How well did F-22 meet the original ATF objectives?
eloise wrote:Roscoe wrote:First off, IR signature wasn't a thing back then (we weren't even capable of measuring it worth a damn given it's dependance to atmospheric conditions and background "clutter") so I firmly doubt that was a differentiator.
With all due respect, didn’t they use the Airborne Turret Infrared Measurement System III (ATIMS III) and Threat Infrared Generic Emulation Radiometer (TIGER) pod to measure F-22 infrared signature back then?
True, but those systems measure the IR signature "Up close and personal" mostly for end-game survivability (i.e. missiles). Long range IR signature measurement and modeling back then was essentially non-existent. The F-22 in blower can be seen from Mars...never made a lot of sense to try and reduce IR signature when the motors reveal your presence well beyond missile range. I state with confidence that IR signature reduction was not a source selection differentiator.
edit: You guys can speculate all you want, but I have significant experience in the IR world and have more than a clue.
Roscoe
F-16 Program Manager
USAF Test Pilot School 92A
"It's time to get medieval, I'm goin' in for guns" - Dos Gringos
F-16 Program Manager
USAF Test Pilot School 92A
"It's time to get medieval, I'm goin' in for guns" - Dos Gringos
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1910
- Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
- Location: San Antonio, TX
It may not be a differentiator in terms of USAF requirements, but considering that the exhaust trench of the YF-23 shields direct view of the exhaust at the bottom, I think it’s quite likely the YF-23 IR signature is lower than the YF-22 when viewed from below, although from the top it may not be much different. And even the YF-22 and F-22 flat nozzles help reduce IR signature of the exhaust by flattening the plume and cooling it with vortices compared to a normal round nozzle. So while IR reduction wasn’t part of USAF requirement, it may be something Northrop designed into the YF-23 anyways, and Lockheed did as well with the YF-22 flat nozzles though not to the same extent. Just like how TVC wasn’t a USAF requirement either but the YF-22 has it to improve maneuverability.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1910
- Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
- Location: San Antonio, TX
mixelflick wrote:The story that I heard was USAF went to Lockheed (or vice versa) and said they needed to compromise on one of the following..
1.) Speed (super-cruise)
2.) Weight (or was it RCS?)
3.) Range
At that point, the decision was made it would be range. So they dropped/removed approximately 2,650lbs of the YF-22A's internal fuel (20,650lbs internal fuel in YF-22A, vs. 18,000 in the F-22A). I also recall hearing mention that the STOL requirement was dropped later in the program, which resulted in the YF-23A design team ditching the engine's thrust reversers. Since both used the same engine, I presume the YF-22A did as well.
This is one thing I've consistently heard on the forums, but have not found any documentation for, is that apparently in the mid-1990s, Lockheed told USAF that they can only pick 2 of the following 3, speed, range, or maneuverability. I've seen this stated several times on multiple forums but I haven't found any actual sources for this. Does anyone here know?
By the way, that 20,650 lbs of fuel number is from a USAF TO on the F-22 where they listed the volumes of all internal tanks, but I think the feed tank was listed in there and it shouldn't be counted towards fuel volume. Take that away and you'll get something closer to around 18,000 lbs.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests