And the the F-22 was more so what the USAF was looking for at the time from my understanding. Better overall, but the YF-23 wasn't bad either.

Regardless, the only mission I think I've really used the YF-23 a lot in AC7 would be M19.

Ambushes on the drone leads are EZ.

The F-22 is overall better than the YF-23. It's more maneuverable and more stable with better stealth capabilities. I think it's only downfall IRL is it's a tad slower

Which isn't saying much since it's cleared for mach 2.5

Wrong on stealth

YF-23 had a lower RCS and higher top speed

F-22 was more maneuverable but a decent bit slower

It was basically a choice of "interceptor" or "fighter", which would have worked but the Air Force is retarded and can't make up their minds.

So they took the fighter, and then immediately forced it in to an interceptor and F/B role

The lack of maneuverability really kills it though

I mean it was still a supermaneuverable airframe.

No thrust vectoring.

Ummm

HAte to tell you, but both the PAV-1 and PAV-2 engine models had 2D thrust vectoring

It's the P&W F119 and GE something something 160kN engine

GE YF120

It doesn't have thrust vectoring.
"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.[21] 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 fixed engine nozzles, instead of thrust vectoring nozzles as on the YF-22.[11] As on the B-2, the exhaust from the YF-23's engines flowed through troughs lined with heat-ablating tiles to dissipate heat and shield the engines from infrared homing (IR) missile detection from below."

Just fixed outputs with heat shields to increase the stealth capability

That's strange, considering both the F119 and YF120 have integral thrust vectoring

Sure, but on this airframe, it doesn't

Though it sounds like Northrop increased the stealth profile by burying the outlet in the vents

That's honestly the first time I've ever heard of that tbh.

@FrostBite'sAce thrust vectoring or the lack of it on this aircraft?

Integral Thrust Vectoring

Most 4th gen or higher engines have integral thrust vectoring built in

Anything in the 160kN+ class tends to be used in supermaneuvering airframes

The only hope for the YF-23 airframe is with Japan. They're looking at it to base their next aircraft of of.

I mean given how earth-shatteringly fuck-ass mad the DoD is with Lockheed atm... Northrop might be able to just slap a new YF-23 in front of them next fighter upgrade.

Oh, and to note on what you said about the YF-23 bomber thing - according to Wikipedia, Northrop tried hopping in on the USAF's need for an interim bomber back in '04 proposing to base the airframe off of the YF-23's. It would have competed with the FB-22 and B-1R but in '06, the USAF decided they wanted a long range bomber with a lot more reach. This actually ended up birthing the program that lead to the B-21.

Aaaahhhh, I knew it was reproposed but I didn't know they wanted to bomberize it

Wow the B-21 looks like a non-clusterfuck program

Major part compaitibilities, open system architecture, under 1b so far, based on the B-2 so the development cost should be low.

Just wait till the contractor gets a hold of it

then creates artificial delays

@FrostBite'sAce The MQ-101 drones in AC7 look suspiciously like the B-21 <:smugflat:500075410487377922> <:wendy:360615134407819276>

thought the pentagon was cracking down on vaporware spending

"The AF wants a Penetrating Counter-Air fighter to escort B-21's in to enemy airspace"

@Magos Squid "The Life Raft" Actually, hold that thought.

So basically a YF-23

Jesus christ can the AF make up their fucking minds