Northrop YF-23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"YF-23" redirects here. For the Chinese rocket engine, see YF-23 (rocket engine).

YF-23
The first YF-23 prototype PAV-1, nicknamed "Black Widow", conducts test flights over Edwards Air Force Base. PAV-1 is equipped with the Pratt & Whitney YF119-PW-100N engines.
YF-23 flying over Edwards Air Force Base.
Role Stealth fighter technology demonstrator
National origin United States
Manufacturer Northrop/McDonnell Douglas
First flight 27 August 1990
Status Canceled
Primary user United States Air Force
Produced 1989–1990
Number built 2

The Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 is an American single-seat, twin-engine, supersonic stealth fighter aircraft technology demonstrator designed for the United States Air Force (USAF). The design team was a finalist in the USAF's Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) demonstration/validation competition, battling the Lockheed YF-22 team for the full-scale development contract. Two YF-23 prototypes were built.

In the 1980s, the USAF began looking for a replacement for its fighter aircraft to more effectively counter the Soviet Union's advanced Sukhoi Su-27 and Mikoyan MiG-29. Several companies submitted design proposals; the USAF selected proposals from Northrop and Lockheed. Northrop teamed with McDonnell Douglas to develop the YF-23, while Lockheed, Boeing, and General Dynamics developed the YF-22.

The YF-23 was stealthier and faster, but less agile than its competitor. After a four-year development and evaluation process, the YF-22 team was announced the winner in 1991 and the design was developed into the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, which first flew in 1997 and entered service in 2005. The U.S. Navy considered using the production version of the ATF as the basis for a replacement to the F-14, but these plans were later canceled. The two YF-23 prototypes are currently museum exhibits.

Development[edit]

Concept definition[edit]

American reconnaissance satellites first spotted the advanced Soviet Su-27 and MiG-29 fighter prototypes in 1978, which caused concern in the U.S. Both Soviet models were expected to reduce the maneuverability advantage of contemporary U.S. fighter aircraft.[1] Additionally, U.S. tactical airpower would be further threatened by new Soviet systems such as the A-50 airborne warning and control system (AWACS) and more advanced surface-to-air missile systems.[2] In 1981, the USAF requested information from several aerospace companies on possible features for an Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) to replace the F-15 Eagle. The ATF was to take advantage of emerging technologies, including composite materials, lightweight alloys, advanced flight-control systems, more powerful propulsion systems, and stealth technology.[3]

Diagram of several designs submitted for ATF RFI. Note the comparatively small sizes of Northrop's designs.

The ATF request for information (RFI) was released in May 1981 to several aerospace companies on possible features for the new fighter. Initially code-named "Senior Sky", the ATF at this time was still in the midst of requirements definition, which meant that there was considerable variety in the industry responses. Northrop submitted three designs for the RFI, ranging from ultra low-cost, to highly agile, to low-observable missileer; all were on the small and light end of the response spectrum.[4] In 1983, the ATF System Program Office (SPO) was formed at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base from the initial Concept Development Team. After discussions with aerospace companies, the SPO made air-to-air combat with outstanding kinematic performance the primary role for the ATF, which would replace the F-15 Eagle.[5] Northrop's response was a Mach 2+ fighter design designated N-360 with twin engines, delta wings, thrust vectoring nozzles, and two canted vertical tails as the empennage surfaces.[6][7] Around this time however, the SPO would begin to increasingly emphasize stealth due to very low radar cross section (RCS) results from the Air Force's "black world" innovations such as the Have Blue/F-117, Tacit Blue, and the Advanced Technology Bomber (ATB) program (which would result in the B-2).[8]

Northrop was able to quickly adapt to the ATF's increasing emphasis on stealth. Since October 1981, a small team of engineers under Rob Sandusky within its ATB/B-2 division had been working on stealth fighter designs. Sandusky would later be the Northrop ATF program's Chief Engineer, while fellow B-2 stealth engineer Yu Ping Liu was recruited in 1985 as the chief scientist.[9] Three design concepts were studied: the Agile Maneuverable Fighter (AMF) similar to N-360 with the best aerodynamic performance of the three while having minimal stealth, Ultra Stealth Fighter (USF) that emphasized maximum stealth through edge alignment with only four RCS spikes and was nicknamed "Christmas Tree" for its planform shape, and High Stealth Fighter (HSF) that balanced stealth and maneuverability with diamond wings, all-moving V-tail "ruddervators", engine exhaust troughs, and aligned edges.[7][10] HSF would take many design cues from the B-2 to reduce the its susceptibility to radar and infrared detection, and Liu's understanding of both radar signatures and aerodynamics would lend itself to key design features, such as shaping of the nose (nicknamed "platypus" for the initial shape and pronounced chine edges) and canopy with their Gaussian surfaces. By 1985, HSF had evolved to be recognizably similar to the eventual YF-23 and emerged as the optimal balance of stealth and aerodynamic performance.[9][11]

Demonstration and validation[edit]

By November 1984, concept exploration had allowed the SPO to narrow its requirements and release the Statement of Operational Need, which called for a 50,000 lb (22,700 kg) takeoff weight fighter with stealth and excellent kinematics, including prolonged supersonic flight without the use of afterburners, or supercruise. In September 1985, the USAF issued the request for proposal (RFP) for demonstration and validation (Dem/Val) to several aircraft manufacturers with the top four proposals, later cut down to two, proceeding to the next phase; in addition to the ATF's demanding technical requirements, the RFP also emphasized systems engineering, technology development plans, and risk mitigation.[12] The RFP would see some changes after its initial release; following discussions with Lockheed and Northrop regarding their experiences with the F-117 and ATB/B-2, stealth requirements were drastically increased in December 1985.[13] The requirement to include the evaluation of prototype air vehicles from the two finalists was added in May 1986 due to recommendations from the Packard Commission. At this time, the USAF envisioned procuring 750 ATFs at a unit flyaway cost of $35 million in FY 1985 dollars; at the same time, the U.S. Navy, under the Navy Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF) program, announced that it would use a derivative of the ATF winner to replace its F-14 Tomcat and called for the procurement of 546 aircraft.[14][15]

From left to right, flat-plate models of Northrop's AMF, USF, and HSF design concepts. HSF was the preferred concept by 1985.

Northrop's work on the HSF would pay off for the Dem/Val RFP. By January 1986, HSF would evolve into Design Proposal 86E (DP86E) as a refined and well-understood concept and became Northrop's preference for its ATF submission.[16] Furthermore, Northrop's ability to design and analyze stealthy curved surfaces, stemming back from its work on Tacit Blue and the ATB/B-2, gave their designers an early advantage, especially since Lockheed, the only other company with extensive stealth experience, had previously relied on faceting as on the F-117 and lost the ATB to Northrop as a result. That loss, along with the poor aerodynamic performance of their early faceted ATF concept, forced Lockheed to also develop designs and analysis methods with curved stealthy surfaces.[17][18] Northrop's design would be refined into DP110, which was its submission for Dem/Val.[7]

In July 1986, proposals for Demonstration and Validation (Dem/Val) were submitted by Lockheed, Boeing, General Dynamics, McDonnell Douglas, Northrop, Grumman and Rockwell; the latter two dropped out of competition shortly thereafter.[19] As contractors were expected to make significant investments for technology development, teaming between companies was encouraged by the SPO. Following proposal submissions, Lockheed, Boeing, and General Dynamics formed a team to develop whichever of their proposed designs was selected, if any. Northrop and McDonnell Douglas formed a team with a similar agreement.[20]

The Lockheed and Northrop proposals were selected as finalists on 31 October 1986 for Dem/Val as first and second place, although the approaches to their proposals were markedly different; Northrop's refined and well-understood design proposal was a significant advantage especially in contrast to Lockheed's immature design, but the Lockheed proposal's focus on systems engineering rather than a point aircraft design actually pulled it ahead.[17][21] Both teams were given 50 months to build and flight-test their prototypes; concurrently, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric were contracted to develop the engines for the ATF engine competition.[22] Because of the late addition of the prototyping requirement due to political pressure, the prototype air vehicles were to be "best-effort" machines not meant to perform a competitive flyoff or represent a production aircraft that meets every requirement, but to demonstrate the viability of its concept and mitigate risk.[23]

Design refinement[edit]

Top view of black jet aircraft, showing trapezoidal wings, engine nozzle, and two-piece tail. The separation between the forward fuselage and engine nacelles is apparent.
Top view of the YF-23 (DP117K), showing the trapezoidal wings and separation between the forward fuselage and engine nacelles

As one of the winning companies for the Dem/Val proposals, Northrop was the program lead of the YF-23 team with McDonnell Douglas and the two had previously collaborated on the F/A-18 Hornet.[24] Airframe fabrication was divided roughly evenly, with Northrop building the aft fuselage and empennage at Hawthorne, California and performing final assembly at Edwards Air Force Base while McDonnell Douglas built the wings and forward fuselage at St. Louis, Missouri. However, the YF-23 design would largely be a continual refinement from Northrop's DP110 with little influence from McDonnell Douglas's design; that design had swept wings, four empennage surfaces, and chin-mounted split wedge inlets and did not perform well for stealth.[25] The YF-23's design evolved into DP117K when it was frozen as the prototype configuration in January 1988, with changes including a sharper and more voluminous nose from the earlier "platypus" shape and a strengthened aft deck with lower drag shaping.[26] Due to the complex surface curvature, the aircraft was built outside-in, with the large composite skin structures fabricated first before the internal members. To ensure precise and responsive handling, Northrop developed and tested the flight control laws using both a large-scale simulator as well as a modified C-131 named the Total In Flight Simulator (TIFS).[27]

Throughout Dem/Val, the SPO conducted System Requirements Reviews (SRR) where it reviewed results of performance and cost trade studies with both teams, and if necessary adjusted requirements and deleted ones that added substantial weight or cost while having marginal value. The ATF was initially required to land and stop within 2,000 feet (610 m), which meant the use of thrust reversers on their engines. In 1987, the USAF changed the runway length requirement to 3,000 feet (910 m) and by 1988 the requirement for thrust reversers were no longer needed. This allowed Northrop to have smaller engine nacelle housings in subsequent design refinements. As DP117K had been frozen by then, the nacelles — nicknamed "bread loafs" for their flat upper surface — were not downsized on the prototypes.[28][29] The number of missiles (with the AIM-120A as the reference baseline) was reduced from eight to six. Despite these adjustments, both teams struggled to achieve the 50,000-lb takeoff gross weight goal, and this was subsequently increased to 60,000 lb (27,200 kg) while engine thrust was increased from 30,000 lbf (133 kN) to 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class.[30]

Aside from air vehicle and engines, the ATF also required innovations in avionics and sensor systems with the goal of achieving sensor fusion to enhance situational awareness and reduce pilot workload. The YF-23 was meant as a demonstrator for the airframe and propulsion system design and thus did not mount any mission systems avionics. Instead, Northrop and McDonnell Douglas tested these systems in ground and airborne laboratories with the Northrop using a modified BAC One-Eleven as a flying avionics laboratory and McDonnell Douglas building the Avionics Ground Prototype (AGP).[24][31] Avionics requirements were also the subject of SPO SRRs with contractors and adjusted during Dem/Val. For example, the infrared search and track (IRST) sensor was dropped from a baseline requirement to provision for future addition in 1989.[30]

Formally designated as the YF-23A, the first aircraft (serial number 87-0800), Prototype Air Vehicle 1 (PAV-1), was rolled out on 22 June 1990;[32] PAV-1 took its 50-minute maiden flight on 27 August with Alfred "Paul" Metz at the controls.[33] The second YF-23 (serial number 87-0801, PAV-2) made its first flight on 26 October, piloted by Jim Sandberg.[34] The first YF-23 was painted charcoal gray and was nicknamed "Gray Ghost". The second prototype was painted in two shades of gray and nicknamed "Spider".[35][36] PAV-1 briefly had a red hourglass painted on its ram air scoop to prevent injury to ground crew. The red hourglass resembled the marking on the underside of the black widow spider further reinforcing the unofficial nickname "Black Widow II"[35] given to the YF-23 because of its radar cross section plot shape that resembled a spider. When Northrop management found out about the marking, they had it removed.[37]

Naval variant[edit]

A proposed naval variant of the YF-23 known as the NATF-23 was considered as an F-14 Tomcat replacement. The original YF-23 design was first considered but would have had issues with flight deck space, handling, storage, landing, and catapult launching reasons requiring a different design with canards (see below).[38] A NATF-23 wind tunnel test model DP527, tested for 14,000 hours, was donated by Boeing St. Louis (former McDonnell Douglas) in 2001 to the Bellefontaine Neighbors Klein Park Veterans Memorial in St. Louis, Missouri.[39]

Design[edit]

Front view of jet aircraft showing curving exterior. The ruddervator tail is V-shaped.
A front view of 87–0800 showing the curving exterior of the design.

The YF-23A (internally designated DP117K) was a prototype air vehicle intended to demonstrate the viability of Northrop's ATF proposal designed to meet USAF requirements for survivability, supercruise, stealth, and ease of maintenance.[40] Owing to its continual maturation from the HSF concept, the YF-23's shaping was highly refined; it was an unconventional-looking aircraft, with diamond-shaped wings, a profile with substantial area-ruling to reduce aerodynamic drag at transonic and supersonic speeds, and all-moving V-tails, or "ruddervators".[41] The cockpit was placed high, near the nose of the aircraft for good visibility for the pilot. The aircraft featured a tricycle landing gear configuration with a nose landing gear leg and two main landing gear legs. The weapons bay was placed on the underside of the fuselage between the nose and main landing gear.[42] The cockpit has a center stick and side throttle.[43]

A rear view of a YF-23, showing its tile-lined exhaust channels

It was powered by two turbofan engines with each in a separate engine nacelle with S-ducts, to shield engine axial compressors from radar waves, on either side of the aircraft's spine.[44] The inlets were trapezoidal in frontal profile, with special porous suction panels in front to absorb the turbulent boundary layer and vent it over the wings. Of the two aircraft built, the first YF-23 (PAV-1) was fitted with Pratt & Whitney YF119 engines, while the second (PAV-2) was powered by General Electric YF120 engines. The aircraft featured single-expansion ramp nozzles (SERN) and unlike the YF-22, does not employ thrust vectoring.[28] As on the B-2, the exhaust from the YF-23's engines flowed through troughs lined with tiles that are “transpiration cooled” to dissipate heat and shield the engines from infrared homing (IR) missile detection from below.[11] The YF-23's propulsion and aerodynamics enable it to supercruise at over Mach 1.6 without afterburners.[45]

YF-23 S-duct engine air intake

The flight control surfaces were controlled by a central management computer system. Raising the wing flaps and ailerons on one side and lowering them on the other provided roll. The V-tail fins were angled 50 degrees from the vertical. Pitch was mainly provided by rotating these V-tail fins in opposite directions so their front edges moved together or apart. Yaw was primarily supplied by rotating the tail fins in the same direction. Test pilot Paul Metz stated that the YF-23 had superior high angle of attack (AoA) performance compared to legacy aircraft, with trimmed AoA of up to 60°.[46][47] Deflecting the wing flaps down and ailerons up on both sides simultaneously provided for aerodynamic braking.[48] To keep prototyping costs low despite the novel design, a number of "commercial off-the-shelf" components were used, including an F-15 nose wheel, F/A-18 main landing gear parts, and the forward cockpit components of the F-15E Strike Eagle.[11][34]

Production F-23[edit]

The proposed production F-23 configuration (DP231 for the F119 engine and DP232 for the F120 engine) for full-scale development, or Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD), would have differed from the YF-23 prototypes in several ways. Instead of a single weapons bay, the EMD design would instead have two tandem bays in the lengthened forward fuselage, with the forward bay designed for short range AIM-9 missiles and the aft main bay for AIM-120 missiles and bombs; an M61 rotary cannon would be installed on the left side of the forward fuselage. The aircraft's overall length was slightly increased to 70 ft 5 in (21.46 m) while wingspan remained about the same. Fuselage volume was expanded, the nose was enlarged to accept mission systems, including the AESA radar, and the forebody chines were less pronounced and raised to the same height as the leading edge of the wing. The deletion of thrust reversers enabled the engine nacelles to have a smaller, more rounded cross-section and the space between them filled in to preserve area-ruling. The inlet design changed from the trapezoidal profile with suction panels to a serrated semicircular with a compression bump. The fuselage and empennage trailing edge pattern would also have fewer serrations and the engine thrust lines were toed in at 1.5° off center. The proposal had both single-seat and two-seat variants.[49]

NATF-23[edit]

The naval NATF-23 variant (designated DP527), the schematics of which surfaced in the 2010s, was different in many ways due to the requirements of aircraft carrier operations as well as a greater emphasis on long range sensors, weapons, and loiter time for fleet air defense;[50][N 1] the diamond wings were located as far back as possible, and the aircraft has conventional canted vertical tails instead of the ruddervator with serrations for low RCS and increased maneuverability at low speeds for aircraft carrier operations, folding wing capability for flight deck storage, reinforced landing gear, tailhook and canards for landing on aircraft carriers and thrust vectoring nozzles.[51] The inlet design was also different, being a quarter circle with serrations with a bumped compression surface. The internal weapons bays would have accommodated the Navy's planned AIM-152 advanced air-to-air missiles (AAAM) as well as potentially the AGM-88 HARM and AGM-84 Harpoon, while the bay doors would carry AIM-9 missiles; an M61 rotary cannon would be installed in the right wing. The NATF-23 had an increased 48 ft (14.63 m) wingspan while length was reduced to 62 ft 8.5 in (19.11 m); folded wingspan would be 23 ft 4 in (7.11 m). Like the Air Force version, the NATF-23 had both single-seat and two-seat variants.[52]

Operational history[edit]

The two YF-23s fly over the Mojave Desert. They were nicknamed "Spider" (foreground), and "Gray Ghost" background)

Evaluation[edit]

The first YF-23, with Pratt & Whitney engines, supercruised at Mach 1.43 on 18 September 1990, while the second, with General Electric engines, reached Mach 1.72 on 29 November 1990. By comparison, the YF-22 achieved Mach 1.58 in supercruise.[53] The YF-23 was tested to a top speed of Mach 1.8 with afterburners and achieved a maximum angle-of-attack of 25°.[46] The maximum speed is classified, though sources state a speed greater than Mach 2 at altitude in full afterburner.[54][55] The aircraft's weapons bay was configured for weapons launch, and used for testing weapons bay acoustics, but no missiles were fired; Lockheed fired AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles successfully from its YF-22 demonstration aircraft. PAV-1 performed a fast-paced combat demonstration with six flights over a 10-hour period on 30 November 1990. Flight testing continued into December.[56] The two YF-23s flew 50 times for a total of 65.2 hours.[57] The tests demonstrated Northrop's predicted performance values for the YF-23.[58] Both designs met or exceeded all performance requirements; the YF-23 was stealthier and faster, but the YF-22 was more agile.[59][60]

A YF-22 in the foreground with a YF-23 in the background

The two contractor teams submitted evaluation results with their proposals for full-scale development in December 1990,[58] and on 23 April 1991, Secretary of the Air Force Donald Rice announced that the YF-22 team was the winner.[61] The Air Force selected the F119 engine to power the F-22 production version. The Lockheed and Pratt & Whitney designs were rated higher on technical aspects, were considered lower risks, and were considered to have more effective program management.[61][62] It has been speculated in the aviation press that the Lockheed design was also seen as more adaptable to the Navy's NATF, but by FY 1992 the U.S. Navy had abandoned NATF.[63][64]

Following the competition, both YF-23s were transferred to NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards AFB, California, without their engines.[11][65] NASA planned to use one of the aircraft to study techniques for the calibration of predicted loads to measured flight results, but this did not take place.[65] Both YF-23 airframes remained in storage until mid-1996, when the aircraft were transferred to museums.[65][66]

Possible revival[edit]

In 2004, Northrop Grumman proposed a YF-23-based bomber called the FB-23[N 2] "Rapid Theater Attack" (RTA) to meet a USAF solicitation for an interim regional bomber, for which the FB-22 and B-1R were also competing.[67][68] Northrop modified aircraft PAV-2 to serve as a display model for its proposed interim bomber.[58] The possibility of an FB-23 interim bomber ended with the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, which favored a long-range bomber with much greater range.[69][70] The USAF has since moved on to the Next-Generation Bomber and Long Range Strike Bomber program.[71]

Japan launched a program to develop a domestic 5th/6th generation (F-3) fighter after the US Congress refused in 1998 to export the F-22. After a great deal of study and the building of static models, the Mitsubishi X-2 Shinshin testbed aircraft flew as a technology demonstrator from 2016. By July 2018, Japan had gleaned sufficient information and decided that it would need to bring on-board international partners to complete this project. Northrop Grumman was one of the companies that responded and there was speculation that it could offer a modernized version of the YF-23 to Japan, while Lockheed Martin offered an airframe derived from the F-22; Japan ultimately did not select these proposals due to costs and industrial concerns.[72][73]

Aircraft on display[edit]

Restoration work at the USAF Museum
YF-23 "Gray Ghost" on display at the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 2023
YF-23 "Spider" on display at the Western Museum of Flight, 2017
  • YF-23A PAV-2, AF ser. no. 87-0801, "Spider", registration number N232YF, was on exhibit at the Western Museum of Flight until 2004,[65] when it was reclaimed by Northrop Grumman and used as a display model for a YF-23-based bomber.[75] PAV-2 was returned to the Western Museum of Flight and was on display as of 2010 at the museum's new location at Zamperini Field, Torrance, California.[76]

Specifications (YF-23A)[edit]

YF-23 PAV-1 in flight

Data from Pace,[77] Sweetman,[78] Winchester,[11] Aronstein,[54] and Metz & Sandberg[55]

General characteristics

  • Crew: 1
  • Length: 67 ft 5 in (20.55 m)
  • Wingspan: 43 ft 7 in (13.28 m)
  • Height: 13 ft 11 in (4.24 m)
  • Wing area: 900 sq ft (84 m2)
  • Empty weight: 29,000 lb (13,154 kg)
  • Gross weight: 51,320 lb (23,278 kg)
  • Max takeoff weight: 62,000 lb (28,123 kg)
  • Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney YF119 or General Electric YF120 afterburning turbofan engines, 35,000 lbf (160 kN) with afterburner

Performance

  • Maximum speed: Mach 2.2 (1,450 mph, 2,335 km/h) at high altitude
  • Supercruise: Mach 1.72 (1,135 mph, 1,827 km/h) at altitude
  • Range: 2,424 nmi (2,789 mi, 4,489 km)
  • Combat range: 651–695 nmi (749–800 mi, 1,206–1,287 km)
  • Service ceiling: 65,000 ft (20,000 m)
  • Wing loading: 57 lb/sq ft (280 kg/m2)
  • Thrust/weight: 1.36

Armament
None as tested but provisions made for:[11]

See also[edit]

Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era

Related lists

References[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ The DP527 drawings show the same F119 engines as the Air Force version, but the final powerplant may have been a modified variant with greater bypass ratio for improved fuel efficiency at the expense of supercruise performance.
  2. ^ The "F/B-23" designation was also used.

Citations[edit]

  1. ^ Rich, Michael and William Stanley. Improving U.S. Air Force Readiness and Sustainability. Rand Publications, April 1984. p. 7.
  2. ^ Aronstein and Hirschberg 1998, pp. 37-39
  3. ^ Miller 2005, p. 11.
  4. ^ Metz 2017, pp. 10-12
  5. ^ Sweetman 1991, pp. 10–13.
  6. ^ Chong 2016, p. 226-227
  7. ^ a b c Metz 2017, pp. 28-29
  8. ^ Aronstein and Hirschberg 1998, pp. 45-58
  9. ^ a b Metz 2017, pp. 23-24
  10. ^ Chong 2016, pp. 233-234
  11. ^ a b c d e f g Winchester 2005, pp. 198–199.
  12. ^ Aronstein and Hirshberg 1998, pp. 70-78
  13. ^ Aronstein and Hirschberg 1998, pp. 82-85
  14. ^ Williams 2002, p. 5.
  15. ^ Aronstein and Hirschberg 1998, pp. 87-88
  16. ^ Metz 2017, p. 25
  17. ^ a b Metz 2017, p. 22
  18. ^ Hehs, Eric (1998). "Design Evolution of the F-22, Part 1". Code One. Lockheed Martin.
  19. ^ Miller 2005, pp. 13–14, 19.
  20. ^ Goodall 1992, p. 94.
  21. ^ Hehs, Eric (1998). "Design Evolution of the F-22, Part 2". Code One. Lockheed Martin.
  22. ^ Jenkins and Landis 2008, pp. 233–234.
  23. ^ Aronstein and Hirschberg 1998, pp. 88-89
  24. ^ a b Metz 2017, p. 31
  25. ^ Metz 2017, p. 20
  26. ^ Metz 2017, pp. 26-27
  27. ^ Metz 2017, pp. 40-41
  28. ^ a b Miller 2005, p. 23.
  29. ^ Sweetman 1991, pp. 23, 43.
  30. ^ a b Aronstein and Hirschberg 1998, pp. 106-108
  31. ^ Aronstein and Hirschberg 1998, pp. 113-114
  32. ^ "YF-23 roll out marks ATF debut." Flight International, 27 June – 3 July 1990. p. 5. Retrieved 24 June 2011.
  33. ^ Goodall 1992, p. 99.
  34. ^ a b Jenkins and Landis 2008, p. 237.
  35. ^ a b [1] Timestamp 7:20
  36. ^ [2] Photo of PAV-2 information placard displaying the specifications as well as the PAV-2 nickname "Spider"
  37. ^ Goodall 1992, p. 120.
  38. ^ "Naval ATF to use Technologies Beyond Those in Air Force Version" 12 July 1990 Aerospace Daily ASD p. 59, Vol. 155, No. 8 English, 1990. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
  39. ^ St. Louis Post-Dispatch (St. Louis, Missouri). 24 May 2001, Main Edition p. 100.
  40. ^ "ATF procurement launches new era". Flight International, 15 November 1986. p. 10. Retrieved 25 June 2011.
  41. ^ Metz 2017, p. 84
  42. ^ Goodall 1992, pp. 108–115, 124.
  43. ^ Walkaround. yf-23.net
  44. ^ Sweetman 1991, pp. 42–44, 55.
  45. ^ "Northrop-McDonnell Douglas YF-23A Black Widow II". National Museum of the U.S. Air Force.
  46. ^ a b "YF-23 would undergo subtle changes if it wins competition". Defense Daily 14 January 1991
  47. ^ YF-23 Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) - Paul Metz (Part 1), retrieved 11 November 2023
  48. ^ Sweetman 1991, pp. 34–35, 43–45.
  49. ^ Metz 2017, p. 54
  50. ^ Report to the Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives: Navy's Participation in Air Force's Advanced Tactical Fighter Program (PDF) (Report). United States Government Accounting Office. March 1990.
  51. ^ Simonsen, Eric. "ATF Chapter 9", A Complete History of US Combat Aircraft Fly-Off Competitions, ISBN 1580072275.
  52. ^ Metz 2017, p. 79
  53. ^ Goodall 1992, pp. 102–03.
  54. ^ a b Aronstein 1998, p. 136.
  55. ^ a b Paul Metz, Jim Sandberg (27 August 2015). YF-23 DEM/VAL Presentation by Test Pilots Paul Metz and Jim Sandberg. Western Museum of Flight: Peninsula Seniors Production.
  56. ^ Miller 2005, pp. 36, 39.
  57. ^ Norris, Guy. "NASA could rescue redundant YF-23s." Flight International, 5–11 June 1991. p. 16. Retrieved: 25 June 2011.
  58. ^ a b c Miller 2005, pp. 38–39.
  59. ^ Goodall 1992, p. 110.
  60. ^ Sweetman 1991, p. 55.
  61. ^ a b Jenkins and Landis 2008, p. 234.
  62. ^ Miller 2005, p. 38.
  63. ^ Miller 2005, p. 76.
  64. ^ Williams 2002, p. 6.
  65. ^ a b c d "YF-23." NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, 20 January 1996. Retrieved: 25 June 2011.
  66. ^ "Flashback: Northrop YF-23 Black Widow II". U.S. Air Force Sustainment Center. 1 February 2022.
  67. ^ Hebert, Adam J. "Long-Range Strike in a Hurry." Air Force magazine, November 2004. Retrieved: 24 June 2011.
  68. ^ "YF-23 re-emerges for surprise bid". Flight International, 13 July 2004.
  69. ^ "Quadrennial Defense Review Report." U.S. Department of Defense, 6 February 2006. Retrieved 25 June 2011.
  70. ^ Hebert, Adam J. "The 2018 Bomber and Its Friends." Air Force magazine, October 2006. Retrieved 24 June 2011.
  71. ^ Majumdar, Dave. "U.S. Air Force May Buy 175 Bombers." Defense News, 23 January 2011. Retrieved 29 August 2011.
  72. ^ Mizokami, Kyle "Now Northrop Grumman Wants to Build Japan's New Fighter Jet" Popular Mechanics, 10 July 2018. Retrieved 15 August 2018.
  73. ^ "Defense Ministry to develop own fighter jet to succeed F-2, may seek int'l project". Mainichi Shimbun. 4 October 2018. Archived from the original on 25 April 2019. Retrieved 28 April 2019.
  74. ^ "Northrop-McDonnell Douglas YF-23A Black Widow II". National Museum of the U.S. Air Force, 6 November 2015. Retrieved 29 March 2018.
  75. ^ Miller 2005, p. 39.
  76. ^ "Static Displays"; "Northrop YF-23A 'Black Widow II'". Western Museum of Flight. Retrieved 31 August 2011.
  77. ^ Pace 1999, pp. 14–15.
  78. ^ Sweetman 1991, p. 93.
  79. ^ a b Sweetman 1991, pp. 42–43.

Bibliography[edit]

  • Aronstein, David C. and Michael J. Hirschberg. Advanced Tactical Fighter to F-22 Raptor: Origins of the 21st Century Air Dominance Fighter. Arlington, Virginia: AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics), 1998. ISBN 978-1-56347-282-4.
  • Chong, Tony (2016). Flying Wings & Radical Things, Northrop's Secret Aerospace Projects & Concepts 1939-1994. Forest Lake, Minnesota: Specialty Press. ISBN 978-1-58007-229-8.
  • Goodall, James C. "The Lockheed YF-22 and Northrop YF-23 Advanced Tactical Fighters". America's Stealth Fighters and Bombers, B-2, F-117, YF-22, and YF-23. St. Paul, Minnesota: Motorbooks International Publishing, 1992. ISBN 0-87938-609-6.
  • Jenkins, Dennis R. and Tony R. Landis. Experimental & Prototype U.S. Air Force Jet Fighters. North Branch, Minnesota: Specialty Press, 2008. ISBN 978-1-58007-111-6.
  • Metz, Paul. Air Force Legends Number 220. Northrop YF-23. Forrest Lake, Minnesota: Specialty Press, 2017 ISBN 0989258378
  • Miller, Jay. Lockheed Martin F/A-22 Raptor, Stealth Fighter. Hinckley, UK: Midland Publishing, 2005. ISBN 1-85780-158-X.
  • Pace, Steve. F-22 Raptor. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999. ISBN 0-07-134271-0.
  • Sweetman, Bill. YF-22 and YF-23 Advanced Tactical Fighters. St. Paul, Minnesota: Motorbooks International Publishing, 1991. ISBN 0-87938-505-7.
  • Williams, Mel, ed. "Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor", Superfighters: The Next Generation of Combat Aircraft. London: AIRtime Publishing, 2002. ISBN 1-880588-53-6.
  • Winchester, Jim, ed. "Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23", Concept Aircraft. Rochester, Kent, UK: Grange Books, 2005. ISBN 1-84013-809-2.

External links[edit]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Northrop YF-23.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northrop_YF-23&oldid=1224666439"