 program vs. Northrop's failed A-12 making the DOD trust Lockheed more?

Well Northrop successfully managed to build the B-2, both designers are very capable so I think that was less of an issue. The YF-23 did lack thrust vectoring and is generally conidered to be less maneuverable than the F-22, the F-22 was also considered a better match for a future naval jet. I would be suprised if there was a great deal between them in terms of stealth, or anything for that matter. I imagine an important factor for the selection of the F-22 was politics, regardless of which is the better aircraft.

I really like the look of the YF23, although I do think the F22 is awesome a well.

The YF-23 is novel but both of them (like most stealth aircraft) are ugly.

[NYYS]

Well Northrop successfully managed to build the B-2

But at the time the B2 was still in production. I don't think they got rolled out until what, 1993 or so? The ATF decision was made in 1990, and at that time the most recent Northrop project was the A-12, which was destined for cancellation by that point.

I imagine an important factor for the selection of the F-22 was politics, regardless of which is the better aircraft.

What specifically, though?

The YF-23 is novel but both of them (like most stealth aircraft) are ugly.

pffft... get some taste, man. They look awesome.

[MB.]

YF23 looked awesome the YF22 was crap.

[Zagadka]

BTW, as I recall, the YF-23 did have vector thrusting, just not as powerful as the -22. The main difference, in either case, is the wing configuration.

[Oxymoron]

What is the point of this fighter?

Money could have been better used for Space based weapons systems.

[Zagadka]

What is the point of this fighter?

Good question.

Money could have been better used for Space based weapons systems.

... well, for one, that is illegal, and two, it would have been better better used, like, paying off the fucking debt or investing properly.

[Oxymoron]

Debt doesnt matter if we are not capable of protecting our interests across the world..

Illegal, not according to our laws, what ever treaties there are can be reveresed.

[Zagadka]

Debt doesnt matter if we are not capable of protecting our interests across the world..

From what? The Al Qaeda fighter squads?

Illegal, not according to our laws, what ever treaties there are can be reveresed.

A signed treaty is law.

[Oxymoron]

From what? The Al Qaeda fighter squads?

Russia and China.

A signed treaty is law.

Very funny.

[Typhoon]

But at the time the B2 was still in production. I don't think they got rolled out until what, 1993 or so? The ATF decision was made in 1990, and at that time the most recent Northrop project was the A-12, which was destined for cancellation by that point.

This is correct though I dont think anyone doubted the technical capability of the B2 or the YF-23 that would follow.

What specifically, though?

Well as noted the A-12 program suffered from delays, cost hikes and technical issues and the B2 while a less problematic design the program also suffered from cost increases and delays. Lockheed's F-117 faired better, so I guess when you say the DoD trusted Lockheed more the answer could be yes. Rather than picking the winner on purely technical merit (since both designs met the minimum requirments), cost and confidence came into play. Anything most sinister than that, who knows but its the arms industry and a big contract....

pffft... get some taste, man. They look awesome.

, The capability is awesome, the visuals less so. Being a chunky black box is the unfortunate price of stealth.

BTW, as I recall, the YF-23 did have vector thrusting

The aircraft was originally designed with the ability to reverse thrust (hence the large nacelles), but not thrust vectoring during flight as one is familiar with on Russian aircraft and the F-22.

What is the point of this fighter?

Air Superiority, Star Wars (probably an even greater waste of cash) is of little use in Iraq and Afghanistan. How does it go "US troops havnt been bombed from the air since...."? Though the crippling cost of the F-22, the rising costs and nagging technical doubts around the F-35 and the gathering obsolesence of the teen series is leaving a large window of vulnerability for western airforces.

[Zagadka]

Russia and China.

... we don't need F-22s to fight Russia and China.

Very funny.

You find the law funny? Signing a treaty means introducing it into law.

[NYYS]

What is the point of this fighter?

It is retardedly better than anything else that can hope to go into large scale production in the next 20 years or so.

That being said, there is a serious question of whether it's needed to shoot down exported MiG-29s and -25s when F-15s can do the same job just as easily. On the other hand, you don't wait until you're in an actual war to upgrade your forces, we wouldn't want to all of a sudden be re-starting the ATF program when we're facing Su-35s and our Eagles and Super Hornets find themselves with a legitimate opponent.

The aircraft was originally designed with the ability to reverse thrust

What does reversing thrust do it for it? Slow down more quickly?

[Typhoon]

What does reversing thrust do it for it? Slow down more quickly?

Thats right, I believe it would have been used for landing like commercial jets.

[Oxymoron]

... we don't need F-22s to fight Russia and China.

Why is that?

You find the law funny? Signing a treaty means introducing it into law.

Treaties are pieces of paper, with no power behind them.

[Zagadka]

Why is that?

... are you fucking serious?

We should keep a small contingent of F-22s and retain the production methods, but right now, no country on the planet has a chance fighting our Air Force and Navy. Russia can't afford their good new aircraft.

Treaties are pieces of paper, with no power behind them.

Like the Constitution?

I'll give you a little lesson in law; a treaty is signed by the leader. However, it is not official (in most democracies) until the Senate confirms it into national law (in other countries, until the dictator signs it).

[Oxymoron]

... are you fucking serious?

We should keep a small contingent of F-22s and retain the production methods, but right now, no country on the planet has a chance fighting our Air Force and Navy. Russia can't afford their good new aircraft.

So you want to wait until our competitors have the capability to challange us to start trying to get ahead? We must maintain our edge, and expand it while Russia is weak and China is not yet reached its apex.

Like the Constitution?

Unlike Treaties, people actually care about the Constitution.

I'll give you a little lesson in law; a treaty is signed by the leader. However, it is not official (in most democracies) until the Senate confirms it into national law (in other countries, until the dictator signs it).
All men are created equal... God help the women, Negroes, and savages

Let me give you a lesson in reality, if a treaty is not in the interests of the United States it will be ripped apart and used for toilet paper.

[Zagadka]

So you want to wait until our competitors have the capability to challange us to start trying to get ahead? We must maintain our edge, and expand it while Russia is weak and China is not yet reached its apex.

Yes. We're not even supposed to have a standing army, on the original ideas of America. Why do you oppose intervention in Sudan, but say we should support an invading country (Israel), and "expand [our edge]"?

I'm not saying drop the F-22 immediately. Keep it in storage and build when we need to.

And as I've mentioned in another thread, UAVs will probably do most of the flying anyway. The F-22 is a huge waste of money.

Unlike Treaties, people actually care about the Constitution.

So, you define "law" as "stuff I want"... nice.

Let me give you a lesson in reality, if a treaty is not in the interests of the United States it will be ripped apart and used for toilet paper.

lmao

So screw NATO, NAFTA, etc?

Why do *you* get to decide what is "in the interests of the United States"? We have elected officials who chose to sign a treaty. You overrule them because...

[Oxymoron]

Yes. We're not even supposed to have a standing army, on the original ideas of America. Why do you oppose intervention in Sudan, but say we should support an invading country (Israel), and "expand [our edge]"?

Not following sorry.

And as I've mentioned in another thread, UAVs will probably do most of the flying anyway. The F-22 is a huge waste of money.

Agreed, as I said could be better used for Space based weapons.

So, you define "law" as "stuff I want"... nice.

Not at all.

Why do *you* get to decide what is "in the interests of the United States"? We have elected officials who chose to sign a treaty. You overrule them because...

I wont do anything. All I am saying is that the US is has and always will act in the best interest of the US, if we have to break a treaty to protect ourselves then so be it.

[Zagadka]

if we have to break a treaty to protect ourselves then so be it.

Yea, screw the basic premise of law when it comes in conflict with your interest!