Jump to content

F-23 Black Widow II


Recommended Posts

Having stepped up and purchased the HobbyBoss kit I am amazed at the size of the thing. It makes the F-15 look small and probably challenges the F-111 in bulk. After fiddling with the kit parts I started to wonder if the F-23 would have been equipped with any external stores pylons for fuel and weapons to augment the rather small internally carried payload. Going down that path means it would be an immediate what-if so why not get some feedback from others that perhaps have an insight into what the F-23 would have looked like after five or ten years of actual service. So with that being said, here are some questions in need of answers or suggestions:

*Would it have been strictly an air domination fighter or would it also be for air to ground missions? It has been suggested on other web pages that the Production aircraft was supposed to have the ability to carry four to five AMRAAM and a pair of Sidewinders internally. What number of weapons could the F-23 have been able to carry on wing and fuselage stores pylons?

*How many stores pylons could you manage to fit under the wings and fuselage? Considering the disappointment I discovered in the box I would not mind tarting the thing up with some fuel tanks and stores pylons and my quick short list of candidates includes stores pylons from the F-15, F-16, and the F-18. Any other suggestions?

*What size fuel tanks could it possibly carry? Would the F-23 have been able to carry 300, 450, or 600 gallon tanks on stores pylons under the wings and fuselage? If so, how many?

Edited by jeffryfontaine
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting question.

Available drawings depicting the F-23A in EMD configuration do not indicate any provisions for external stores.

Beyond that, the F-23A would have differed significantly from the YF-23 - larger in size, redesigned intakes, recontoured fuselage and engines nacelles, bigger nose to accomodate a radar, etc.

Anyway, let's go down the path supposing possible "what-if" configurations:

Enlarged weapons bays, originally designed to carry air-to-air armament only. However, the rear bay could have been modified to carry 2 JDAM or some GBU-39 or GBU-53/B SDBs.

Problem: omitting the AIM-120C/D deprives the F-23 of its BVR capabilities solely relying on its AIM-9X WVR armament. Remember: the YF-23/F-23 was not designed to be a born-and-bred dog-fighter, and even its rival, what has become the F-22A Raptor, had some problems in dissimilar air combat engagements. That in mind, an F-23A might fare even worse.

Centerline stores:

Nope. Interference with the rear weapons bay and general lack of ground clearance.

Underwing stores:

Why not. Based on the wing geometry and construction layout it's conceivable that a single pylon could be carried under each wing - similar to the F-15. Either equipped with an F-15 style fuel tank for ferry flights or with additional air-to-air/air-to-ground ordnance depending on operational requirements, theater threats or the weapons bays' actual loadout. Assumption: maximum stealth is not required. Problem: due to the relatively low overall ground clearance, any possible pylon should possess a rather shallow vertical elevation.

Did some quick and dirty photoshopping to visualise the size and propotions:

F-23A-EMD-dwg-1500_zpsf87fcdab.jpg

Anyway, I wouldn't expect more than two wing pylons.

Cheers,

Erik

Edited by Airfixer
Link to post
Share on other sites

The requirements that defined the F-22 would have applied to the F-23 as well. So the ability to carry external stores would still exist. F-23's got enough wing area for two pylons underneath each wing, the inner stations would def be capable of carrying drop tanks (the pylons go with it when they're dropped btw) and an additional outboard pylon for carrying external stores when LO isn't a mission requirement. I'm not certain that they would be capable of carrying drop tanks on the outer pylons, but they could easily carry at least 1 AAM each.

f35_schem_09.jpg

f-22-weaps-mg27.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent topic 70.gif !

Having work at McDonnell Douglas and being friends with engineers that worked on the YF-23, here is what I remember of the YF-23's capabilities, as per said engineers, at the time of the :

1) The YF-23 was designed similar to the F-111 in that it carried a huge amount of internal fuel. For example, it had a combat radius greater than the then-new F-15E.

2) The YF-23 had a combat radius of approx. 20% greater than the YF-22 (And twice that of the current F-22!).

3) The YF-23 had a faster top speed.

4) The YF-23 was faster in supercruise.

5) It was far stealthier than the YF-22. For example; Where the F-22 is now (For the most-part) stealth-wise, is where the YF-23 was during their competition. The stealth characteristic was a top priority requirement (Along with supercruise).

6) The YF-23 was designed to carry everything internally, as per design requirements/demands of effective stealth capability.

7) The YF-23 had a strike capability design while still having AA capability, all carried internally.

8) The YF-23 had an engine IR-reduction design very similar to the B-2 bomber. Again; For the purpose of stealth as well as combat survivability. McDonnell Douglas engineers believed stealth and combat survivability was more important than the ability to maneuver with thrust vectoring. How they described it to me was, "Which capability will be more important to complete a mission, stealth or combat maneuvering?" Keep in mind that stand-off capability and tactics was going to be part of the design of future combat for both air and ground.

To answer your questions;

The way the YF-23's weapons bay was designed and it's incredible internal fuel capacity, I am of the opinion that nothing is needed to be carried via external pylons.

Basically; The YF-23 was a 5th generation F-15E in regards to it's capabilities of combat range, loadout capacity and configurations, and speed.

I'll be bold and add, had the USAF picked the YF-23, they wouldn't need the F-35.

The YF-23 would be just like the F-15C and F-15E platforms with all the 5th generation technology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Airfixer, Trigger, and Check Six, thank you for the very informative responses.

The large volume of fuel carried internally by the F-23 is certainly a good argument against external fuel tanks being carried but it would be interesting nonetheless to consider some kind of an arrangement for such things just to add some clutter to an otherwise clean aircraft.

I did perform a quick check-fit of the F-15 wing and fuselage stores pylons and found one spot on the wing where the pylon would fit without interference with any of the engraved wing features. Going to check to see how F-16 stores pylons will work next.

The large surface area under the fuselage still begs for something to clutter it up. Whether it is an actual stores pylon or just a stores station built into the aircraft (such as that found on the F-101 Voodoo under each engine section) or a short stubby pylon for something expendable. Not really a priority though, just something that I wanted to put out there for discussion.

Thanks again for your input.

Jeff

***forgot to ask about location of the 20mm Gatling gun. Which side is it supposed to be on? One drawing indicates it is on the left side but in one of the descriptions at yf-23.net states that the gun was moved to the right side so which location is correct? Considering the HobbyBoss F-23 shape has no engraving for the gun on either side of the fuselage at this point it is simply a matter of adding the feature.

Edited by jeffryfontaine
Link to post
Share on other sites

Airfixer, Trigger, and Check Six, thank you for the very informative responses.

1) The large volume of fuel carried internally by the F-23 is certainly a good argument against external fuel tanks being carried but it would be interesting nonetheless to consider some kind of an arrangement for such things just to add some clutter to an otherwise clean aircraft.

2) The large surface area under the fuselage still begs for something to clutter it up.

Thanks again for your input.

Jeff

3) ***forgot to ask about location of the 20mm Gatling gun. Which side is it supposed to be on? One drawing indicates it is on the left side but in one of the descriptions at yf-23.net states that the gun was moved to the right side so which location is correct? Considering the HobbyBoss F-23 shape has no engraving for the gun on either side of the fuselage at this point it is simply a matter of adding the feature.

1) To add fuel capacity to a YF-23 whatif, I like the idea of how the US Navy accomplished it with the Baby Hornet: Create a quasimodo hump on the dorsal of the a/c. Meaning; Raise the surface area behind the cockpit and maybe even over the engines.

2) I agree with your point here. But I would limit it to a CAP missile loadout. For example: Maybe three hardpoints under each wing with the two inboard pylons having two AMRAAMs each while the outboard pylons having two AIM-9Xs each.

3) The one cut-away view of the YF-23 I have shows the M-61 cannon on the starboard side with the ammo drum mounted at the a/c centerline.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The IRST/EOTS or what ever they call it is an excellent idea smile.gif

I should PM you some pics of a YF-23 whatif I'm building right now.

It involves swing-wings, a cockpit from an EA-6B, and a main weapons bay that can hold four BLU-113s w00t.gif !

I lengthened the fuselage in two areas and widened the fuselage just forward of the intakes all the way to the radome.

A pretty crazy involved whatif build!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I should PM you some pics of a YF-23 whatif I'm building right now.

It involves swing-wings, a cockpit from an EA-6B, and a main weapons bay that can hold four BLU-113s w00t.gif !

I lengthened the fuselage in two areas and widened the fuselage just forward of the intakes all the way to the radome.

A pretty crazy involved whatif build!

That sounds impressive. PM sent.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The F-23A EMD configuration drawing positively depicts "provisons for IRST" - similar to the F-35's installation.

f23a_IRST_zps835b5c72.jpg

Weapons bays:

Although the available drawings of F-23A EMD aren't providing any information about the bays' layout, it is widely assumed that the rear weapons bay would have carried its ordnance in a staggered configuration, e.g. 4-5 AIM-120. However, EMD drawings suggest that the overall volume of the weapons bays would have been less capacious compared to the F-22.

Cheers,

Erik

Link to post
Share on other sites

Topic title changed to reflect the scope of the discussion.

I finally found an image (drawing) of the YF-23 showing the gun mounted on the right side of the fuselage courtesy of F-16.net. Discussion and image can be found at this link: Movie on F-22 vs F-23. Scroll down to find the image or click here. Image source for crediting purposes is unknown so I am not hot-linking it.

Another question concerning the in-flight refueling receptacle. Where was it to be located? One of the drawings shows this equipment mounted just forward of left engine hump and the HobbyBoss kit sort of ignores this feature all together. There is some engraving on the fuselage behind the cockpit but nothing that remotely resembled the IFR doors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That picture above is 100% fanboy art. Me, you, or a caveman could have drawn just as "realistic" one.

The weapons loads on the right were real proposal possibilities.

However; you are correct with the weapon load possibilities shown on the left.

At the time of the competition the YF-23 had way more capabilities and adaptability than the YF-22.

It wasn't until 7 years later that the F-22 reached most of the YF-23's capabilities. One of the capabilities the F-22 didn't/couldn't reach was combat range, a very important performance feature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That picture above is 100% fanboy art. Me, you, or a caveman could have drawn just as "realistic" one.

Thank you Donnie.

The weapons loads on the right were real proposal possibilities.

OK, so the missiles would be mounted on a trapeze such as the F-22 and F-106 then.

Two questions:

1. Since the width of the bay would have necessitated some stacking of the weapons within it, how would the bay have handled both AAMs and air-to-ground munitions?

2. I've read about this missile deployment proposal; was it ever considered?

us47021454yf23weaponsba.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
It wasn't until 7 years later that the F-22 reached most of the YF-23's capabilities.

This comment makes me laugh, because it's pure conjecture. Most of what extended the F-22's development timeline had to do with slashing of the development budget, extending of timelines, and the incremental drops of insufficient funding provided to the program at unpredictable timelines. The "capabilities" differences between the F-22 and the YF-23 based on the differences in airframe design were NEVER "corrected." Corrected is not the right word, because it was a difference in philosophy between the two designs, one favoring more of a heavy interceptor vs. one favoring more of an air superiority fighter.

Things like the LO characteristics were merely demonstrated on both fighters, and it was known the production variants would have to be improved to meet specifications...something the F-22 did very well. Further, the figures for neither prototype are available in open source, so again, it's pure speculation to say one performed better than the other in this department. In the end, the selected fighter met or exceeded the requirements laid out for the program.

My point is, the eventual F-23 would've suffered the exact same development issues as the F-22 faced. Reduced budgets, extended timelines, and program unpredictability would've affected the end product here as well, perhaps more. Remember, the YF-23 design represented substantially more risk than the YF-22. Additionally, it's worth noting that one of the most critical components of the F-22's capabilities is sensor fusion. The immense software challenges required to incorporate this capability would've been no different for the F-23.

Don't get me wrong, there are aspects of the YF-23 I would LOVE to have in the F-22: an (even higher) top end speed, increased fuel/range, etc. However, to say the F-22 was 7 years behind the YF-23 is not a factually accurate statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd add that the beauty of model making is that it allows comparisons to be visualised, right there in your face, for us ordinary folk.

Having always preferred the sleek look of the YF-23, and absorbed all the news about how PAV-2 was the fastest and bestest of all the competitors,

it was only when I was able to compare the vastly increased enclosed volume of the F-22 with the YF-23 (via the Revell and Italeri kits) that it occurred to me the professional defence planners may have been right after all.

Given that the F-22A has undergone much further development than the -23 (which may yet re-appear in some form - FB-23 anyone?), if the current name of the stealthy game is internal carriage, then

enclosed volume counts for a lot, no matter how attractive looking the competitor may be.

And the YF-23 it appears to me, wasted the opportunity to offer more of it in the design. It's still a beautiful machine though, had-me-down components or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...