• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

The Edge Of The Envelope

No matter how much you push the envelope, it remains stationery!

The problem with the inevitable is, it allways happens!


The real reason Lockmart got the F-22 was politics. As Sir Sidney
noted of the TSR.2....Airplanes have 4 dimensions. Length, width, height, and politics.
The TSR.2 only had the first 3 right! Northrop was producing the Beak. Lockmart gets the F-22.
The thing that speaks volumes about the respective designs is the massive re-design Lockmart
undertook between the YF-22 and the F-22A. Except for a slight familly resembelance, the F-22 is a totaly
new aircraft, requiring total re-design to reduce weight, drag, improve its 'low observable'
features, and put some 'growth' back into the aircraft. The YF-23 was very much the production aircraft,
except for being 'hand rolled', having much lower drag,more "growth' built in, better suvivability,
, higher sustained cruise at lower power settings, superior L-O performance ( all aspect 'stealth',
lower IR signature) and better tran-sonic acceleration, but some what less high alpha and turn performance
than the YF-22; which is arguably of less importance in modern air combat. There was also the perception that
the YF-23 looked ' too radical ', the YF-22 looked more like the F-15. This is not as strange as it sounds.
When North American showed the YA3J mock-up to the navy, it featured twin vertical fins, ala F-14, to acheive
the required stability with out the penalty of a huge, tall fin with folding to get it in the hangar. BuAir felt
this just looked too radical, so,the big, heavy, folding fin with all kinds of aero-elasctic hassles comes back.
And, lets face it. The YF-23 is the hornier looking aircraft. Oh, yes, I am going to attract all kinds of fire now,
as there is a culture around the F-22 that reminds me of the mid '70's, when a young AirForce officer could
seriously damage his career by showing any interest in that 'cheaper, inferior' product from Ft.Worth!
Great looking model. I'm looking forward to straping it to my ass and punching some holes in the sky!
Now a 'mortar magnet'
3/7charlie
 
You can see a drawing of the production version of the F-23 here. There's a larger version on page 28 for download. The main changes are the forward fuselage cross section, the chine isn't as pronounced as it was on the prototype, the longer forward fuselage, so it can have two missle bays in tandem, instead of one deep one; Sidewinders in the fwd bay, AMRAAM's in the rear bay. It has stealthy half shock cone inlets instead of the trapezoidal inlets and the main landing gear is no longer a trailing link set-up. The engine nacelles are moved in closer to each other and toe-ed in at the rear and shortened in length, since the prototypes nacelles were made long enough to fit a thrust reverser, which was removed from the requirements. You can also see where the IRST was to be placed under the nose. I also thought it was interesting that the in-flight refueling receptacle was moved to the forward portion of the left nacelle.

This drawing has been around for awhile, but it's the first I've seen it publicly posted.
 
Well shut my blinkin mouf! Never seen that one before. You would think that some changes would be made, airforces being fond of constantly changing requirements. Still doesn't seem quite as drastic as Lockmarts massaging of the F-22.

3/7charlie.
 
3/7charlie said:
Oh, yes, I am going to attract all kinds of fire now,
as there is a culture around the F-22 that reminds me of the mid '70's, when a young AirForce officer could
seriously damage his career by showing any interest in that 'cheaper, inferior' product from Ft.Worth!
Click to expand...
Good sir, you've hit the nail on the head. I've been arguing that side of things for years now. More money does not always equal more capability. Have you ever noticed that certain politicians and military leaders even feel like their hands are tied from time to time? It took no time for certain relieved military leaders to voice support for the cancellation of the F-22 production line.
 
Sundog said:
You can see a drawing of the production version of the F-23 here. There's a larger version on page 28 for download. The main changes are the forward fuselage cross section, the chine isn't as pronounced as it was on the prototype, the longer forward fuselage, so it can have two missle bays in tandem, instead of one deep one; Sidewinders in the fwd bay, AMRAAM's in the rear bay. It has stealthy half shock cone inlets instead of the trapezoidal inlets and the main landing gear is no longer a trailing link set-up. The engine nacelles are moved in closer to each other and toe-ed in at the rear and shortened in length, since the prototypes nacelles were made long enough to fit a thrust reverser, which was removed from the requirements. You can also see where the IRST was to be placed under the nose. I also thought it was interesting that the in-flight refueling receptacle was moved to the forward portion of the left nacelle.

This drawing has been around for awhile, but it's the first I've seen it publicly posted.
Click to expand...

Ah yes... the drawing by Matej. Unfortunately, I believe that is mere fiction.I don't think it's real and almost certainly not anything endorsed by nor designed by NG. Note that there is nowhere on that piece of paper the name of the company. Nowhere. Now, having worked with both Lockmart and with Northrop Grumman on two different projects (LCS and F-35) and having had drawings of theirs in my actual possession, I can tell you right away that all of their drawings are clearly marked as theirs. I do see, however, the names Sandusky and Mendoza. At the least, those are correct. However, that drawing, and yes, I've seen it before, is not an F-23A nor is it a YF-23. It's neither. I'm not even sure that it's real and I will stand by that.
 
Oh, and I did ask... and the answer I got was "kermfuffle..." which I took to mean no. I will not say to whom I spoke to on the team but his name is indeed on that drawing...
 
I should say that we did one thing on that drawing and that is to add the second weapons bay. It will remain inactive until/unless we do an addon for the "if it only were" crowd...
 
tigisfat said:
Good sir, you've hit the nail on the head. I've been arguing that side of things for years now. More money does not always equal more capability. Have you ever noticed that certain politicians and military leaders even feel like their hands are tied from time to time? It took no time for certain relieved military leaders to voice support for the cancellation of the F-22 production line.
Click to expand...

Yeap, good ole "Warfighters Politico-isms". Same was said of the F-15 and that it was too expensive and would never meet the demands of it's design criteria. We came within a arms hair of never having the Eagle. Same of the F-111 even once it's original McNamara TFX pipe dream was out of the window. Similar rumblings against the B-1 and B-2. "Useless Golden Egg Layer's", overpriced white elephants which would fail in combat. Same said of the AH-64 and M-1A1 Abrams. Seems in most all those cases, the nay-sayers were proven wrong in due time. The F-22 will get it's day the same and I wager that 188 won't be the final number of them when all is said and done. Sadly, maybe the real winner in the AFT competition lost as is often the case in these matters. Glad to see someone loves the YF-23 besides me. Hope to have this in my sim very soon!
 
tigisfat said:
Good sir, you've hit the nail on the head. I've been arguing that side of things for years now. More money does not always equal more capability. Have you ever noticed that certain politicians and military leaders even feel like their hands are tied from time to time? It took no time for certain relieved military leaders to voice support for the cancellation of the F-22 production line.
Click to expand...

Nothing is more political than military procurement. What I have found shocking about Aircraft procurement, beyond obstipiated, bloated plutocrats with no technical or military backgrounds who are all experts dictating terms based on who makes the largest 'campaign contribution',
is the massive amounts of effort and money put into endless deffinition studies, requirement studies, technology validation studies, feasability studies,- my favorite - viability studies( viable? is it alive and capable of reproducing?) RFP's. Court actions over who gets the RFP. My god!
If I bought groceries that way, I'd have starved to death 28 years ago.
I could weep when I watch the waste! They will spend 10 times or more
of the actual cost studying the damned thing than they would have if they just swung blind and built it!I could cite the nightmare of misery that the Canadian taxpayer has gone through for the past 30 years trying to replace the seathing. Study, define, study more, pick the machine that meets requirements, have bounced out because it doesn't meet political requirements. Study more. Finally award contract. upgrade Seathings. Cancell contract. Go to court. Pay huge Penalties. Study more. Upgrade Seathings again. And again. Aircrew die. Study more. Award another contract. Go to court. Upgrade Seathings again. We have spent enough money up here to buy 100 EH101's, 20 Chinooks, replace all of our Tribal class Destroyers, And still have not taken delivery of a single aircraft. And now, 30+ years after starting to look for a Seathing replacement (1978-1979!) The S-92 is late, probably overweight, and was out of growth even before it got off the drawing board. And we'll have to do a massive upgrade on the Seathing again. Too many nabobs! And frankly, too many 'information specialists' and ' software engineers' trying to design Airplanes. The auto makers have this illness, too. You can put all the I-pod docking ports you want in it, its still the same antiquated, Victorian, inefficant gas guzzler under all the satnav and entertainment centers.How much money has the DOD spent between 1989 and now, how many missmanaged projects, to get 2 combat types into service? And one of them is the F-18 that should have been produced in 1985. The F-22. Nice jet. too expensive, and the BS first person shooter mentality of the US military means that junior jet man is going to wade into a mess of cheap J-10'S, loose situational awareness, and get his 3/4 billion dollar jet blown away by a $60.000 python copy, instead of useing the airplanes strenghts(sensors, data fusion, BVR combat) All ready happened at RED FLAG last year. Zapped by an agresssor in a knife fight. The only thing that may save all of our asses is that the PLA is glacially slow to change doctrine. But that won't last for ever. Numbers wont carry the day, but neither will silver bullets. Kelly Johnson knew how to run a progam. Stay Small, Stay Quiet. Be Fast. Stay close to the Machine. A small , tight team, small enough to comunicate with it self. work fast and quiet so that the grease machine doesn't get a chance start bloating and eating the budget. Every body works on the shop floor so you dont loose sight of what you're doing, meetings dont drag on for months, communication lines are short. And dont re-invent the wheel if you can buy one down the street that will work. Those guys worked miracles on budgets and timelines that would'nt get coffee and donuts on the table at Lockheed nowadays.
3/7charlie
 
Ah yes, the almighty checks and balance system to avoid $200 toilet seats and $500 claw hammers being procured by the DOD only to have created an even more bloated and wasteful system. Wasteful waste watchers not being watched themselves. Where does the madness end? The prediction of the combined services being able to only afford a single aircraft & helicopter between themselves. You hit one nail on the head perfectly. A far less expensive system being able to take out a far more expensive system. Is like the Anti-Tank Missile or Mine that costs little compared to a $50 Million piece of steel. But still the tank wasn't rendered obsolete, just a change of tactics/training, and systems MSIP upgrades based on good Intelligence of what countermeasures your best systems may be facing to turn the tables back towards your side of the battle. Is the way things have always worked in the evolution of weaponry and tactics. The F-16 vs Raptor kill was the buzz when it happened which seems to overlook the fact of the lopsided DACT kill ratios the Raptor has been piling up. It's true worth will only be truly known when it is needed in actual combat. Personnally, I would prefer to see the original middle number built over time in M/LRP output and see it's mission expanded either from it's current form or maybe a more multi-role version in time. Maybe cut back drastically on the F-35 in favor of spliting duties with newly bought F-16 Block 60's and F-15SE's all updated with various capabilities you mention above just to name a few. Makes sense to me. As to pitting the Raptor against the J-10, if we threw just 94 or half of the built Raptors at a sky full of J-10's using AIM-120C's alone, that is roughly 564 (or less counting the miss probabilities) dead J-10's from way the hell out of the J-10's reach. If you count the AIM-9X, that's 188 more bring the possible kill total to 752. I'll take anything even somewhat near that capability any day! That will likely never be seen in our lifetime(We hope and pray never). 3/4's of it would be done by knocking out the enemy aircract and airfields early on before they ever become a credible air to air threat.

I also agree if KJ was still around, things would be very different and Raptors would be delivered at far lower in cost and we would likely see more capability as well.
Days long gone.
 
Dont get me wrong.The F-22 has proven overwhelming in exersise, with the redforce having to resort to tactics right off the map. The F-22 driver in question did kill six aggressors before he got zapped, by getting his fangs out and getting too close. It has also been a bit embarassing when the whole avionics pakage in four(?) aircraft crash when crossing the international dateline. Good thing they had some tanker pukes along to navigate then back to Hawaii! But I stand by my assesment of flawed doctrine and over-reliance on the silver-bullet. I dont think the AF will get a hiding fron the PLA. That'll be the Navy that gets it when a couple of CBG's get hammered in the first day by nuclear missile strikes. I hope that they are wrong about the limited ability of IR/ICBM's with pretty accurate terminal guidance to hit targets at sea. But I am not so confident of their abillity to counter a saturation strike by, oh, 40 or 50 SUNBURN 200kt mach 3.5 seaskimmers. The weapons are rarely ever that flawed. Doctrine is what will kill you.
I hope to hell I'm wrong.
3/7charlie
 
krazycolin said:
Ah yes... the drawing by Matej. Unfortunately, I believe that is mere fiction.I don't think it's real and almost certainly not anything endorsed by nor designed by NG. Note that there is nowhere on that piece of paper the name of the company. Nowhere. Now, having worked with both Lockmart and with Northrop Grumman on two different projects (LCS and F-35) and having had drawings of theirs in my actual possession, I can tell you right away that all of their drawings are clearly marked as theirs. I do see, however, the names Sandusky and Mendoza. At the least, those are correct. However, that drawing, and yes, I've seen it before, is not an F-23A nor is it a YF-23. It's neither. I'm not even sure that it's real and I will stand by that.
Click to expand...

I'll stand with the word of the people I know in the industry and that drawing isn't from Matej, although I understand he also possesses it. Not to mention, he would get into alot of trouble using the F-23 team logo without permission and the designers names. I've seen Matej's drawings and he isn't capable of making a drawing like that and I had no idea he knew how to make area distribution plots. I've found few online who know how to accurately calculate them.

I should also point out that I possess many aircraft drawings that don't have the company's name on them and saw many of them in school that didn't have the companies name on them.
 
I think it's a nice drawing no matter where it comes from. Even if it is real it really doesn't matter.

Our plane, however, isn't based on that or any other drawing but rather on the actual existing plane that we took measurements and pictures of. If you find that it's wrong in anyway other than those previously stated (gun bay and dual missile bays) please provide photographic evidence and we will fix it. Otherwise, I think we should drop this.

It's not that I'm saying anything bad about you or your sources, merely that we've not based our model off of that drawing. I did see it before I started this project more than 4 years ago but, I knew at once that it wasn't the correct plane.

kc.
 
And once again, an ongoing debate over the accuracy of a 3D animated cartoon representation of a real life airplane.

IT'S A FREAKING 3D ANIMATED CARTOON! Not a real aircraft! Close enough is good enough. If every 3D ANIMATED CARTOON AIRPLANE had to be 100% accurate in appearance and performance, there would not be a single aircraft, helicopter, space ship, boat, submarine, lawn mower, uni-cycle or flying broom available for any flight sim.

Relax, take a deep breath, and repeat after me:

IT'S A 3D ANIMATED CARTOON, IT'S A 3D ANIMATED CARTOON, IT'S A 3D ANIMATED CARTOON.

OBIO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top