This article argues history has shown the YF-23 was a better stealth fighter than the F-22.
The Northrop YF-23 "Black Widow II" is often remembered as the loser of the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) competition against the Lockheed F-22, but experts argue it offered a superior—albeit different—vision of future air combat.
Prioritizing extreme stealth and supercruise speed over the F-22's agility and thrust vectoring, the YF-23 featured a unique diamond-shaped design and advanced heat suppression optimized for deep penetration missions.
While the Air Force ultimately chose the more versatile F-22 for its dogfighting capabilities, the YF-23's "stealth-first" philosophy proved prophetic, influencing modern designs like the B-21 Raider and validating the shift toward long-range, beyond-visual-range warfare.
(Score: 2, Troll) by turgid on Saturday January 31, @11:39AM (1 child)
I used to play this PeeCee game back in the day called JetFighter II which simulated the YF-22 and YF-23. I always used to choose the YF-23 because it was a bit better.
There are all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories about the YF-23, that it was too radically advance and that it was taken Black etc.
We live in times when Western fighter aircraft are heavy, slow and expensive. Meanwhile, the Chinese advance at a rate.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday February 01, @09:10AM
Have you seen the F35?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Informative) by owl on Saturday January 31, @07:20PM
The photos of the YF-23 in the article look very much like what one would get if one decided to "make a fighter version of the SR-71 Blackbird [wikipedia.org]".
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 01, @03:28AM (2 children)
You've already bombed most of their radars by the time the fighters are in range. So you just need your fighters to be stealthy enough to cause problems to the remaining radar stuff.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday February 01, @09:13AM (1 child)
Low Earth Orbit is currently filling up with telecommunications satellites all lighting up the surface of the Earth with RADR. Stealth only works edge on. See the problem?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 01, @03:38PM
Also I'm sure some military satellites have good enough optical and IR stuff to spot the planes from above.
After all the civilian stuff is not too bad already:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/kyn3ABjf67i3rkZA7 [app.goo.gl]
https://maps.app.goo.gl/myr7HrgEr3fkTLU66 [app.goo.gl]
Of course in theory you could destroy the satellites. But if you don't or can't then if there's not thick cloud cover the stealth plane stuff becomes less effective. Of course it can still be useful vs missiles that use radar. However nowadays even consumer drones can lock onto objects: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MfoYpadB3IQ [youtube.com]
So I doubt active radar and "dumb IR" is required to shoot down planes nowadays. Will the stealth fighter/bomber be able to detect an approaching missile if it doesn't use radar?
There's EMP stuff but optic stuff doesn't need antennas so you might be able to shield it enough.