The F-35 seems pretty damn good, despite being a dumpster fire IRL so far

The YF-23 should have a significant ordnance payload, that's odd

It was basically a hybrid of an interceptor/intruder/strike bomber

The YF version didn't have way too much, but I bet it would have gotten expanded. Regardless, it isn't too bad at all.

Pretty good for the campaign, but I much prefer the F-15E if I need a fast-ish multirole.

Well it was immediately reproposed to the Navy as a F/B, so I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it could have carried a LOT of ordnance.

One sec, let me ask someone.

And if they don't have the answer, then wiki might have it.

According to it's Wikipedia page, it had provisions made for a M61 Vulcan, 2x AIM-9Xs, and 4x AIM-120s.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if the Navy did try to edge in a reconfiguration considering the FB-22 concept was a thing.

But I don't know off the top of my head if they actually did try to make a pitch for it or not.

It's OK for some campaign missions, but absolute garbo for MP

F-22 can't carry much more than the YF-23 now that I've checked. Dunno if the YF could have handled such a large internal bay though.

You really gotta hope the enemy is dumb enough to either head on or stall

ye

I've been caught in a stall fight a few times.

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