YF-23 re-emerges for surprise bid

[noname]

Northrop Grumman's "forgotten" advanced tactical fighter leaves museum
and could be heading for bomber contest

Northrop Grumman's long-abandoned YF-23A advanced tactical fighter (ATF)
is emerging as the possible basis for a surprise contender for the US
Air Force's interim bomber requirement.

The company recently retrieved the second of the two YF-23A "Black Widow
II" prototypes (PAV-2) from the Western Museum of Flight in Hathorne,
California, ostensibly for repainting for display at a forthcoming
Northrop Grumman-backed air fair in August. However, the restoration is
also thought to include several changes, including new cockpit displays
and other possible cosmetic modifications.

Northrop Grumman confirms restoration of the General Electric
YF120-powered PAV-2 is taking place, but declines to comment on whether
the revived YF-23A is linked to any USAF proposal. But sources close to
the studies, which were kicked off by the USAF's recently issued request
for information, say Northrop Grumman now includes a YF-23-based
"regional" bomber concept among its raft of proposals and that the USAF
"is interested".

Until now, the company's offerings are known to include an upgraded B-2,
X-47B unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) -based studies and possible
designs based on its quiet supersonic technology programme. The
distinctive, rhomboid-winged YF-23A lost out to Lockheed Martin's YF-22
in the ATF competition in 1991, but proved a valuable technology testbed
for Northrop Grumman, which gave it all-aspect stealth. The company says
it "drew upon a wide range of experience for its response to the interim
bomber RFI, and the YF-23 is one".

Other contenders include a Boeing's B-1R (regional) re-engined bomber
studies and a larger D-model version of its X-45 UCAV, while Lockheed
Martin is considering various derivatives of the F/A-22. These include
single- and two-seat, re-winged and tailless versions dubbed the FB-22,
the larger of which would be able to cruise at Mach 1.8 and have 75% of
the range of the B-2 carrying up to 30 115kg (250lb) small-diameter
bombs. Lockheed Martin is also understood to be offering a variety of
other manned designs, including a flying-wing concept.

The interim bomber is intended to bridge the gap between the current
bomber fleet and a next-generation aircraft planned for 2037. The
present timetable calls for a development effort to start in 2006, with
an initial operating capability by 2015.

GUY NORRIS / LOS ANGELES

http://www.flightinternational.com/

[Grantland]

OMG!!! I THINK I'M GOING TO HAVE AN ORGASM!!
GRANTLAND

noname > wrote:

>Northrop Grumman's "forgotten" advanced tactical fighter leaves museum
>and could be heading for bomber contest
>
>Northrop Grumman's long-abandoned YF-23A advanced tactical fighter (ATF)
>is emerging as the possible basis for a surprise contender for the US
>Air Force's interim bomber requirement.
>
>The company recently retrieved the second of the two YF-23A "Black Widow
>II" prototypes (PAV-2) from the Western Museum of Flight in Hathorne,
>California, ostensibly for repainting for display at a forthcoming
>Northrop Grumman-backed air fair in August. However, the restoration is
>also thought to include several changes, including new cockpit displays
>and other possible cosmetic modifications.
>
>Northrop Grumman confirms restoration of the General Electric
>YF120-powered PAV-2 is taking place, but declines to comment on whether
>the revived YF-23A is linked to any USAF proposal. But sources close to
>the studies, which were kicked off by the USAF's recently issued request
>for information, say Northrop Grumman now includes a YF-23-based
>"regional" bomber concept among its raft of proposals and that the USAF
>"is interested".
>
>Until now, the company's offerings are known to include an upgraded B-2,
>X-47B unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) -based studies and possible
>designs based on its quiet supersonic technology programme. The
>distinctive, rhomboid-winged YF-23A lost out to Lockheed Martin's YF-22
>in the ATF competition in 1991, but proved a valuable technology testbed
>for Northrop Grumman, which gave it all-aspect stealth. The company says
>it "drew upon a wide range of experience for its response to the interim
>bomber RFI, and the YF-23 is one".
>
>Other contenders include a Boeing's B-1R (regional) re-engined bomber
>studies and a larger D-model version of its X-45 UCAV, while Lockheed
>Martin is considering various derivatives of the F/A-22. These include
>single- and two-seat, re-winged and tailless versions dubbed the FB-22,
>the larger of which would be able to cruise at Mach 1.8 and have 75% of
>the range of the B-2 carrying up to 30 115kg (250lb) small-diameter
>bombs. Lockheed Martin is also understood to be offering a variety of
>other manned designs, including a flying-wing concept.
>
>The interim bomber is intended to bridge the gap between the current
>bomber fleet and a next-generation aircraft planned for 2037. The
>present timetable calls for a development effort to start in 2006, with
>an initial operating capability by 2015.
>
>GUY NORRIS / LOS ANGELES
>
>http://www.flightinternational.com/
>

[Stephen FPilot Bierce]

I just saw another article on the "Popular Science" website about a
research program Northrop Grumman has been running with the goal of
quieter supersonic aircraft. Last year, they did some test runs with
an aerodynamically-modified F-5E Tiger II that were promising.
Perhaps they'll take what they learned and apply them to the YF-23
revival plan.

FP

[Paul F Austin]

"Stephen FPilot Bierce" > wrote
> I just saw another article on the "Popular Science" website about a
> research program Northrop Grumman has been running with the goal of
> quieter supersonic aircraft. Last year, they did some test runs with
> an aerodynamically-modified F-5E Tiger II that were promising.
> Perhaps they'll take what they learned and apply them to the YF-23
> revival plan.

That's unlikely. The QSF techniques involve moving the shocks around to gain
cancellation. In the QSF F-5, that meant a loooong nose. It's unlikely that
you can have a QSF shape that's also stealthy.

[Stephen FPilot Bierce]

Paul F Austin wrote...
> I wrote
> > I just saw another article on the "Popular Science" website about a
> > research program Northrop Grumman has been running with the goal of
> > quieter supersonic aircraft. Last year, they did some test runs with
> > an aerodynamically-modified F-5E Tiger II that were promising.
> > Perhaps they'll take what they learned and apply them to the YF-23
> > revival plan.
>
> That's unlikely. The QSF techniques involve moving the shocks around to gain
> cancellation. In the QSF F-5, that meant a loooong nose. It's unlikely that
> you can have a QSF shape that's also stealthy.

I'm looking over the pictures of the F-5 demonstrator and don't really
see any real problems per se. The nose on the demonstrator isn't much
longer than the original one...the main difference is the fuselage is
much deeper.

A deeper fuse on the YF-23 design would mean a significantly larger
payload bay for air-to-ground weapons. I think this deepened fuselage
can be tailored to be low-observable and still reap the benefits of
the improved aero-acoustics.

[Ron]

>A deeper fuse on the YF-23 design would mean a significantly larger
>payload bay for air-to-ground weapons. I think this deepened fuselage
>can be tailored to be low-observable and still reap the benefits of
>the improved aero-acoustics.

I have also heard rumors that while the Western Museum of Flight had the YF-23
on display, Northrop technicians occasionally stopped in to take parts from it
for another aircraft....


Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

[tffy]

What's the point of having a low-shock-noise BOMBER? So you don't
disturb the peaceful sleep of the same guys you just bombed? The
technology is being investigated for overland supersonic transports,
not stike a/c.

Yeah yeah, Low Observable can also mean acoustic, sure... in
principle. In reality, however: 1) No amount of shock dissipation will
make the plane silent/undetectable. 2) No missile/search system tracks
via soundwaves.

QSF and a bomber project have nothing in common.

> Paul F Austin wrote...
> > I wrote
> > > I just saw another article on the "Popular Science" website about a
> > > research program Northrop Grumman has been running with the goal of
> > > quieter supersonic aircraft. Last year, they did some test runs with
> > > an aerodynamically-modified F-5E Tiger II that were promising.
> > > Perhaps they'll take what they learned and apply them to the YF-23
> > > revival plan.
> >
> > That's unlikely. The QSF techniques involve moving the shocks around to gain
> > cancellation. In the QSF F-5, that meant a loooong nose. It's unlikely that
> > you can have a QSF shape that's also stealthy.
>
> I'm looking over the pictures of the F-5 demonstrator and don't really
> see any real problems per se. The nose on the demonstrator isn't much
> longer than the original one...the main difference is the fuselage is
> much deeper.
>
> A deeper fuse on the YF-23 design would mean a significantly larger
> payload bay for air-to-ground weapons. I think this deepened fuselage
> can be tailored to be low-observable and still reap the benefits of
> the improved aero-acoustics.

[Stephen FPilot Bierce]

(tffy) wrote:

>What's the point of having a low-shock-noise BOMBER? So you don't
>disturb the peaceful sleep of the same guys you just bombed? The
>technology is being investigated for overland supersonic transports,
>not stike a/c.

What about those neighboring allied countries you have to overfly to get from
your base to the combat zone? Being able to do that quietly at over Mach 1
would be a great capability increase for our Air Forces. We are being hamstrung
in a strategic sense by having either quiet bombers that are too slow or
fast-movers that don't carry enough firepower. QS capability would speed up
reaction and deployment times.

Stephen "FPilot" Bierce/IPMS #35922
{Sig Quotes Removed on Request}

[Scott Ferrin]

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 07:20:00 GMT, (Stephen
"FPilot" Bierce) wrote:

(tffy) wrote:
>
>>What's the point of having a low-shock-noise BOMBER? So you don't
>>disturb the peaceful sleep of the same guys you just bombed? The
>>technology is being investigated for overland supersonic transports,
>>not stike a/c.
>
>What about those neighboring allied countries you have to overfly to get from
>your base to the combat zone? Being able to do that quietly at over Mach 1
>would be a great capability increase for our Air Forces. We are being hamstrung
>in a strategic sense by having either quiet bombers that are too slow or
>fast-movers that don't carry enough firepower. QS capability would speed up
>reaction and deployment times.
>
>Stephen "FPilot" Bierce/IPMS #35922
>{Sig Quotes Removed on Request}



Noise seems to have nothing to do with it. I can't think of a single
instance when it wasn't all or nothing.