5 fighters America SHOULD have gotten

For every F-35 Joint Strike Fighter or F-22 Raptor that enters service, there’s a long list of competitor fighters that didn’t quite make the cut for one reason or another. Sometimes, these fighters aren’t chosen because the jet Uncle Sam ultimately picked was simply the better competitor… but that’s not always how these decisions are made.
📱 Follow Sandboxx News on social
Twitter: / sandboxxnews
Instagram: / sandboxxnews
Facebook: / sandboxxnews
TikTok: / sandboxxnews
📱 Follow Alex Hollings on social
Twitter: / alexhollings52
Instagram: / alexhollingswrites
Facebook: / alexhollingswrites
TikTok: / alexhollings52
Further Reading:
F-16XL: www.sandboxx.us/blog/f-16xl-t...
A-12: www.sandboxx.us/blog/the-a-12...
YF-12: www.sandboxx.us/blog/yf-12-th...
ASF-14: www.sandboxx.us/blog/super-to...
YF-23: www.sandboxx.us/blog/could-th...
Further Viewing:
F-16XL: • Why the Air Force didn...
YF-12: • YF-12: The SR-71's mis...
F-14: • The F-14 we would stil...
YF-23: • Is this the only fight...

Пікірлер: 2 000

  • @markymark3572
    @markymark3572 Жыл бұрын

    The YF23 was seen as being more expensive & higher risk as a project back in the day, so the YF22 became the F22 & the rest is history. Years later the YF23 is still seen as potentially one of the finest stealth fighters in the world

  • @byronharano2391

    @byronharano2391

    Жыл бұрын

    Okay. I wondered why this occurred. Your response and explanation helps. Mahalo

  • @DumbledoreMcCracken

    @DumbledoreMcCracken

    Жыл бұрын

    One wonders whether Lockheed Martin had a better lobby.

  • @Noisy_Cricket

    @Noisy_Cricket

    Жыл бұрын

    It's downfall was that it was more capable than it needed to be at the time. And given how Russia is faring against Ukraine, I think the conservative end of the spectrum was proven right there. We saved money. Probably. Lol.

  • @captaron

    @captaron

    Жыл бұрын

    There’s a lot of factors, upgradability being one of them, F-22 had a lot more space in the airframe to put in newer and redesigned components

  • @michaelernst3731

    @michaelernst3731

    Жыл бұрын

    @@Administrator_O-5 You also forgot that the F-23 was much harder and more costly to maintain & do routine maintenance on.

  • @Harley-D-Mcdonald
    @Harley-D-Mcdonald Жыл бұрын

    YF-23 will always be one of the great what ifs in the aerospace world. I loved it when I first saw it and I love even more after seeing it fly.

  • @jaybee9269

    @jaybee9269

    Жыл бұрын

    It’s a beautiful aircraft!

  • @robertrider1251

    @robertrider1251

    Жыл бұрын

    If the USAF had gone that route I can see use having F23s then current F22 due to cost savings

  • @Mobius118

    @Mobius118

    Жыл бұрын

    F-22 for the win

  • @darkhighwayman8147

    @darkhighwayman8147

    Жыл бұрын

    I loved how it looked. But I think the boeing/lockheed people had better contacts than Northrop/McDonnell Douglas did.

  • @edwardpark247

    @edwardpark247

    Жыл бұрын

    @@robertrider1251 why do you think F23s would be cheaper than F22s?

  • @MoonMoon-gu2ge
    @MoonMoon-gu2ge Жыл бұрын

    I went to the western museum of flight this week and got to see the YF-23 grey ghost. It's an absolutely stunning aircraft, and its an utter shame it never made it into service.

  • @bertg.6056

    @bertg.6056

    11 ай бұрын

    I have also visited this museum and was also stunned by this incredible aircraft. I think there should have been an FB-23 version.

  • @maximillianvermontsuperbik2624

    @maximillianvermontsuperbik2624

    9 ай бұрын

    Absurdly large for a fighter though, and forget about visual stealth.

  • @bertg.6056

    @bertg.6056

    9 ай бұрын

    @@maximillianvermontsuperbik2624 You mean like an F-22?

  • @borismissiuna6422

    @borismissiuna6422

    9 ай бұрын

    @@maximillianvermontsuperbik2624 Stealth is now old and outdated tech.

  • @Spanishfutbol2010

    @Spanishfutbol2010

    8 ай бұрын

    The Navy briefly considered a carrier variant of it. Would have been expensive but it would have been epic to have an F-23N in place of the F-35C

  • @P_Mann
    @P_Mann Жыл бұрын

    I never get tired of hearing about the F-14 and YF-23 platforms, even if it is just to dream about what could have been.

  • @martykarr7058

    @martykarr7058

    Жыл бұрын

    Kind of like the story(s) of the Avro Arrow, and the XF-108, with the latter being the escort for the XB-70.

  • @AndyFromBeaverton

    @AndyFromBeaverton

    3 ай бұрын

    Japan is currently building the Mitsubishi F-X, which looks really close to the VF-23.

  • @lightspeedvictory
    @lightspeedvictory Жыл бұрын

    IMO, the F-20 Tigershark should’ve been on this list. It was considered for the Air National Guard’s air defense fighter program but lost out to the F-16ADF despite being cheaper (both sticker price and operational cost) and just as capable

  • @user-dq1je7zy3p

    @user-dq1je7zy3p

    Жыл бұрын

    F-16 parts and training commonality was just to good to pass up

  • @taylorc2542

    @taylorc2542

    Жыл бұрын

    And it wasn't "just as capable" in many criteria, but the GE APG-67 was amazing for it's size.

  • @bernardsulman1506

    @bernardsulman1506

    Жыл бұрын

    F20 was intended for export, not for US service. There was at the time an export ban on the F-16 with regards to the engine. The market window for the F-20 lasted only as long as this ban was in place. Once the ban was lifted and the F-16 was available for export this window closed. It was a no-brainer for countries to buy the F-16 instead.

  • @xsu-is7vq

    @xsu-is7vq

    Жыл бұрын

    F20 wouldn't be as upgradable

  • @1968gadgetyo

    @1968gadgetyo

    Жыл бұрын

    F20 was an ungraded F5E Tiger II. And it function like the F5E. A very, very quick interceptor. It may have the fastest takeoff acceleration. The improve radar was better than F16 (block A) But have limited hard points. So it's capable for air ground attack, but with it's limited hardpoint, what's the point.

  • @orbiradio2465
    @orbiradio2465 Жыл бұрын

    Preflight preparation for the SR-71 was very complicated and time consuming. That's less of an issue for a strategic reconnaisance mission. But I can't imagine how this could work for an interceptor.

  • @EdD-ym6le

    @EdD-ym6le

    Жыл бұрын

    Asking a lot and it would have been very expensive plus it's one thing to take the sled on a long ride , it's another to give it to fighter jocks and tell them to go kill something in the air . Training accidents may have been high .

  • @matchesburn

    @matchesburn

    Жыл бұрын

    Especially when you consider that basically as soon as the SR-71 got off the ground and into a flight pattern, it basically needed to be serviced by a tanker. It just wouldn't have been a good interceptor. Too expensive, horrific turn-around time, maintenance issues, fuel issues with aerial-refueling (it ran on JP-7, after all, so it needed its own dedicated tankers), etc. It's just not practical. Would be awesome to see, don't get me wrong, but it just wouldn't be realistic or practical to do. And when you take into account an F-15E is capable of getting up to Mach 2.5 with a clean config... It's not *_that_* much slower with some stores on it. The problem is that at the time getting to Mach 3.3+++ (I am very much in the camp that the SR-71 was much faster than we've been led to believe, I don't think it's the hypersonic "Mach 6 Club" that some think, but Mach 4 or Mach 5 if you're pushing it? ...It's possible. For a short time, anyways.) was just too impractical for an interceptor. Hell, it's still not really practical. (And before anyone goes "But the MiG-25/MiG-31!" - no. The engines on them are limited to Mach 2.83. While the pilot can technically override this and push it to Mach 3.2+, it's at the cost of literally destroying the engine from overspeeding it and is only going to give them a few minutes at that speed.)

  • @adriaandeleeuw8339

    @adriaandeleeuw8339

    Жыл бұрын

    @@matchesburn there was only one excuse available for a MIG25 pilot to go at max mach that was he was shooting down a Nuclear attacker.

  • @EdD-ym6le

    @EdD-ym6le

    Жыл бұрын

    @@matchesburn Big SR71 fan , read a lot about it . I think Brian Shuel(?) said he hit 3.5 coming out of Libya ( I think thats about max speed ) and and a tech eval I read said Mach 4 was about it for the design if they kept developing it and adding power . Crazy plane , the faster it went the better it's fuel economy became . Kelly Johnson was both a genius engineer and a great leader . Need more of them .

  • @kathrynck

    @kathrynck

    Жыл бұрын

    I agree. It was pretty capable from a long-patrol standpoint though, as part of SAC during the cold war. Basically you wouldn't want to scramble them, you'd want some up in key areas "all the time". The bombers did similar endurance patrols depending on the DEFCON rating.

  • @harri9885
    @harri9885 Жыл бұрын

    What always amuses me about the F-16XL is that the double delta wing design is always lauded as something completely new and revolutionary in a fighter design of the late 1970's. It was far from it. The design is an almost exact copy of the SAAB Draken double delta wing, yet the Swedes had their very successful double delta fighter's first flight in 1955 with no fly by wire computers even in the near horizon. French manufacturer Dassault had their own delta wing Mirages as well in the 1960's.

  • @wayausofbounds9255

    @wayausofbounds9255

    10 ай бұрын

    The Swedes have been building badass for decades. They are the epidemy of work smarter not harder.

  • @lqr824

    @lqr824

    9 ай бұрын

    It's true it's not a novel wing plan, but I don't agree it's being presented as being somehow "invented" for the XL/SCAMP. I take the presentation as simply being new to the F-16.

  • @georgesheffield1580

    @georgesheffield1580

    9 ай бұрын

    The 16xl needed canard and the AF generals never wanted any kind F16 .

  • @craigkdillon

    @craigkdillon

    8 ай бұрын

    @@wayausofbounds9255 You mean "epitome". But, I agree. Amazing for a country smaller than the Chicago area in population.

  • @kennethhamilton5633

    @kennethhamilton5633

    7 ай бұрын

    Thank you, I read awhile to see if anybody would remember that sharp and fleet aircraft, good on ya

  • @jb6027
    @jb6027 Жыл бұрын

    I had a Navy Commander friend who flew phantoms. When the FA-18 first starting hitting the squadrons I asked him what he though of it. His reply was, "The Navy is letting the Marines have the first ones. What does that tell you?" The ASF-14, for the Navy at least, would have been the more effective choice. The fleet gave up a lot of capability when it retired the F-14, some of which still hasn't been regained with the Super Hornet.

  • @dat581

    @dat581

    5 ай бұрын

    Not really. The Super Hornet is a far more capable aircraft than the F-14 ever was and has proven this in service.

  • @jb6027

    @jb6027

    5 ай бұрын

    If by "far more capable" you mean slower, less range, less payload, and unable to intercept enemy aircraft much further from the fleet, then you're absolutely correct.@@dat581

  • @solucaoatende

    @solucaoatende

    5 ай бұрын

    @@dat581; funny joke.

  • @kurtstergar1042

    @kurtstergar1042

    4 ай бұрын

    Like what? F18'S Added more pilots to the Navy because Marines fly them also. Now with the F35 are the Marines going to get the carrier capable ones or just the VTOL LHA ones?

  • @dat581

    @dat581

    4 ай бұрын

    @@kurtstergar1042Both and one easy search on google would have told you that.

  • @TheSybermedic
    @TheSybermedic Жыл бұрын

    The F-16XL was my favorite fighter back in the early 80's it was just so cool looking and the bomb load was incredible. The YF-23 was its replacement due to its cool factor in my book.

  • @reidveryan9414

    @reidveryan9414

    6 ай бұрын

    Its single engine was a negative factor, especially in the ground attack role. In a twin engine fighter, you can limp home on one engine if the other is killed due to combat damage.

  • @haakonsteinsvaag
    @haakonsteinsvaag Жыл бұрын

    For me, one of my greatest sorrows was the end of the F-14, so the super Tomcat will always be the unicorn that got away.

  • @navsparks3192

    @navsparks3192

    Жыл бұрын

    DICK Cheney had a huge role in the Super Tomcat’s cancellation. And now we have….the F35.

  • @andrewpizzino2514

    @andrewpizzino2514

    Жыл бұрын

    ST-21 would’ve been the long range beast that todays navy could use

  • @xsu-is7vq

    @xsu-is7vq

    Жыл бұрын

    @@navsparks3192 his name really fits

  • @navsparks3192

    @navsparks3192

    Жыл бұрын

    @@andrewpizzino2514 agree. It had the range, weapons load and sensors (radar/IRST/Video) loaded up in the airframe itself. Not added on like the F/A18E.

  • @1968gadgetyo

    @1968gadgetyo

    Жыл бұрын

    And now, ALL F14, on display and boneyard, had been gutted. (Something about Irian will steal the avionics.) Only the airframe left. But I hope Maverick could put his Hayabusa into the stolen F14 and get the Next Gen Tomcat

  • @fizzbangboom09
    @fizzbangboom09 Жыл бұрын

    I knew a AF pilot that flew both the YF 22 and 23 for the AF. He was adamant that they chose the wrong aircraft. Hope Quasar is doing well, where ever he is.

  • @PetrolHeadWolfComments

    @PetrolHeadWolfComments

    Жыл бұрын

    I knew the Admiral of the pacific fleet and the general of the air force and they told me that you are lying.

  • @bjjace1

    @bjjace1

    Жыл бұрын

    @@PetrolHeadWolfComments LOL

  • @thefreeman8791

    @thefreeman8791

    Жыл бұрын

    What’s Quasar? Who is that pilot? I know who the only pilot is that has flown both aircraft.

  • @overbank56

    @overbank56

    10 ай бұрын

    When the pilot tells you what the better aircraft is you should listen to them. After all, they're going to be the ones flying it not the DOD!

  • @devildog3575

    @devildog3575

    10 ай бұрын

    I last saw my pecker in 2017

  • @JohnScherer
    @JohnScherer9 ай бұрын

    Can't say enough good things about the videos you write/produce/narrate, this one included. First rate information that all one needs to do is watch them, to understand how much you love this subject, and how dedicated you are to it, and more importantly, to your fans. I was going through one of your recent TikTok videos last night and and think I counted over 20 responses to comments over the course of the day. Admirable by any measure. I don't know If I could be as patient as you answering the often asked "how can we spend x-billion on this new military wonder weapon, while people are starving" question. I think you answered variations of that 5 or 6 times. As long as you do this Alex, I'll be a follower of yours.

  • @saiajin82
    @saiajin82 Жыл бұрын

    You covered some of the most beautiful airframes to ever take to the skies. I'm an F-16 fan boy, would've loved to have seen an F-16 XL alongside and F-15E, the YF-23 is in a class all it's own, this was a fun video.

  • @gabrielabate6020
    @gabrielabate6020 Жыл бұрын

    The YF-12 would have been interesting, but the Air Force had the F-106 which was very capable of handling Soviet bombers. I would have added the F-20 Tigershark to the list as a fighter to meet budgetary concerns and not present a large radar profile.

  • @frankbradley4487

    @frankbradley4487

    Жыл бұрын

    Also I would have personally of added the XF8U-3 Crusader III as well.

  • @jjones6606

    @jjones6606

    Жыл бұрын

    Honestly, Tigersharks would still be a capable export fighter. Modern radar and sensors and it could hold its own with Rafales or Gripens or Eurofighters or MiG-29s or SU-27s.

  • @rudyyarbrough5122

    @rudyyarbrough5122

    Жыл бұрын

    @@jjones6606 Everyone who has flown the Tigershark loves it but with a modern radar, fuel, avionics, and hard points, it would have had to be enlarged to have any legs. As a point and shoot it was fine but not for deployment.

  • @jacobdewey2053

    @jacobdewey2053

    Жыл бұрын

    @@rudyyarbrough5122 Not to mention the airframe had essentially reached its maximum potential in terms of performance. It was never going to match the F-16 and the only real benefit it offered was being cheaper

  • @Wannes_

    @Wannes_

    Жыл бұрын

    @@frankbradley4487 While I like the Super Cruz, I doubt it'd ever enjoy the longevity and versatility of the F4H

  • @plumiegod
    @plumiegod Жыл бұрын

    Regarding the F-23 the USAF had the molds destroyed so no one else could make or copy the aircraft. I was lucky enough to see this beautiful aircraft fly along with test beds that very few people outside of Edwards know about. I would also like to add to your list the F-15 ACTIVE which was a beautiful aircraft too.

  • @TheOneWayDown

    @TheOneWayDown

    Жыл бұрын

    The F-15 is like a nice sleek muscle car in the sky, and the ACTIVE looks like a vapelord got ahold of it and riced it out lol. Still a cool variation on a proven airframe

  • @davidhutchison7567

    @davidhutchison7567

    3 ай бұрын

    I'm not sure what you're talking about molds. Northrop has everything.

  • @DrSkippy1
    @DrSkippy1 Жыл бұрын

    Exceptional video. Was expecting to find holes, but hats off for keeping it tight and on point.

  • @teddy.d174
    @teddy.d174 Жыл бұрын

    I really enjoyed this type of video Alex, stellar work as usual.

  • @EdD-ym6le
    @EdD-ym6le Жыл бұрын

    F-16XL was a gimmie pitch they should have swung at . So much capability , practically already proven in construction - IMO they would have *just squeezed more juice out of the dollars from a program they had already funded and developed* . Thinking about the Israeli strike on the Nuc plant ... what a perfect plane for it . No fuel problems and twice the bombs . It was a mistake not to build that one . The rest are cool esp F -14 but they are $Ferrari's$.

  • @captaron

    @captaron

    Жыл бұрын

    Writing and analogies make this unintelligible

  • @user-dq1je7zy3p

    @user-dq1je7zy3p

    Жыл бұрын

    @@Administrator_O-5 No that's just an enthusiast conecpt

  • @EdD-ym6le

    @EdD-ym6le

    Жыл бұрын

    @@captaron Developing the F-16XL would have been much easier and cheaper because it was based on an existing aircraft . That would save time and money especially in items like the fly by wire control system which was the first of it's kind in a *mass* produced aircraft .

  • @1.21Gigawatts_

    @1.21Gigawatts_

    Жыл бұрын

    The F16 Viper now has two extra tanks on top of the F16. So fuel range shouldn't be a problem now

  • @1.21Gigawatts_

    @1.21Gigawatts_

    Жыл бұрын

    @@Administrator_O-5 which is why the F16 XL isn't needed

  • @WalterDWormack214
    @WalterDWormack2144 ай бұрын

    Definitely looking forward to more videos like this! Keep 'em running!

  • @johnbruder6476
    @johnbruder6476 Жыл бұрын

    I was a USMC CH-53D Flight Line Mechanic and Air Crew and would love to see a video on the 53’s (granted the Echo’s are bent tail trash…lol just a little platform to platform hate in all good fun but we were the best HMH-362 Ugly Angles) the new Kilos had they been in service when I got out in 2012 I would have stayed in for! Would love to see something on this maybe a slightly longer form video 20-25min? Thanks Stay Frosty!

  • @Harley-D-Mcdonald
    @Harley-D-Mcdonald Жыл бұрын

    ASF-14 would still be a fair consideration with some upgrades and redesigns. Maybe I just really miss the Tomcat. Great video.

  • @Blaine_Go

    @Blaine_Go

    Жыл бұрын

    We all do, man.

  • @TheBasedNinja
    @TheBasedNinja Жыл бұрын

    Thank you so much for making this video. I can't tell you how often I nerd out how the US didn't pick the f-16xl, yf-23, f-20, etc.

  • @ericanthonyvillar6285
    @ericanthonyvillar62859 ай бұрын

    You nailed it...the list is awesome! Do this type of videos again please!

  • @well-blazeredman6187
    @well-blazeredman6187 Жыл бұрын

    F-16XL: a great option for continental air defence.

  • @joemaloney1019

    @joemaloney1019

    Жыл бұрын

    They are tslking about resurecting it and calling it the Kingviper. I have to say but it would be a winner for a coalition fighter bomber the Eastern European countries and countries like the Philippines and India who are interested in the F-16 fighter would be natural customers for the F-16 XL.

  • @user-do5zk6jh1k

    @user-do5zk6jh1k

    Жыл бұрын

    @@joemaloney1019 No. Nobody is talking about the "Kingviper". It's not a real design. Sandboxx invented it and it was just a drawing. Their article said that the Air Force was asking for the Kingviper, but what they really did was take a quote from a general's speech and then draw up a piece of art to fit that quote. It wasn't meant to be taken as a serious design. Just an artist's imagination on what an F-16XL would look like if modernized with lessons from the F-35. However, modern internet journalism is all about speed and copying with little verification, and other websites took Sandboxx's admittedly confusing wording and passed it off as fact.

  • @spydude38
    @spydude38 Жыл бұрын

    Surprised to not see the F-20 Tigershark among those fighters. Unlike the A-12, this aircraft actually existed and was quite capable.

  • @Justanotherconsumer

    @Justanotherconsumer

    Жыл бұрын

    It was good, but the real successor to the F-5 was the F/A-18 and the F-20 wasn’t doing anything the F/A-18 couldn’t.

  • @spydude38

    @spydude38

    Жыл бұрын

    @@Justanotherconsumer At $15M a copy, it would have done it much cheaper.

  • @bricefleckenstein9666

    @bricefleckenstein9666

    6 ай бұрын

    @@spydude38 Not when you factor in OPERATING costs, and the costs of training folks to work on an entirely new design vs a modification of an aircraft they were ALREADY working on.

  • @lukewegner8043
    @lukewegner8043 Жыл бұрын

    Arguably my favorite video of yours that you've done to date. And that's saying something as I am a huge fan of your channel. I didn't know about many of these jets that never made it into production so this was VERY cool to see. Would love to hear more about that letter you received listing out the points of why the F-22 was not the right choice. :)

  • @charlesbranch4120
    @charlesbranch4120 Жыл бұрын

    SAAB JAS-39 Gripen. Burt Rutan points out (often) that the reason he designs aircraft with canard wings is that the forward wing generates lift while the conventional pitch control surface at the tail provides lift in the opposite direction (negative lift component). Watch the videos of Gripens landing at Red Flag exercises (Nellis AFB) and you'll notice that the canard also serves as an air brake. The Swedish AF has defined the requirements for their fighter aircraft to be simple, easily upgradeable, multi-mission capabilities that can be changed in flight, durable and rugged to operate from highways, and (as Dad said, that "you're not fishing when your hook's out of water") able to be turned around quickly to get back into the fight. Dad was often disappointed in the AF, hearing about development of expensive aircraft like the C-5 that "will be able to deliver heavier and larger loads to austere fields close to the Forward Edge of the Battle Area." That explains the landing gear design, without consideration of the fact that the more expensive the airplane, the less likely you are to risk having it shot down, up, or at. North Korea is another great example, with a fleet of 900 MiG-21 fighters that could swarm the opposition, with affordable losses. Regarding vectored thrust: looks great, but fighter pilots note that it comes with a loss of forward speed, a penalty of that complexity. Cute, but "speed is life!"

  • @mage3690

    @mage3690

    10 ай бұрын

    That's not why the F-22 has vectored thrust in the first place, though. Vectored thrust is absolutely a game changer in BFM despite what you may think, but the F-22's vectored thrust was designed to give it a way to maneuver in straight, level flight without using its large, radar-reflecting control surfaces. It's a _stealth_ feature, not a BFM feature, oddly enough.

  • @beboy12003
    @beboy12003 Жыл бұрын

    This was a great video. Loved all the aircraft you covered. I wished the ASF-14 and the YF-23 was made. Those two were out and out, the best aircraft never built.

  • @zacklewis342

    @zacklewis342

    Жыл бұрын

    Two YF-23 were built, and flown extensively. They can both be seen at museums today.

  • @martykarr7058

    @martykarr7058

    6 ай бұрын

    What would have been kind of having both though would have been a carrier capable YF-23. Wouldn't have been the first time the Navy reworked a plane rejected by the Airforce since the F/A-18 started life as the YF-17.

  • @amirvette33
    @amirvette33 Жыл бұрын

    Nice video as always. I think asf 14 was really what the navy needs right now. A fast, long-range platform capable of carrying massive ordnance could keep CSGs well out of a2ad rings.

  • @danielvogel5252

    @danielvogel5252

    Жыл бұрын

    Yes. The Navy doesn't have any standoff capabilities right now. With the advent of hypersonic anti ship missiles, we REALLY need an aircraft that can intercept the launch aircraft BEFORE it gets within weapons range. The Stink Bug just isn't going to cut it. Lacks the fuel range, the radar range, and the weapons range along with the speed to attack aircraft before they get within a 100 mile launch window.

  • @kanyeeast8450

    @kanyeeast8450

    Жыл бұрын

    Luckily we’ll be getting the AIM-260 soon, which iirc will outrange the Phoenix significantly, and will probably be guided in by AWACS or stealth groups in the air.

  • @basilmcdonnell9807

    @basilmcdonnell9807

    9 ай бұрын

    Range is everything for carrier aircraft. It's range that makes the whole $14 billion expenditure work. The Super Hornet just can't do the job for lack of range and that just cripples all those carriers.

  • @James-May

    @James-May

    8 ай бұрын

    While I wish for the same, we'll be getting the F/A-XX in about 10 years time, so the F-14 would finally get a proper replacement

  • @Power5

    @Power5

    8 ай бұрын

    aim 260 will help, but missiles do better when launched at the highest speed. A supertomcat launching a 260 at mach 1.5-2 would go so much farther than a draggy super hornet fully loaded trying to get up to mach 1 at launch of its missiles. A fully combat loaded tomcat has significantly less added drag compared to a fully combat loaded super hornet. Basically cut the top speed in half for the hornet compared to a slick jet. But as you stated, radar is less important as most is done with AWACS and Datalink now. A few stealth drones deployed a few hundred miles ahead of the jet can allow them to launch at basically any range inside the missile WEZ.

  • @anthonystachowiak7361
    @anthonystachowiak7361 Жыл бұрын

    Hi... loved the video lots of great info... Thanks.... now back in the 1990's I was living in Palmdale and working for a local Toyota dealer in Lancaster right on Sierra highway and would often see the SR-71 and the U-2 fly overhead, Well one day I was driving home when out of the corner of my I spotted a pair of planes flying near the Quartz hill mountains and was astonished to see the then YF-22 and the YF-23 flying side by side....I knew then that it was a very lucky thing to see ...I'll never forget it.

  • @malusignatius
    @malusignatius7 ай бұрын

    What I think might have been interesting to see is if the F-16XL had have been offered as an export model. I could have seen nations like Australia or Canada (where range is a major issue) showing interest in it as a cheaper alternative to say, the F-15 or F-14.

  • @lindamcentaffer5969
    @lindamcentaffer5969 Жыл бұрын

    The Vought F8U-3 Super Crusader was far & away better than the F-4 Phantom, with F-15 level performance. A real shame Vought got ripped. That was a MacNamara style blunder.

  • @andrewpizzino2514

    @andrewpizzino2514

    Жыл бұрын

    Macnamara favoring bells and whistles over stone cold practically, if not an outright shill for big corporate over real world capability

  • @BCSchmerker

    @BCSchmerker

    Жыл бұрын

    +{UCMGpP7AQ7XHxvXhk6eTt-7w} *McDonnell originally pitched Project Phantom II to the Navy as an attack fighter survivable around SAM- and Flak-infested targets;* in this context, the Chance Vought F8U-3N would have been the ideal escort for the F4H-1A, given a fix for the high-G jamming of the quad Mk 12 gun system in the F8U. The Navy saw otherwise; predicted pilot workload in the XF8U-3 was sky-high in an era where the transistor was just past the experimental stage.

  • @starrynights467

    @starrynights467

    Жыл бұрын

    far and away better how? worse range, fewer weapons, inferior fleet defense capability and upgrade potential, and horrid A2G capability. The ONLY thing the Crusader III had over the phantom was potential (never demonstrated) max speed and slightly superior maneuverability. There's a reason the Phantom won the flyoff and still remains in service to this day

  • @Optimaloptimus

    @Optimaloptimus

    Жыл бұрын

    @@starrynights467 The only possible thing it was better at was raw speed. With proper modification Vought told the USAF that it could be capable of passing to Mach 3. Which is great for an interceptor, not great for an aircraft that's going to be your primary fleet aircraft. Furthermore, Mach 3 or not, as you stated, range is nil.

  • @starrynights467

    @starrynights467

    Жыл бұрын

    @@Optimaloptimus Yes, the crusader III was simply the worse choice of the two

  • @wardcook5887
    @wardcook5887 Жыл бұрын

    This was a great summery of some of the great aircraft you have covered in the past that didn't get picked, but it goes to show all the incredible designs the US aircraft makers have put out over the past twenty to thirty years. It gets me excited for what is to come or what is actually going on right now that we don't know about. Thanks!

  • @chrisdjernaes9658
    @chrisdjernaes96587 ай бұрын

    Thanks for answering all my “what if’ questions. Cheers 🍻

  • @CharlieBass5
    @CharlieBass5 Жыл бұрын

    Good stuff, appreciate your work!

  • @swordsman1137
    @swordsman1137 Жыл бұрын

    One major flaw on YF-23 is how the internal bay work. It stack up the weapon load. So if you put the missile in inner part of the internal bay and put bomb on outer part, you can't use the missile and vice versa you can't use bomb if you not launching the missile first. The allegedly F-23 design not solve that issue, they just add additional smaller bay behind the main bay. So there will be big redesign to accomodate it.

  • @edwardpark247

    @edwardpark247

    Жыл бұрын

    doesn't fitting bombs to the exterior of the aircraft ruin it's stealthiness?

  • @catboxvideo
    @catboxvideo9 ай бұрын

    the f16xl has been a favorite of mine for decades. actually got to see one in person out at either chino or edwards when i was a kid... one of my grandfathers worked on the project - he was an aeronautical acoustical engineer.. he also worked on the SR71/YF12 and many others.

  • @ChuckNorris-yx7ef
    @ChuckNorris-yx7ef10 ай бұрын

    I want to just say thank you for the information you give in your vids as an xNavy servicemen I enjoy keeping up with our latest tech. Sandboxx = badassness

  • @QuaimeVLee
    @QuaimeVLee8 ай бұрын

    This was a great video. And I appreciate your tributes to the Super Tomcat and the YF-23!

  • @krysb7119
    @krysb7119 Жыл бұрын

    I was at Edwards Air Force Base during the ATF. The A-12 program was another project my biological father worked on.

  • @oculusangelicus8978
    @oculusangelicus8978 Жыл бұрын

    I Must say that I am very sad to see the Tomcat relegated to the Bone yards but I am Glad to see the Eagle still in the air and that it has been updated and more capable than ever, and While I was definitely in love with the YF-23, the fact that the F22 is capable of so much and features technology that no other aircraft in the world can boast, and be a fifth generation fighter jet, and it is important to have the U.S. Forces fielding the very greatest and bleeding edge technology, as that is an effective feature to have on the battlefield, because it put enemy aircraft at a disadvantage right out of the game, and I don't have to remind you of the fact that the mind is also a battlefield, as much so as any airspace of land on which the fighting occurs.

  • @Schyz

    @Schyz

    Жыл бұрын

    The wallet is also an important battlefield.

  • @CJ_Ludwig501
    @CJ_Ludwig5018 ай бұрын

    Great show! good info, tyvm

  • @chrisd2646
    @chrisd2646 Жыл бұрын

    Excellent video, Alex! More videos like this would be outstanding, but I'm a big fan of your more typical videos as well.

  • @rodgerhunter1591
    @rodgerhunter1591 Жыл бұрын

    If you pick up a copy of ace combat 7 you can fly both the xl and yf-23 not realistic by any means but still pretty cool. My personal opinion I think the f22 was the more complete platform at the time but the f23 would have been the better platform given the time and probably still receiving updates to this day and beyond

  • @swordsman1137

    @swordsman1137

    Жыл бұрын

    Unless F-23 internal bay not stacking the bomb/missile like YF-23 does, F-23 can't be a better platform. YF-23 internal bay not giving the pilot the flexibility of using the weapon they carry due to how it set up.

  • @nanonano2595

    @nanonano2595

    Жыл бұрын

    what? are you telling me fighter planes dont hold 180 missiles and are immune to G-forces?

  • @yia01

    @yia01

    Жыл бұрын

    yea cause of it design, i think the yf23 may have being a bit more unstable like the b2 and require more computing power to control and with 90s tech, the f22 would have being a more reliable fighter. given tech and computing power just 20 years later, the yf23 would have being a beast in fights and many nation re revisiting the yf23 design for 6th gen fighter now that we have the cp power to manage it design instability.

  • @jayrom6237

    @jayrom6237

    Жыл бұрын

    Yf -23 needs to be put in production

  • @spammerscammer

    @spammerscammer

    Жыл бұрын

    Get a job

  • @Limeysack
    @Limeysack6 ай бұрын

    You can talk about the Super Tomcat ALL you want, Alex. That's a plane that I never get tired of seeing or hearing about. Good job!

  • @WTH1812
    @WTH1812 Жыл бұрын

    You overlooked the F-20 Tigershark. Small, light, maneuverable, a niche fighter that is faster and can climb higher and has a higher climb rate then the f-16 and has a better thrust/weight ratio. While lacking in range, wing loading and hard points it is an excellent option for export to smaller allies with lower budgets. Even if it was "retired" after a few years or used for the Thunderbird exhibition unit, the Air Force stamp of approval would make this a viable option for the export market that didn't need or couldn't afford F-16s. It would also open the door to non-aligned "near allies" without compromising the technology innovations of the F16.

  • @Riceball01

    @Riceball01

    Жыл бұрын

    The F-20 would have also been a good upgrade choice for nations who were already fielding F-5s. It would have made for a much easier transition for their pilots and ground crew since the F-20 was basically an improved F-5.

  • @MildandLazyGuy

    @MildandLazyGuy

    Жыл бұрын

    @@Riceball01 F-5G before it was renamed to F-20.

  • @matchesburn

    @matchesburn

    Жыл бұрын

    And the F-20 probably would've sold if we didn't go straight into foreign sales for F-16s as quickly as we did. I think it was a scenario where it was more politics/corporate collusion than anything else. I mean, countries were still being F-5 variants at the time and there's basically no reason to buy an F-5 variant over the F-20. Even if that would mean operating fewer F-20s than F-5s, it's such a better trade-off for such a small increase in cost that no one should be saying no to it. Unfortunately, the cash strapped nations wanted the largest fleets possible and bought either Soviet and/or F-5s and the nations with cash just weren't going to turn down an F-16 for a Tigershark. There's just too many benefits from adopting the same aircraft that is America's current multirole fighter. The spare parts/logistics alone probably solved that decision for many. My personal opinion? We should've, at the very least, adopted the F-20 Tigershark as a trainer to replace the T-38 Talon. The F-20 would've been a great advanced trainer aircraft. Forgiving, more capable than T-38 or the F-5 and its design and manufacture were easy on the existing logistics while offering ease of maintenance and ease of use. It would've been a fantastic aircraft for pilots to train on.

  • @MildandLazyGuy

    @MildandLazyGuy

    Жыл бұрын

    @@matchesburn I’m still scratching my head why Northrop didn’t pitch the F-20 in the new trainer competition.

  • @matchesburn

    @matchesburn

    Жыл бұрын

    @@MildandLazyGuy You mean the most recent one where the Boeing/Saab T-7 Red Hawk won? Northrop did enter, just with a modified/upgraded Hawk airframe: archiveDOTGOHEREph/Wo95F The most likely reason that they didn't pitch the F-20 and didn't seem that committed to the program is because 1.) The F-20 only 3 had prototypes made, so restarting all that and getting the tooling set-up would be a nightmare. I mean, at the time it had been like 36 years since the F-20 first flew. Most of the guys that designed and build the prototypes are either retired or deceased. 2.) Northrop doesn't seem to eagerly go after competition contracts (at least ones like this) anymore because they've slowly caught onto the fact that they've not going to win even if they have the better aircraft. Almost every competition Northrop has entered, they've lost. Sometimes for good reason - The A-10 was a better design than the YA-9. The YF-16 was just a better alternative for the USAF than the YF-17. And... sometimes not so deserving like with the F-20. Or, even worse, where it was outright stolen from them by backroom shenanigans with the YF-23. Add that to the fact that Northrop would be contracted to replace their own aircraft and it was pretty much guaranteed that they wouldn't win regardless, let alone if they pitched the F-20 as a replacement. ...Which is probably fine by Northrop-Grumman, because since the 1990s they've vastly expanded their wheelhouse to have all bases covered and probably make a ton more money than they ever would be winning these questionably done competitions. I mean, they're involved with the SLS program for NASA making booster rockets, they made the new James Webb space telescope, they have the B-21 Raider. And they own Huntington Ingalls Industries which owns Newport News which means basically for the next century or two as long as there's a U.S. Navy with ocean going vessels they'll be making a ton of money building *_something._* I've always said that out of any defense contractor you'd probably be hard pressed to find better engineers than at Northrop-Grumman. Lockheed definitely has the better marketing/PR/second-vacation-home-for-corrupt-leadership financing division/legal department, however. And it shows.

  • @garynapolitano1270
    @garynapolitano127010 ай бұрын

    Outstanding job with this video!

  • @eule0509
    @eule0509 Жыл бұрын

    Nicely done :) Thx!

  • @lindleyfrancis4034
    @lindleyfrancis4034 Жыл бұрын

    When I was a child in the 1980's I read about the Northrop F20 Tigershark. I fell in love with this aircraft and used to dream about flying it. I was heartbroken when I found out that the Tigershark was not going to be accepted into service. To this day I have always felt sad about this. I understand that the F16 was a more modern choice, but there was something sexy about the sleek F20. The aircraft looked like a flying dagger to me! Sigh. What a pity.

  • @1968gadgetyo

    @1968gadgetyo

    Жыл бұрын

    There is still the F5E Tiger II. And the X-29. And the twin engine version the YF-17 Cobra. And the upgraded YF17 became the F18 Hornet. And the granddaddy of the F20 is the T-38 Talon trainer. That was how good and versatile the F5 fuselage is. And if the T38 screw with a F16, the child will be The Lockheed Martin X-59 QueSST ("Quiet SuperSonic Technology"). Cool looking X plane. Do check it out.

  • @davidmclean357

    @davidmclean357

    Жыл бұрын

    The F-20 should have been reverted to the F5H Tiger II - a upgrade for existing aircraft. But I also think the old super Phantom project should have been green lit since it would have made F-4's usable until the 1990's and given much more modern capabilities. Could be I lean towards what could have been budget friendly upgrades.

  • @darbyheavey406

    @darbyheavey406

    Жыл бұрын

    It had short legs.

  • @dougmillhoff9192

    @dougmillhoff9192

    Жыл бұрын

    USAF opted for a fresh new design instead of an upgraded F-5.

  • @lindleyfrancis4034

    @lindleyfrancis4034

    Жыл бұрын

    @@dougmillhoff9192 True. It does make sense to choose the more modern design which would have been more advanced and more maneuverable.

  • @Idahoguy10157
    @Idahoguy10157 Жыл бұрын

    The A-12 was designed to be a direct A-6 replacement. Both ASF F-14 and the A-12 could have replaced the A-6 . Instead the A-6 mission isn’t replaced

  • @ozzy7763

    @ozzy7763

    Жыл бұрын

    The F 14’s mission hasn’t been replaced either . The Navy’s Strike range and weapon load has been greatly diminished without the A6. The carrier groups are now more vulnerable to air launched threats ‘ cruise missiles and bombers , without the F 14 .

  • @blackrocks8413

    @blackrocks8413

    Жыл бұрын

    baloney, the A-6 mission is replaced very well.

  • @blackrocks8413

    @blackrocks8413

    Жыл бұрын

    ...and the fleet today is not 'more vulnerable'.

  • @kazansky22

    @kazansky22

    Жыл бұрын

    @@blackrocks8413 By what?

  • @rgloria40

    @rgloria40

    7 ай бұрын

    @@ozzy7763 The US NAVY now does not have a MACH 2.0 + jet... We have jet restricted to 1.8 or even less.

  • @rickdhansen
    @rickdhansen6 ай бұрын

    Loved this! More!

  • @Thomas-ju2jn
    @Thomas-ju2jn11 ай бұрын

    Great content, wordy in the introduction. If I didn't know your work I would have passed for other offerings. Especially if pressed for time and there were enough similar offerings. Returning newcomers looking for your content might not recognize your latest because they remember and expect the hard content and analysis.because they remember the hard content and analysis.

  • @pizzagogo6151
    @pizzagogo6151 Жыл бұрын

    Just like cars etc I think we can caught caught up in the “cool” factor of having a “resto-mod” or ultimate version of a favoured old model - rather than a less cool underdeveloped new aircraft. There is clearly a law of disminishing returns of adding to an old airframe rather than going back to drawing board. F14 exactly sums this up, fabulous plane in its day & so much presence, but performance numbers have to considered against way too complex/maintenance intensive to keep it much beyond the 2010s. I think the f18L & f20 were missed opportunities ( especially for export) & maybe not developing the F109 interceptor. Personally I never got the constant development of the excellent “lightweight fighter” f16 to turn it completely against its design to a complicated, heavy attack plane.

  • @Kahless_the_Unforgettable
    @Kahless_the_Unforgettable Жыл бұрын

    Scrapping the F16XL seems like a mistake to me. The US has the "High/Low" theory of air warfare. The XL should have been the "Low", and phased out standard F16s. The F15 is the better fighter, so they chose correctly on that end. But the XL would have been nearly as capable for not much more money. Kinda dumb to scrap it. Then again, no one attacked us during that time. So I guess it worked out.

  • @TamagoHead

    @TamagoHead

    Жыл бұрын

    F16s have great Range. The XL would be interesting if we reduce weapons loads. A new nose and AESEA would be scary.

  • @colinw7205

    @colinw7205

    Жыл бұрын

    I thought at the time that the F-16XL which was designated as the F-16E would be the new F-16 upgraded. And unlike the F-18E/F Super Hornet it would an unqualified upgrade in every objective measure including supercruise capabilty. The Super Bug we all know doesn't have all of the performance as the Legacy F-18 C/D's. The only reason the Blue Angels finally transitioned the Super Hornet was primarily for long airframe time of the C/Ds and for logistical and cost reasons to be in common with rest of the current F-18 fleet.

  • @TamagoHead

    @TamagoHead

    Жыл бұрын

    @@colinw7205 thx! I was curious about the Blie Angels switch. Great info! 👍

  • @AndrewKolstad
    @AndrewKolstad Жыл бұрын

    Thanks for the walk down memory lane.... can't find any argument with your picks !

  • @mediconi70
    @mediconi70 Жыл бұрын

    The F-16XL has always been my favorite fighter that never was. Such a gorgeous looking bird

  • @kevinwaddell8720
    @kevinwaddell8720 Жыл бұрын

    One of the main reasons why platforms are or are not selected is because of operating costs. Example the F14 was always in the shop for required maintenance The decision to incorporate the Super Hornet and decommission the F-14 is mainly due to high amount of maintenance required to keep the Tomcats operational. On average, an F-14 requires nearly 50 maintenance hours for every flight hour, while the Super Hornet requires five to 10 maintenance hours for every flight hour.

  • @lqr824

    @lqr824

    9 ай бұрын

    An officer in charge of F-14 then F/A-18 wings said for a two-plane mission with the Tomcat, he learned the hard way to always prepare THREE aircraft. And he never had to do that with the Hornets.

  • @rodneywillissr9489

    @rodneywillissr9489

    6 ай бұрын

    It was more politics, yes it was high maintenance at the time, but the D was better and the future upgrades would have been even better. At the time of it's retirement the Tomcat was the premier fighter, dominating ACM/ATG missions vsw bothe other Naval aircraft and Air Force aircraft.

  • @control_the_pet_population

    @control_the_pet_population

    6 ай бұрын

    I've never read any accounts that stated that the F-14 was "dominating" ACM missions vs all comers. I've read the basic "pilot skill is the determining factor" stuff, but never that the Tomcat was simply the best dogfighter available. Most accounts I've read from pilots squarely puts the F-15C in the lead over the F-14B/D in most scenarios not involving the AIM-54 at extreme ranges. The Tomcat could turn tighter if the speeds dropped and those huge wings extended.. but the Eagle enjoyed massive thrust-to-weight and sustained turn at speed advantages.

  • @rodneywillissr9489

    @rodneywillissr9489

    6 ай бұрын

    @@control_the_pet_population Was on several Red Flag detachments with 2 different Tomcat squadrons (VF-41 and VF-14) mid 80's to early 90's and our pilots came back victors more often than not in the ACM flights as both aggressors and defenders. That was with the A model.

  • @control_the_pet_population

    @control_the_pet_population

    6 ай бұрын

    @rodneywillissr9489 Fair enough. The Israelis tested both and considered the Tomcat a distant 2nd place and bought the Eagle... I'm sure a big chunk comes down to individual pilot skills, tendencies, training, etc. Both were undoubtedly quality aircraft.

  • @nikoc8968
    @nikoc8968 Жыл бұрын

    America adopting the F-16XL instead of the F-15E and the YF-23 instead of the F-22 is an interesting alternate universe.

  • @swordsman1137

    @swordsman1137

    Жыл бұрын

    I think if YF-23 win, they will have hard time with the internal bay. Unless they change it to Su-57 and TFX internal bay

  • @xjamesx7047

    @xjamesx7047

    Жыл бұрын

    Only in Ace Combat is where they have these canceled and prototype fighter jets on their own fictional world. Plus IRL and fictional fighter jets as well.

  • @spartansix3251
    @spartansix3251 Жыл бұрын

    Your rundown was pretty spot on! Kudos to you! I do believe we lost out with the ASF 14 and the YF 23, but, the F-16 XL would have been an outstanding fighter as well, in many roles.. I would have preferred we invest in a smaller number of the higher end planes and Cascade downward from there ultimately ending with the existing Platforms in the rear guard to do mop up. Having the yf-23 in production with the ASF 14 and the xl16 led by the attack version of an SR-71 would have been the best lineup, in my humble opinion, Jus sayin

  • @MaxSluiman
    @MaxSluiman Жыл бұрын

    Very few video's I deem worthy of watching twice. This is one of them.

  • @scsands
    @scsands Жыл бұрын

    Great list and entertaining video and I vote for more like it. The F-20 Tigershark should get an honorable mention, but in no way was it comparable to the F-16’s capabilities. The F-20 was an updated F-5 like the Super Hornet was to the F/A-18 A & B, but the F-16 is the far better airframe and hence why it was purchased both domestically and abroad over the tigershark.

  • @StevenRogers-hw9dj

    @StevenRogers-hw9dj

    10 ай бұрын

    The Super Hornet is actually a completely new design. McDonnell Douglas and the Navy made it look like the F/A-18 to slip it in as an economical "upgrade". There is practically no parts commonality between the two planes.

  • @anthonyburke5656
    @anthonyburke5656 Жыл бұрын

    I simply couldn’t and still can’t understand the logic of scrapping the Super Tomcat, the potential was obvious, the capacity was demonstrated, the flexibility and survivability inherent. The potential for foreign sales was enormous.

  • @ricktoconnor

    @ricktoconnor

    Жыл бұрын

    Thank Dick Cheney, the 1991 secdef who wanted the Super Tomcat killed due to a raging hateboner for Grumman.

  • @Hattonbank

    @Hattonbank

    Жыл бұрын

    @@ricktoconnor Do you know why he hated Grumman?

  • @Utubesuperstar

    @Utubesuperstar

    8 ай бұрын

    Logistics cost maintenance and operational issues have entered the chat

  • @nomad4x
    @nomad4x10 ай бұрын

    Enjoyed this video!

  • @busardr1452
    @busardr1452 Жыл бұрын

    10:20 The F-14 was a very costly aircraft to maintain and to operate. You are correct saying when they upgraded to the General Electric F110-GE-400 from the Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-412A, which were very maintenance intensive and quite unreliable, this helped with maintenance, operational costs and overall efficiency but not enough for budget constraints. The F-14 was designed to combat highly maneuverable aircraft as well as the Soviet anti-ship cruise missile and bomber (Tupolev Tu-16, Tupolev Tu-22, Tupolev Tu-22M) threats. The Tomcat was to be a platform for the AIM-54 Phoenix and it could also engage medium- and short-range threats with other weapons. The F-14 is an air superiority fighter, not just a long-range interceptor aircraft. When the Soviet Union collapsed the F-14 was deemed no longer necessary. Focus shifted away from needing aircraft that could launch at sea from a forward position and travel at very high speed (advertised top speed of mach 2.34 but there are many accounts from pilots of F-14's going over mach 2.5) to intercept or dogfight an incoming threat. Air combat tactics shifted more towards smaller and more efficient multirole aircraft. The F-14 being so good at its singular focus of air dominance ultimately is what doomed it.

  • @michaeldenesyk3195
    @michaeldenesyk3195 Жыл бұрын

    I have to say that I am also of 2 minds when it comes to tactical and strategic aircraft, and being of a certain age, I remember the first article about the F-16 in a Mechanics Illusttrayed ( I may be fuzzy about this). Anyways, I always trusted the final decisions for what airframe/manufacturer that an airforce or Navy would choose. I know that there are many contributing factors to selecting a winning design etc. I think that unlike now, there were more manufacturers available that submitted prototypes or design concepts My all-time should have been/could have been the YF-23. My brother was a part of the team that designed the heads-up and heads-down displays, and from what I know now, the YF-23 might also have been either a complimentary or sole air dominance fighter for the USAF.

  • @TamagoHead

    @TamagoHead

    Жыл бұрын

    Thx old guy. Didn’t the Hornet lose to the F16? I heard they are maintenance intensive.

  • @bricefleckenstein9666

    @bricefleckenstein9666

    6 ай бұрын

    @@TamagoHead F18 won for the Navy due to the Navy huge preference for dual engines on aircraft when possible.

  • @TamagoHead

    @TamagoHead

    6 ай бұрын

    @@bricefleckenstein9666 👍I think dual engines is almost a must for carrier-based air assets.

  • @bricefleckenstein9666

    @bricefleckenstein9666

    6 ай бұрын

    @@TamagoHead None of the World War II carrier fighter designs were dual engine - but the Navy has been insistent on them for jets where possible. There have been exceptions though, like the A-7.

  • @TamagoHead

    @TamagoHead

    6 ай бұрын

    @@bricefleckenstein9666 Thank you. 👍 My dad was in SAC and there is still some mild rivalry.

  • @toddmoore139
    @toddmoore139 Жыл бұрын

    If the YF23 had been chosen to make it into production, would people think the YF22 was the missed opportunity? I'd like to think so.

  • @trolleriffic

    @trolleriffic

    6 ай бұрын

    100% they would. Aircraft that don't make it into production always have a degree of the James Dean effect, whereby their qualities (or potential qualities) are massively overstated - how many production aircraft never lived up to the early hype, while their weaknesses are either ignored or remain unknown because the program hadn't continued long enough for them to appear. Designs can look amazing on paper or as a prototype but going from that to a production aircraft is a massive undertaking where loads can go wrong. People seriously underestimate how much work that involves, especially with getting the systems and sensors right so they'll see a flying demonstrator and think it's almost ready for production, when in reality most of the work hasn't been done yet.

  • @keithsargent6963

    @keithsargent6963

    5 ай бұрын

    Probably so, we always want what we can’t have.

  • @kylequigley6572

    @kylequigley6572

    5 ай бұрын

    Definitely. The YF23 would have shared many of the problems that people criticized the F-22 for. The biggest problem with the F-22 is ironically that it's production was cut short, which had huge logistical impacts as economies of scale and adequate spares were never realized

  • @marseanharper2785

    @marseanharper2785

    5 ай бұрын

    I believe the YF 23 was the perfect platform to field 5th and 6th generation technology.

  • @SlyNine

    @SlyNine

    4 ай бұрын

    ​@@marseanharper2785but in an alternate reality you believe the f22 was the perfect platform.

  • @Dakers11
    @Dakers11 Жыл бұрын

    Sandboxx, Top notch information gathering. So confident in the (Y)F-22's performance after it was declared the winner in the fly-off with the (Y)F-23. The US NAVY cancelled it's contract the very next day!

  • @timl9476
    @timl9476 Жыл бұрын

    Dude. Awesome vid. Informative. Concise. Just...very, very well done. I love watching vids of the Reagan years - many, many different aircraft and weapons systems, not the virtual "one platform fits all" of today These systems you talk about here could gave helped perpetuate that broader approach...

  • @ThatsMrPencilneck2U
    @ThatsMrPencilneck2U Жыл бұрын

    The F-16XL's improvement over the regular F-16 should have had it replace new F-16s. The YF-12 was just too complicated to operate as an interceptor. While the Super Hornet isn't the fanciest front line fighter, even an updated version of the F-14 would have been a maintenance whore in a time of diminishing threats. Unfortunately, US trade policy has been conducive to making a rival power rich enough to build a navy even larger than our own. As far as the YF-23, I've heard that it has much greater range than the F-22, making it far superior in the role of a patrol aircraft. That's my $0.02.

  • @PerfectCell2th

    @PerfectCell2th

    Жыл бұрын

    The reason why they went to F-22 instead of YF-23 the F-22 had a bigger payload and was more maneuverable

  • @ThatsMrPencilneck2U

    @ThatsMrPencilneck2U

    Жыл бұрын

    @@PerfectCell2th I never thought the F-23 was anywhere near as maneuverable as the F-22. I'm just left to wonder why they only made so many Raptors, and why there are so many newish videos promoting the Widow.

  • @MothMizzle

    @MothMizzle

    Жыл бұрын

    One downside to the the F-16XL was that it needed a lot of runway (like, the whole runway) compared to the standard F-16 design. That's mainly due to the extreme sweep of the majority of the wing. It would still have been a great addition to supplement the Strike Eagle fleet.

  • @bunkie2100

    @bunkie2100

    Жыл бұрын

    @@MothMizzle - A good point that proves that there is no free lunch, especially when it comes to aircraft design.

  • @PlugInRides

    @PlugInRides

    Жыл бұрын

    @@ThatsMrPencilneck2U The Raptor production was cut due to military budget cuts. Northrop tried to get the Navy to adopt the NATF-23 Sea Widow, but the combination of the NATF and A-12 programs went way beyond their budgets. The F-23 has gained mythic status, like the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow. People who don't really understand the ATF decision, make all sorts of preposterous claims about the F-23, like it is a "6th Gen fighter". The YF-23 had a higher projected unit cost, and it traded agility for range (and possibly stealth).The Russians and Chinese haven't come close on stealth/RCS to the F-35, much less the F-22. Northrop looked like it had the A-12 and B-2 contracts, the DoD/USAF wanted a second major contractor for stealth aircraft, and the F-22 was better in some important metrics.

  • @Noisy_Cricket
    @Noisy_Cricket Жыл бұрын

    I think the F16XL is the best example here. It was a cheap mod that could be fielded pretty easily. I guess they didn't pick it up because they had the F15, but using only F16 variants probably would have reduced maintenance costs significantly.

  • @dondelchulia3189

    @dondelchulia3189

    Жыл бұрын

    It was not cheap lol. It was pretty much a complete redesign of the airframe. F15 was much simpler as it didn’t require almost an entirely new production line and tooling. Let alone the tech to mass produce the XL wasn’t available at the time.

  • @Noisy_Cricket

    @Noisy_Cricket

    Жыл бұрын

    @@dondelchulia3189 I doubt it was a "complete redesign." They likely had alot of interchangeable parts that would have saved alot of money.

  • @dan725

    @dan725

    Жыл бұрын

    @@Noisy_Cricket It was a complete new design. Nearly zero of any part of the structural airframe of the XL had any commonality with the F-16. Coupled with the fact that the F-15D already existed and with a full production line, and the resulting F-15E outperforming the F-16XL in every single performance metric there is in term of deep interdiction and strike.. this was an absolute no-brainer. As taxpayers, at least we know we got our money’s worth with the correct aircraft. This is evident with the Strike Eagle’s stellar combat record and incredible amount of exports.

  • @control_the_pet_population

    @control_the_pet_population

    6 ай бұрын

    @@dan725 While I agree with you in general, that the F-15E was the clear winner of the competition and made much more sense from a production standpoint... the XL wasn't a "complete new design". Both XL airframes were rebuilt F-16A's. They share the same nose, fuselage, landing gear and vertical stabilizer. Granted the fuselage was extended with plugs... and I'm sure the landing gear would have required additional strengthening for the production model... but they had a level of commonality that was much higher than "nearly zero".

  • @petesmith8362
    @petesmith8362 Жыл бұрын

    Great video! Do more of them. Thanks....

  • @JozsefDubravszky
    @JozsefDubravszky Жыл бұрын

    You should definitely do more scriptless/less-script videos. Your love for air power is very much contagious ;)

  • @strykenine7902
    @strykenine7902 Жыл бұрын

    The F-14 deserved a real successor. Such a beautiful, iconic aircraft.

  • @PlugInRides
    @PlugInRides Жыл бұрын

    The YF-12A was not really a fighter, as much as a dedicated interceptor, at a time when single-purpose interceptors were on the way out. Much like many of the other aircraft on this list, a large number of YF-12s would have eaten up too much of the USAF budget. At the time, the Air Force was using that that money for the war in Vietnam, and defending the US from Russian supersonic bombers was not as urgent. An earlier Mach 3 interceptor, the North American XF-108 Rapier was cancelled in 1959, due to its huge budget of $4 billion USD ($42 billion in 2023 dollars). The YF-23 was not as far along in development as the YF-22, and many of its advanced systems were only on paper. The Raptor won the competition mainly because it was ready for production, and the YF-23 was full of promises. The YF-22 was a better dogfighter, due to its thrust vectoring. Also, Northrop already had the B-2 under development, and it had massive cost overruns. The Air Force also worried about giving one company both major stealth contracts, instead of having two strong defense contractors. I've always thought the F-20 Tigershark was a missed opportunity. It offered a low cost fighter for air defense, and export to cash strapped allies. Because the US military was unwilling to field the F-20, no foreign air force wanted to either. It would have been an American competitor to the original JAS-39 Gripen A. The A-12 and NATF-23 Sea Widow ate up so much of their budgets with development costs, almost nothing was left over for production aircraft. The US Navy often shoots itself in the foot with constant redesigns and modifications.

  • @shannonkohl68

    @shannonkohl68

    Жыл бұрын

    YF-22 "ready for production". And yet it took 6 years from contract award to first flight. As IIRC the first planes were missing a lot of capability. Would McDonnell Douglas have done worse than that dismal record? Who knows.

  • @corporalpunishment1133

    @corporalpunishment1133

    Жыл бұрын

    Both YF-23s did less than 60 hours testing, any ideas that the YF-22 were "better dogfighters" were perception not proven. Also the F-22 suffered years of delays, setbacks and cost overruns to the point that the airforce cut their orders to a fraction of what was originally ordered.

  • @PlugInRides

    @PlugInRides

    Жыл бұрын

    @@corporalpunishment1133 Yes, there is irony to thinking Lockheed wouldn't also have massive cost overruns, but that was the hope. The Lockheed team had a more aggressive demonstration program, that really showed off its thrust vectoring. The YF-23 had not included thrust vectoring for better stealth, and its demo pilots did not push the envelope as far. The perception was that F-22 would be the better dogfighter, and a simpler design. The YF-23 also had a slightly higher projected unit cost. Read the history!

  • @danielvogel5252

    @danielvogel5252

    Жыл бұрын

    Might want to actually see the documentary about the ATF... USAF was pretty much already locked into getting the Raptor, and basically just gave NorthrupGrumman a pity test aircraft contract almost outside of the window where they would have had time to build a flying prototype. They didn't expect the plane to be produced in such a short time and be as good as it was. However, the Air Farce cut the testing period short before the YF-23 had any shot at really proving itself. Yes, the development weapons bay was a mess but would have been resolved before full production like the issues in the Raptor (remember, 6 years between the ATF competition and full production... this is a lifetime in aircraft development). Who was SECDEF at the time of the ATF? That would be "I have a beef with Grumman" Dick Cheney, the same jackhole who killed the F-14 Tomcat.

  • @PlugInRides

    @PlugInRides

    Жыл бұрын

    @@danielvogel5252 There were legitimate reasons to choose the F-22 based on performance, and other factors beyond how the YF-23 fared in the fly-off. Because the YF-23 wasn't chosen, it has gained mythic status, much like the Avro CF-105 Arrow. People make outrageous claims like the YF-23 was actually 6th Gen, when nobody has even defined what distinguishes a 6th Gen fighter. Similarly, there are Canadians who claim the CF-105 Arrow was so advanced, it would still be in service today, in place of the CF-18. The YF-22 and YF-23 each had their strengths, and despite some claims the YF-23 was stealthier, the F-22 Raptor remains the stealthiest fighter in the world, by a large margin. The ugly truth is the Air Force is run by Generals who are mostly former fighter pilots, and some extra agility due to thrust vectoring was probably more appealing than extra range. The F-22 just seemed more fun to fly, and that was a large factor.

  • @springfieldbearpatrol2937
    @springfieldbearpatrol29375 ай бұрын

    Great vid! I know it’s stock footage but really enjoyable. Always loved the Black Widow But everything written at the time indicated there was a vendor bias at the time - Lockheed having delivered brilliantly on the F117 and Northrop hurdles with the B2. Gotta love the range and projected capability in the YF-23 - wish they had kept at It and entered it for the JSF.

  • @IAmTraceBeats
    @IAmTraceBeats2 ай бұрын

    I don't know a lot about military planes but by God, that YF-23 looks so good. I know a lot has to be considered when you are making the decisions on which program to green light but just on that exterior stance alone, I probably would have stumbled, if I was in that room at the time. Awesome video.

  • @mattfleming86
    @mattfleming86 Жыл бұрын

    I still think we should have had some sort of FB22 or the F22 "navy" on our carriers. While we do have a stealth option, both current airframes lean towards slow and fat. Great aircraft, but missing the blustering fast and borderline superhuman that we lost when we lost the f14(in comparison to aircraft produced at that time)

  • @jacobdewey2053

    @jacobdewey2053

    Жыл бұрын

    The navy has no real need for an F-22 equivalent and it would have been insanely expensive to produce and field. There's a reason we saw less than 200 F-22s produced. The F-35 is neither slow nor fat and with its new engine that is going to be integrated into airframes starting very soon, it will only get faster. The A variant has maneuverability that matches (or even exceeds) that of the F-16 and the B and C variants are not far behind. The F-14 program was far too expensive and the additions would have made it more so (The F-14 costed roughly the same per airframe as the F-22 when adjusted for inflation). It was also a nightmare to service. While it was an extremely impressive and capable aircraft, it was just too expensive to justify the cost.

  • @tcam52
    @tcam52 Жыл бұрын

    The F16XL is based off the Swedish Drakens wing design, several countries tested the wing shape after Sweden proved it made jets super maneuverable; such as USA and Russia

  • @dan725

    @dan725

    Жыл бұрын

    Not really. They’re similar in looks only. The design goal of SCAMP was to test the supersonic transport wing design on a fighter jet; so each had completely different design goals.

  • @jaybee9269

    @jaybee9269

    Жыл бұрын

    @@dan725 >> Agreed. F-16XL was a cranked arrow, Draken was a double delta…both supremely innovative though! Draken is one of my favorite planes ever.

  • @Video_Crow
    @Video_Crow5 ай бұрын

    The fact that the XF-85 isn't on this list is a crime. We should have gotten a fleet of those glorious beasts.

  • @eagleeye761
    @eagleeye7619 ай бұрын

    EXCELLENT! Thank you!

  • @EdD-ym6le
    @EdD-ym6le Жыл бұрын

    .... and the F-16XL super cruised in testing ... in the 1980's . Imagine Saddam's face when 300 F-16XL's rolled into his airspace at Mach 1.2 during Desert Storm .

  • @laramieslater9433

    @laramieslater9433

    Жыл бұрын

    Surprise pikachu face

  • @jabbahut753
    @jabbahut753 Жыл бұрын

    The F-14 has been, and always will be my favorite Navy fighter. That being said, I agree with the Navy about the F/A-18 Hornet. As far as the YF-23 should be flying along side the F-22 Raptor because I feel it is the best complimentary aircraft to the Raptor!?

  • @danielvogel5252

    @danielvogel5252

    Жыл бұрын

    You do understand that all the Tomcat needed was a couple more upgrades and they compromised by taking an aircraft that is less capable AND a fully new build aircraft, right? There is ZERO commonality between the legacy Bug and the Stink Bug other than the engines and the basic shape of the plane.

  • @jimmyw7530

    @jimmyw7530

    Жыл бұрын

    @@danielvogel5252 the Tomcat was too heavy, too complicated and too air to air focused. The F14 is a fine aircraft. However, aircraft like the Hornet and Super Hornet win wars. F14s are excellent for aerial superiority, but are outclassed in every other aspect of combat.

  • @colinw7205

    @colinw7205

    Жыл бұрын

    @@jimmyw7530 Obviously you have not been paying attention to US Naval aviation in the past 20 years. In the F-14's finals years of service it demonstrated excellent air to ground performance with the addition of some USAF FLIR pods and other equipment. Remember the "Bombcat" ??? The F-14D did hundreds of long range air to ground sorties with big payloads that the F/A-18F's can't now do. At least without massive buddy tanker support.

  • @jimmyw7530

    @jimmyw7530

    Жыл бұрын

    @@colinw7205 so the F14 Bombcat was replaced by some stand-off munitions carried by more modern aircraft at a fraction of the cost. Let it go, the F14 has had it’s day and now the world has moved on. Iran scored most of the air to air kills in the F14 anyway. The US Navy made it’s decision, it’s time for the fanboys deal with it.

  • @colinw7205

    @colinw7205

    Жыл бұрын

    @@jimmyw7530 No I'm being an overly emo F-14 fanboy. Any objective observer can see that the USN has lost significant capabilities since the retirement of the F-14D's that it desperately wishes it wants to have back now. Not only in a peer to peer hypothetical conflict with the PRC but also these so called "low grade" conflicts like the Afghanistan War that we constantly find ourselves getting into. This is my origianl post I made today. Give a gander. USAF's massive purchase of the F-15 EX Eagle II is proof positive the they learned the lessons of the their USN Naval Aviation's brothers' debacle of the Super Bug compromise in their not picking the ASF F-14 Super Tomcat. The new secret sauce for the 21st century is not the Hi/Lo mix of the 1970's ala F-15/F-16 and F-14/F-18 but a mix of Gen 5 (stealth) and Gen 4+++ with increased firepower and payload along with state of the art avionics over their original iteration of the 1970s. The F-18 E/F are Super "Meh" aircraft for a combat aircraft that was deployed in the early 21st century. Though it has more range than their Legacy C/D counterparts but they are not as maneuverable or as fast (though marginally less so than the C/Ds.It can't go supersonic a sea level something which modern fighters from the 1960's were expected to do). While it is a major upgrade of air to ground capability to the Legacy Hornets but it is also tasked with fleet defense for the foreseeable future while it is a serious downgrade to it's predecessor and while the potential adversary has increased their capabilities. Let's face it the best flattop based fighter in service in the world today is the French Mirage Rafale-M

  • @alexanderakowaliuk5908
    @alexanderakowaliuk5908 Жыл бұрын

    Alex kowaliuk here your content is amazing thank you keep it coming and I l keep liking and commenting. Cheers

  • @RichardBejtlich
    @RichardBejtlich Жыл бұрын

    Love these videos. 🙏🔥👏

  • @granatmof
    @granatmof Жыл бұрын

    The YF 23 wasn't chosen because it didn't have weapons payload capability on their demonstration plane while Lockheed f22 went a bit beyond the scope of the competition by including weapons payload. It demonstrated that Lockheed was a bit ahead on delivering the YF 22 compared to the YF 23. Had they started the design with the eye to weapons load out by the time if the competition, there no doubt the YF23 would have won. I think the Air Forces potential future procurement process will help solve some of these issues. With shorter production cycles and production runs centered on fast generation delivery, I think there's going tj be more oppurnity for greater innovation, especially if planes don't take 2 decades from concept to deployment with all the potential for adversaries to render their "advanced" systems defunct before they ge the chance to deploy.

  • @viktor_v-ughnda_vaudville_476

    @viktor_v-ughnda_vaudville_476

    Жыл бұрын

    I think but I may be wrong but I’m almost positive that the yf-23 already had its internal weapons bays built into the airframe and I’m almost positive it was even carrying missiles but just did not fire one off in its demonstration as where the yf-22 actually fired one off while doing one of its final demonstration runs and if I’m not mistaken it may have had a bigger weapons bay thank the F-22 also

  • @DumbledoreMcCracken

    @DumbledoreMcCracken

    Жыл бұрын

    @@viktor_v-ughnda_vaudville_476 agree

  • @utahgeoff
    @utahgeoff Жыл бұрын

    From the numbers I've seen, the F-35 and the new F-15EX carry almost identical price tags and operational costs.. There is a significant capability difference in speed, payload , and range that make the F-15EX viable despite not being a stealth aircraft.

  • @fingerzinger5799

    @fingerzinger5799

    Жыл бұрын

    I think they went with the EX because of compatibility and easier to maintain with an already existing support infrastructure and experience.

  • @yia01

    @yia01

    Жыл бұрын

    @@fingerzinger5799 the F-22 was suppose to replace the F15 but price tag, the 2001 and 2008 economic crash make the F22 too expensive so they were force to keep the remaining F15. the F35 was design for for multi-role so air superiority was still maintain by the aging F15 and new F22. F35 multi-role were to replace the F16, F18 and harrier. Since F22 is closing to 30 years already, rather then re-open production for it, they would just replace aging F15 with the new F15 EX and hold out for the 6th Gen fighter.

  • @utahgeoff

    @utahgeoff

    Жыл бұрын

    Air Force magazine info-graphic. www.airforcemag.com/PDF/MagazineArchive/PublishingImages/2019/May%202019/F-15.F-35_Vertical.v30.pdf

  • @davidbaity7399
    @davidbaity7399 Жыл бұрын

    Thanks Alex, I love the YF-23 - SURFCAM was used to help build wind tunnel models for the bird, it was not until much later I knew what I was helping with in a secret squirrel machine shop.

  • @exidy-yt
    @exidy-yt Жыл бұрын

    THANK YOU for giving the Super Tomcat the love it deserved and was so brutally torn away in favour of the Super Hornet. The ASF-14 was such a drool-worthy platform that I was utterly astounded at the time that it was not taken over the Super Hornet, it made zero sense to me in every way then, and even now. Great video, and I cannot disagree with any of your picks.

  • @gregorywright2798
    @gregorywright2798 Жыл бұрын

    Great video keep on going I want to see more.

  • @michaeloppenheimer2582
    @michaeloppenheimer2582 Жыл бұрын

    Very cool Alex, you can do more !!!

  • @Sardarkhan69
    @Sardarkhan6910 ай бұрын

    Love this sort of videos as well

  • @stevenwilgus8982
    @stevenwilgus8982 Жыл бұрын

    very well done video FAR more objective [in spite your fan-boy favorite!!] than I expected. Great job. I will be looking for an in-depth cranked arrow F-16XL.... In fact, you could do a series of top 5 might's for each of the distinctive eras of aircraft development,

  • @scotthazelton519
    @scotthazelton5199 ай бұрын

    Thanks for sharing

  • @reidveryan9414
    @reidveryan94146 ай бұрын

    One thing the F-16XL had going against it was its single engine. A twin engine design (like the F-15) allows a fighter to limp home on one engine if the other is damaged/destroyed from combat damage.

  • @jameskwon7617
    @jameskwon7617 Жыл бұрын

    The Advanced F-14 is a good idea on paper, but it was also an old platform. The improvment concepts would have made it a capable interceptor, but it wasn't going to be able to compete that much longer in a threat environment where your adversaries were moving on to clean sheet 4th and 5th generation fighters. In addition, with the downfall of the Soviet Union, the Navy wanted to simplify it's cost structure for aircraft carriers, and having planes that did specific roles fell out of favor. The A6, gone. The S3, gone. The EA6 Growler, gone. It was the F18 taking on basically all the roles the other planes were designed for (save for the Avenger, which was going to take on the long range strike role before it was cancelled). In the end, the Navy did try to make the F14 into a multi-role fighter, giving it bomb carrying capacities, but it was never really meant for that role. It was the end of the line. Now that we are in a Cold War footing again, the Navy is now paying for their cost cutting. They don't have long-range strike capability. They don't have a long range interceptor. They don't really have a dedicated antisubmarine platform. So now, they are back to the drawing board again trying to come up with a capable strike/interceptor/air surperiority/stealth attack/fighter that will probably cost hundreds of millions of dollars per plane. Goodluck with that. Also, the biggest threat to carriers are not hypersonic missiles. They are attack submarines. The Navy neglecting this aspect of carrier defense is a huge mistake, and it will cost them if they don't do something quickly. I'd suggest using some of their Osprey's and convert them into dedicated antisubmarine platforms.

  • @Frankie5Angels150
    @Frankie5Angels1509 ай бұрын

    This one was good. If you keep up this quality, I’ll Subscribe.

  • @RustenCurrie
    @RustenCurrie Жыл бұрын

    Would LOVE to see the paperwork about the Navy's F-14 mistake! Great video!

  • @jerseyshoredroneservices225

    @jerseyshoredroneservices225

    Жыл бұрын

    Have you seen Ward Carroll's video about it? kzread.info/dash/bejne/daSM27ugfJfQgKw.html

  • @DHBat
    @DHBat10 ай бұрын

    Fascinating stuff!

  • @exmcairgunner
    @exmcairgunner Жыл бұрын

    Outstanding informational entertainment, thanks

  • @user-pp1ni2jy3f
    @user-pp1ni2jy3f4 ай бұрын

    I'm amazed you didn't mention the F-20 Tigershark, the ultimate 'bridesmaid' of military aviation.