What went wrong?

>>32213926
Length and depth of munitions bay.

>>32214918

Why would the Air Force care about price?

File: 1479510098971.jpg (37KB, 260x476px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 260x476px

>>32214918

>>32215580
It wasn't expensive enough.

>>32213926
It doesn't look as fighter jety as the F-22.

>>32215591

But it looks cooler and futuristic

Structural problems due to the weapons bays taking up too much space, not maneuverable enough to be F-15 equivalent.

>>32213926
Air Force picked the one that didn't fulfill the requirements as well because it "looked right"

>>32216241
What part of next-gen stealth, advanced avionics, and over-the-horizon weapons systems confuses you? The F-35 sees you first, targets you first, and kills you before you know it's there.

File: 29qqhpr.jpg (537KB, 2000x1348px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 2000x1348px

>>32216620
Ask whoever was in charge in 1990. I'm just saying what happened. Also the F-22 does the same thing.

>>32216241
>not maneuverable enough to be F-15 equivalent.
This is false. The YF-23 exceeded the maneuverability requirements. It was a very agile plane.

File: 150918-F-LX214-103.jpg (813KB, 3928x2618px) Image search: [Google]

813KB, 3928x2618px

>>32216705
Shoulda had TVR, kiddo.

>>32215591
Cuz it's not. It's a multi-role fighter counterpart to the f-22's air-superiority.

>>32213926
few reasons
1.Northrop Grumman wasn't able to deliver orders on time.
2. it didn't look like a typical fighter
3. the thrust vectoring was popular among the top brass

it was WAYY faster than the yf 22
was able to sustain higher G turns
lower RCS despite the intakes being exposed.
it was the better jet

it's all good though, rumour has it the 6th gen fighter will be based on the yf23

File: F-22 Bomb.jpg (537KB, 6545x4368px)

537KB, 6545x4368px

>>32216812

Then why did they give the F-22 multi-role capability?

>>32213926
Had a design flaw that caused the spine of the air frame to crack and wear at an accelerated speed. Also the yf-22 was already firing missiles and it's gun while the yf-23 hadn't passed trails regarding it's basic features yet.

>>32218463
Barely. It can only carry 1000lbs bombs and its only carried targeting system is its radar.

>>32216620
They were smart enough to realize that relying purely on that wasn't a smart move.

The F-22's agility is a great asset for BVR. The F-35 is capable of air superiority only because its fighting aircraft a generation behind, which it of course excels at.

>>32215581
Kek

>>32213926
Northrop got B-2 contract. McDonnell Douglas got A-12 Avenger II. It was Lockheed's turn to get candy.

>>32216764
Actually TVR reduces maneuverability...

>>32219044
>Implying that it wasn't because the YF-23 could twist itself apart because of the unbraced weapons bay and the stabilators

Why did they stop production on the F-22?

>>32219089
USSR died.

The YF-23 did not have true S-ducts, and its fans were visible at some angles, thus it showed up on radar like a Christmas tree even though it was slightly more stealthier than the YF-22 from the front.

>>32219089
muh 50 billion dollars to build mraps and never use any of them. gates was an unlucky cuck. got tricked on by iran hard.

>>32219130
First off, MRAP's were used, and saw use.

Second off, MRAP's showed (like many other things) the strength of the american defense company's ability to create badly needed products near instantly. Just like the SLAM. Just like the GBU-28. I can go on an on.

Finally, the MRAP directly lead to the greatest light vehicle ever made, the JLTV.

Good job triggering me, shitlord.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>32219156
50 billion for 27,000 vehicles that here lightly used over a mere 4 years and are to heavy to be shipped back and had to be broken up for scrap or sold at more than 200% discount to whoever would buy them plus r&d on a shitty light vehicle.

meanwhile we gave up all future combat systems a new ifv a new spg a new tank platform and bought less than a third of the f-22's we planned and now we are up against a possible 600 craft fleet of pak-fa's or j-20's while we have less than 200 f-22's

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>32219189
>a possible 600 craft fleet of pak-fa's
with what budget, exactly, the one dedicated to the kuznetsov's maintenance ?

>>32219189
>50 billion for 27,000 vehicles that here lightly used over a mere 4 years

Super cool opinion.

> and are to heavy to be shipped back and had to be broken up for scrap or sold at more than 200% discount to whoever would buy them

Spoilers, this is done with a shitload of things, even light arms. Fright of equipment is not cheap.

>shitty light vehicle.

U mad its the best light vehicle in the world?

>meanwhile we gave up all future combat systems

Wew laddy. The ASM program stopped due to the USSR shitting itself. The FCS program started in 1995ish, and stopped due to being pure shit for the most part. The GCV program showed promise but was cut due to sequestration.

The R&D did not go anywhere, and the needed stuff is happening anyways (m113 replacement, BAE won the contract)

>we planned and now we are up against a possible 600 craft fleet of pak-fa's or j-20's

WEW LADDY.

RRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>32219189
you also forgot the part where iran stopped training bombmakers and fighters around 2009-2010. immediately after gates canceled all those programs. TRICKED

>>32219374
> immediately after gates canceled all those programs

The program was getting reduced funding since 05.

Iran had jack shit to do with the FCS program final cut.

>>32216705
This. While not being a torque box design like the f22, the yf23 had a slightly better roll rate. The wider use of composites in its construction allowed this. It's rate of turn wasn't as brutal as the f22, but it easily met the agility requirement and was also a significantly faster plane. Friends of friends in that business imply better than mig 31 speeds for the yf23.

>>32219101
Uh what, the s ducts on the yf23 were extreme compared to the f22.

Where the heck do people get this info

File: PAV1 intake port 1023.jpg (166KB, 883x619px)

166KB, 883x619px

>>32219440

> The curve of the intakes was sufficient to mask the engine fan blades from being detected by radar directly ahead, but there was a hotspot where the blades could be detected line-of-sight at an approx vector angle of 18° outwards and 13° downwards. At all other vectors the fan blades were masked.

http://yf-23.net/technical.html

pic related, link related, text related.

Get learned.

Is anything going to challenge the F-22 as king of the skies this decade, or even this century?

File: lockheed_martin_bastelt_revolutionaerer_lockheedscuda-aam_0120121220182134[1].jpg (90KB, 1024x373px)

90KB, 1024x373px

>>32219622
Eh, the F-35 actually has a far superior sensor and comms suite, and the numbers make up for the slightly smaller A2A payload.

Future half-length missiles like the CUDA also represent a huge target count increase. An F-35 can haul 12 AMRAAM-equivalent missiles when those start entering service.

>>32219664
>In Lockheed’s concept, this miniature self-defence munition (MDSM) – about half the size of a 3.7m (12ft)-long Raytheon AIM-120D AMRAAM – would boast a limited capability to shoot down opposing aircraft in short-range engagements, says Frank St. John, vice-president of tactical missile and combat manoeuvre systems, speaking on 15 March at Lockheed’s annual Media Day.
>But the main purpose of the weapon, also known as the small advanced capabilities missile (SACM) would be to intercept and destroy incoming enemy missiles, such as the long-range, Chinese-made PL-12 and Russian-made Vympel RVV-BD.

Entirely defensive.

>>32220015
CUDA is not the SACM.

>>32217324
>it was WAYY faster than the yf 22

That is something I'd like to hear more about.

Claims are, Raptor is a Mach 3+ beast. But it doesn't do it because the radar induced microwave absorbing coating will get damaged above 2 mach. ("can't fly in the rain and other bullshit)

File: 1467935762391.jpg (74KB, 667x960px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 667x960px

>>32215581
kekkkek

>>32218866

What bombs could the 23 carry?

>>32220298
Probably about the same, the ATF was about making an air superiority fighter above all else.

File: carlos.jpg (19KB, 500x367px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x367px

>>32220449
>the ATF was about making an air superiority fighter above all else
Are you saying that the ATF wants to improve its ability to dogfight?

File: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°).gif (21KB, 132x99px)

21KB, 132x99px

>>32220659
kek