F-22 vs YF-23

[MJR]

What I don't get is why they chose production for the F-22 over the YF-23. First of all, the F-22 had a lot of malfunctions and they quit making them. Second, the Black Widow had better avionics and was just as good.

 

[Kozak]

First of all, the F-22 had a lot of malfunctions and they quit making them.

1.Serial F-22 has only 2 crashes, much less than any other mass production fighter in the world.
2.Main reason for preferring YF-22 over YF-23 was 22's agility, required to gain WVR superiority over 4++ generation fighters (e.g. MiG-35/Su-37).
3.Another reason for preferring the Boeing/Lockheed Marting design was less technical innovations in F-22 - that is, less cost per unit.
4.Despite of that, F-22 production is currently stopped at 187 units. With F-23 this would be something around 50-100.

P.S.I'd recommend you going to this forum and search there, this topic has been discussed many times.

 

[MJR]

It might have had only 2 crashes but still a lot of problems. But anyway...this is way off topic, but which air force is better. Russia or US?

 

[Andy44]

But anyway...this is way off topic, but which air force is better. Russia or US?

Yeah, great idea. We need more flame wars on this forum.

 

[garyw]

It might have had only 2 crashes but still a lot of problems. But anyway...this is way off topic, but which air force is better. Russia or US?

If Russia and USA went head to head the air force is one aspect of the war. it is not the be all and end all.

 

[Hielor]

this is way off topic, but which air force is better. Russia or US?

"Better" using what _objective_ criteria? This is entirely a matter of opinion.

The USAF serves the purposes of the US. The Russian AF serves the purposes of Russia. Therefore, I think neither is better than the other--they each serve their purpose, so they are of equal goodness.

 

[Ark]

F-22 production was stopped for political reasons, not technical.

As for which air force is better, I'm fairly sure a squadron of F-22s with fully qualified and experienced pilots would rip apart pretty much anything Russia could offer. That could change in a few years when Russia and others get their fifth generation fighters into service.

It's kind of a moot point, though, since none of our current enemies have any kind of an air force, and if they did it would only consist of outdated and half-busted Russian fighters leftover from the Cold War.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, just explaining it logically: under favorable conditions, the F-22 can destroy 25 Russian planes for each F-22 shot down. But still, the F-22 is vulnerable, the studies about the performance have many assumptions of the kind of enemy (for example surface-to-air fire is not included, it is also assumed the 25 enemy fighters draw numbers and don't arrive at once), and of course, the technological development of the potential enemies does not stop.

And on the ground, a F-22 is just a good way to cause expensive damage with minimal effort.

It can not justify it's price alone, it is a battleship solution, maybe similar to the then very expensive Spitfire. The F-22 can alone decide battles, but it can't be everywhere and is too expensive to be everywhere. You need other cheaper planes to fill the airspace.

 

[tl8]

It can not justify it's price alone, it is a battleship solution, maybe similar to the then very expensive Spitfire. The F-22 can alone decide battles, but it can't be everywhere and is too expensive to be everywhere. You need other cheaper planes to fill the airspace.

I would envisage that towards the end of the life of the F-22 it would lead a number of UCAVs which can be controlled by a single F-22. That way you could infact have 180 combat flights each having a F-22 along with a cheaper but less capable UCAV.

It is the missiles that do most of the work and they are improving all the time.

 

[Urwumpe]

I would envisage that towards the end of the life of the F-22 it would lead a number of UCAVs which can be controlled by a single F-22. That way you could infact have 180 combat flights each having a F-22 along with a cheaper but less capable UCAV.

Yes, but lately the USA fell a bit back in the missile development, compared to other countries.

 

[tl8]

Yes, but lately the USA fell a bit back in the missile development, compared to other countries.

I will say that is true, I guess an aircraft looks like 'progress' towards the public rather than your core killing machine.

 

[Urwumpe]

I will say that is true, I guess an aircraft looks like 'progress' towards the public rather than your core killing machine.

Possible, but that kind of thinking is sure not helpful. It is the whole package that counts. A very good plane is useless with missiles which are almost one generation back (As the USA for example have still no TVC on their missiles, or a BVRAAM)

 

[Hielor]

Possible, but that kind of thinking is sure not helpful. It is the whole package that counts. A very good plane is useless with missiles which are almost one generation back (As the USA for example have still no TVC on their missiles, or a BVRAAM)

The AIM-120 AMRAAM is a BVRAAM, as was the AIM-54 Phoenix(which the US no longer uses, since it only worked with the F-14)

 

[Urwumpe]

The AIM-120 AMRAAM is a BVRAAM, as was the AIM-54 Phoenix(which the US no longer uses, since it only worked with the F-14)

The Phoenix was and is still the only BVRAAM - the AMRAAM is a medium range missile, which just reaches about 50 km range in favorable conditions (In actual combat the number is far lower, just barely beyond the range of longer ranged short-ranged missiles). BVRAAMs reach between 90 km and 200 km.

 

[Kozak]

the AMRAAM is a medium range missile, which just reaches about 50 km range in favorable conditions (In actual combat the number is far lower, just barely beyond the range of longer ranged short-ranged missiles)

AIM-120A and AIM-120D range varies twice - so this is an uncautious statement. Also, WVR combat begins at 10-15nm - so it's missiles like R-73RMD2 are what should be considered medium range BVRAAM missile, not the other way. All AMRAAMS are BVR.

 

[Hielor]

The Phoenix was and is still the only BVRAAM - the AMRAAM is a medium range missile, which just reaches about 50 km range in favorable conditions (In actual combat the number is far lower, just barely beyond the range of longer ranged short-ranged missiles). BVRAAMs reach between 90 km and 200 km.

90-200km is not beyond-visual-range. Beyond-visual-range starts at ~37km (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BVRAAM). 90-200km is long-range.

 

[MJR]

"Better" using what _objective_ criteria? This is entirely a matter of opinion.

The USAF serves the purposes of the US. The Russian AF serves the purposes of Russia. Therefore, I think neither is better than the other--they each serve their purpose, so they are of equal goodness.

Well...lets use another term. Who has the better planes overall from a global perspective and who is more developed. To me I think it is pretty close, but i would like to know what you all think about it.

 

[Hielor]

Well...lets use another term. Who has the better planes overall from a global perspective and who is more developed. To me I think it is pretty close, but i would like to know what you all think about it.

That question has already been answered in this thread.

 

[Eagle]

Therefore, I think neither is better than the other--they each serve their purpose, so they are of equal goodness.

An apple is not equal to an orange no even if one isn't better than the other.

 

[Hielor]

An apple is not equal to an orange no even if one isn't better than the other.

!(a < b) && !(a > b) => (a == b)