YF-23 The World's Only INVISIBLE airplane

[The SC]

You brought up many arguments before, but your knowledge seems to be very limited, one hint of your lack of good analysis is the fact that many articles say that the F-22 was chosen mostly for its superior maneuverability while other articles contradict that, and say that the YF-23 has superior maneuverability to the F-22., One of those articles is just on the top of this page.
This thread of versus is about analysis of why the F-22 was chosen above the superior YF-23, it is not just about stealth technologies that you like to brag about with old articles, anyway no one knows the real stealth technologies in both planes or their vulnerabilities or what kind of radars they are designed to counter. The subject is about the overall design, and mostly to compare two leading technologies in the aerospace science fields. The real thought behind it was not even about why one was chosen above the other, since from most of the articles written about the subject, no one seems really to know why the F-22 won the competition, but mostly to study two different concepts and see beyond the pragmatism or other reasons behind the US military procurement decisions.

 

[Providence]

You brought up many arguments before, but your knowledge seems to be very limited, one hint of your lack of good analysis is the fact that many articles say that the F-22 was chosen mostly for its superior maneuverability while other articles contradict that, and say that the YF-23 has superior maneuverability to the F-22., One of those articles is just on the top of this page.
This thread of versus is about analysis of why the F-22 was chosen above the superior YF-23, it is not just about stealth technologies that you like to brag about with old articles, anyway no one knows the real stealth technologies in both planes or their vulnerabilities or what kind of radars they are designed to counter. The subject is about the overall design, and mostly to compare two leading technologies in the aerospace science fields. The real thought behind it was not even about why one was chosen above the other, since from most of the articles written about the subject, no one seems really to know why the F-22 won the competition, but mostly to study two different concepts and see beyond the pragmatism or other reasons behind the US military procurement decisions.

To paraphrase your entire gibberish - No one knows anything but let's discuss about it for a pragmatic analysis !

You must be of chinese ethnicity since you make points without head or tail.

 

[Zabaniyah]

From what I have heard, and if I'm not mistaken, the YF-23 was too complicated to manufacture and operate.

 

[The SC]

To paraphrase your entire gibberish - No one knows anything but let's discuss about it for a pragmatic analysis !

You must be of chinese ethnicity since you make points without head or tail.

I see you pick up words here and there from my post, and do not seem to understand a thing, since what you are struggling to say is exactly what I have said. Anyhow no time for a newbie trolling. So long buddy.

 

[libertad]

From what I have heard, and if I'm not mistaken, the YF-23 was too complicated to manufacture and operate.

When has that ever stopped us??

 

[gambit]

You brought up many arguments before, but your knowledge seems to be very limited,...

And you know more than I do ?

...one hint of your lack of good analysis is the fact that many articles say that the F-22 was chosen mostly for its superior maneuverability while other articles contradict that, and say that the YF-23 has superior maneuverability to the F-22., One of those articles is just on the top of this page.
This thread of versus is about analysis of why the F-22 was chosen above the superior YF-23, it is not just about stealth technologies that you like to brag about with old articles, anyway no one knows the real stealth technologies in both planes or their vulnerabilities or what kind of radars they are designed to counter. The subject is about the overall design, and mostly to compare two leading technologies in the aerospace science fields. The real thought behind it was not even about why one was chosen above the other, since from most of the articles written about the subject, no one seems really to know why the F-22 won the competition, but mostly to study two different concepts and see beyond the pragmatism or other reasons behind the US military procurement decisions.

Like the man said -- gibberish. And contradictory.

If there are conflicting opinions then it is pointless to even try to guess which is 'better'. So unless you can bring on the test pilots, or the program managers, or a concessionary statement from one company as to why its product is inferior in one or several aspects to its competitor -- then STFU. And I said that nicely.

I have yet to see you explain -- IN YOUR OWN WORDS -- even on the basics of the technologies involved about these aircrafts. All you have done is wholesale copied/pasted from other sources and called it 'analyses'. We have no hard data but you expect 'analyses'. Do you even know the meaning and proper context of 'analysis' ?

Guess not. So here it is...

Analysis - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I like this one: an examination of a complex, its elements, and their relations.

It seems appropriate enough.

You said, in trying to appear smart and knowledgeable, that: '...to compare two leading technologies in the aerospace science fields.'

Fine with me. I picked radar and its relevant companion, that of being low radar observable. That is one of the technologies necessary in designing both aircrafts, right ? It is also one of the most convenient subject raised by ignorant people, like yourself, in trying to criticize US.

I explained -- in my own words with supporting sources -- as to why it is pointless to criticize the F-22 based upon the alleged superior 'stealth' of the YF-23. If you cannot make a credible rebuttal to my argument, concede that you are ignorant and move on to another technology.

 

[Echo_419]

from what I read the YF-23 was or still is stealthier than the F-22 by how much who knows.

I just hope we don't screw up on the replacement for the B-2.

wonder if you could scale up the YF-23 and make it into a stealth bomber and give it the avionics of the F-35

You are the US have faith in yourself
Of course you will screw up

And you know more than I do ?


Like the man said -- gibberish. And contradictory.

If there are conflicting opinions then it is pointless to even try to guess which is 'better'. So unless you can bring on the test pilots, or the program managers, or a concessionary statement from one company as to why its product is inferior in one or several aspects to its competitor -- then STFU. And I said that nicely.

I have yet to see you explain -- IN YOUR OWN WORDS -- even on the basics of the technologies involved about these aircrafts. All you have done is wholesale copied/pasted from other sources and called it 'analyses'. We have no hard data but you expect 'analyses'. Do you even know the meaning and proper context of 'analysis' ?

Guess not. So here it is...

Analysis - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I like this one: an examination of a complex, its elements, and their relations.

It seems appropriate enough.

You said, in trying to appear smart and knowledgeable, that: '...to compare two leading technologies in the aerospace science fields.'

Fine with me. I picked radar and its relevant companion, that of being low radar observable. That is one of the technologies necessary in designing both aircrafts, right ? It is also one of the most convenient subject raised by ignorant people, like yourself, in trying to criticize US.

I explained -- in my own words with supporting sources -- as to why it is pointless to criticize the F-22 based upon the alleged superior 'stealth' of the YF-23. If you cannot make a credible rebuttal to my argument, concede that you are ignorant and move on to another technology.

From what i herd the 23 was rejected becuz it was to complicated to manufacture
how true is this ?

 

[gambit]

From what i herd the 23 was rejected becuz it was to complicated to manufacture
how true is this ?

I would not put too much stock in it.

By the time of competition, everyone in the business knew that the method for low radar observability is through shaping, not exotic materials. If we go by shaping to start, Northrop did a pretty good job. So then, what was it about the YF-23's manufacturing processes that are allegedly 'complicated' ? Next would be avionics, maintenance accessibility, engine performance, and so on.

Bottom line is that aside from politics, which are inevitable, we have nothing on the technical front whether one aircraft is supposedly 'superior' to the other to the extent that it would sway the purchase decision. The 'stealthier' argument -- that the YF-23 is the lower radar observable -- is the most common and ironically the most difficult to support in the complete absence of hard technical measurement data. To this day, no one have been able to support that criticism.

 

[The SC]

And you know more than I do ?


Like the man said -- gibberish. And contradictory.

If there are conflicting opinions then it is pointless to even try to guess which is 'better'. So unless you can bring on the test pilots, or the program managers, or a concessionary statement from one company as to why its product is inferior in one or several aspects to its competitor -- then STFU. And I said that nicely.

I have yet to see you explain -- IN YOUR OWN WORDS -- even on the basics of the technologies involved about these aircrafts. All you have done is wholesale copied/pasted from other sources and called it 'analyses'. We have no hard data but you expect 'analyses'. Do you even know the meaning and proper context of 'analysis' ?

Guess not. So here it is...

Analysis - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I like this one: an examination of a complex, its elements, and their relations.

It seems appropriate enough.

You said, in trying to appear smart and knowledgeable, that: '...to compare two leading technologies in the aerospace science fields.'

Fine with me. I picked radar and its relevant companion, that of being low radar observable. That is one of the technologies necessary in designing both aircrafts, right ? It is also one of the most convenient subject raised by ignorant people, like yourself, in trying to criticize US.

I explained -- in my own words with supporting sources -- as to why it is pointless to criticize the F-22 based upon the alleged superior 'stealth' of the YF-23. If you cannot make a credible rebuttal to my argument, concede that you are ignorant and move on to another technology.

Good lesson to yourself, at least you looked up the meaning of the word analysis!!!
You leave too many articles unnoticed to say your gibberish talk in your own words!?
So anyone who "criticizes" the US is an ignorant person, including the US generals, the engineers and the experts from all walks of life who criticizes the US on so many things, on a daily basis. You must be some A***h*** Fanatic.
You missed the whole point of the thread, reread the title, it holds the clue. You obviously can not explain it , so hold your
impertinent gibberish IN YOU OWN WORDS!? to yourself.
You said that the F-22 was chosen because of its superior maneuverability, and that is not true according to many articles, So it is not only stealth technology but a whole lot of factors that are involved...
You should try to understand definitions "you like" before writing elementary gibberish:
An analysis is an examination of a complex, its elements, and their relations.
You try one element and call it analysis. Please leave your emotions where they belong and try to be less subjective, and a bit more objective and true to the context of things.

 

[gambit]

You try one element and call it analysis.

Yes, I picked one that I have actual experience in. How about you ?

 

[he-man]

I would not put too much stock in it.

By the time of competition, everyone in the business knew that the method for low radar observability is through shaping, not exotic materials. If we go by shaping to start, Northrop did a pretty good job. So then, what was it about the YF-23's manufacturing processes that are allegedly 'complicated' ? Next would be avionics, maintenance accessibility, engine performance, and so on.

Bottom line is that aside from politics, which are inevitable, we have nothing on the technical front whether one aircraft is supposedly 'superior' to the other to the extent that it would sway the purchase decision. The 'stealthier' argument -- that the YF-23 is the lower radar observable -- is the most common and ironically the most difficult to support in the complete absence of hard technical measurement data. To this day, no one have been able to support that criticism.

I agree,no evidence exists to support this argument.

 

[The SC]

Yes, I picked one that I have actual experience in. How about you ?

I have opened a whole thread on Stealth technologies a while ago, containing scholarly scientific articles. I do not pretend to be a stealth technology expert, since even the main experts do not seem to agree on what is the basis of stealth. the concept was taken from an old Russian book and revived in the US. The US seems to believe it is in the shaping mostly, and some new stealth paint technologies as complements, leading one to believe that neither is enough.
The US stealth technologies in my knowledge started with SR-71, by applying unprecedented new materials and flight envelops to an airframe to fly as high and as fast as possible. Then came the F-117 and its angular design, followed by the B-2 "Stealth" bomber that most probably follows in the same line as the SR-71, at least for the altitude part of it.
The F-22 in particular tried to borrow some of these tech on top of traditional 4th generation systems and avionics, hence we have pilots shocking on lack of oxygen! So what is left is the paint Job...
The YF-23 seemed to have borrowed stealth from the B-2...but contracts had to be split between the two leading manufacturers!!!
The YF-23 in my opinion has borrowed its stealth from the SR-71 as well as the B-2, while the F-22 was more traditional with some twists that might have not worked well in real time...but contracts had to be split according to some politico- economics-military "realities", like aiming for financial equilibrium between major manufacturers, nothing less that ...subsidizing.
So being a pragmatist, stealth is whenever an airplane flies above or below any radar range...undetected. This was proven by the SR-71 flying at very high altitudes and small aircrafts like Mirages flying at very low altitudes. There was no talk about RCS for these tactics. Today we are talking about flying withing radar ranges and being "stealth" by reducing the RCS as much as possible... and only from the front! which does not seem too logical to an engineering mind, since most nations can use radar triangulation to identify a flying object, so it will one way or another detect the stealth plane, at least from two sides, which in my opinion again is too vulnerable to be called stealth at all.

 

[gambit]

I have opened a whole thread on Stealth technologies a while ago, containing scholarly scientific articles. I do not pretend to be a stealth technology expert, since even the main experts do not seem to agree on what is the basis of stealth. the concept was taken from an old Russian book and revived in the US. The US seems to believe it is in the shaping mostly, and some new stealth paint technologies as complements, leading one to believe that neither is enough.

On the highlighted, I summarily dismiss you from this discussion. I have Ufimtsev's text in my little library and presented a debunking of that a long time ago. I see no need to take you any more serious than the wee bit of consideration I already gave you.

 

[The SC]

On the highlighted, I summarily dismiss you from this discussion. I have Ufimtsev's text in my little library and presented a debunking of that a long time ago. I see no need to take you any more serious than the wee bit of consideration I already gave you.

Thanks a lot, you show your own shortcomings, and disguise it as dismissing others while in reality you had no answer but to dismiss yourself. Stop projecting your own feelings on others, your arrogance will give you a heart attack one of these days.