Well, with the arrival of supersonic fighters currently in the game, this YF-17 Cobra will be the beginning of the Mach 2 era in the game, with its incredible level flight speed without having to use the afterburner, making it a great fighter jet. jet.  

27 members have voted

  1. 1. what battle rating should it be?



KooqYQn.png

                           Amrerican

 

                         Northrop YF-17 "Cobra"

https://i.imgur.com/xNUx2zC.jpg

 

Well, with the arrival of supersonic fighters currently in the game, this YF-17 Cobra will be the beginning of the Mach 2 era in the game, with its incredible level flight speed without having to use the afterburner, making it a great fighter jet. jet.

 

Spoiler

https://i.imgur.com/AXd2R5P.jpg

Northrop  P-530   

 

Encouraged by the F-5A's success in the world arms market, in 1965 Northrop began work on a new tactical light fighter, which would offer even greater performance than the F-5E / F TigerII, which was currently undergoing development.


Studies by the company, including new aerodynamic research, have shown that it would be possible to build a fighter capacity much higher than the F-5. This project became known as the P-530 by the company.


The P-530 would be powered by two General Electric 15 / J1A5 turbojets generating a thrust of 13,000lb. The GE15 was a small version of the F101 turbofan used on the B-1 bomber. Using the afterburner the thrust was similar to that of the J79, but weighing only half of this engine and trying to get much better fuel economy.

 

The wing's shape was very similar to that of the F-5 with a 20 degree inclination at the leading edge and almost zero at the trailing edge. Initially the wing was mounted on the fuselage with an angle of attack of 5 degrees. Over time it was redrawn under the fuselage until it ended in the middle position. The wing area was 400m compared to the F-5E's 186m. The wing had a variable curvature, which was provided by joints along the leading and trailing edges.

 

Zcv10WG.jpg

Frontal view of Northrop YF-17

 

The wing received an edge root extension (LERX) that tapered into the fuselage at one level with the cockpit. LERX has achieved maneuverability at angles of attack greater than 30 degrees and then even 40 degrees. At high angles of attack, lERX added about 50 percent of the wing support. Extending LERX forward of the engine air inlets had the additional effect of guiding the airflow smoothly into the inlets, generating a flow of relatively regular air at high angles of attack, helping to prevent engine shutdowns. In addition, an axial slot was added along each LERX adjacent to the fuselage, preventing air accumulation in front of the inlets during supersonic flight. In 1968, LERX were further widened almost reaching the nose of the plane.

 

The engines were fed through long intake ducts of the semi-circular air inlets. These entries were originally designed with movable semi cones. However, in 1971, it was concluded that Mach 2 performance was not as important to the project objective, and these semi cones were eliminated. At about the same time, the entries were redrawn shorter and repositioned back under the LERX. This made the large LERX look very much like the head of a snake, so much so that it originated the "Snake" for the P-530. The entries were refined during 1971 and reaching the final form.


The tail of the P-530 was originally quite conventional, with horizontal stabilizers mounted below medium level. Originally, a single vertical stabilizer was planned. The P-530's ability to fly at close angles of attack indicated that a single vertical drift would be inadequate as it would be covered in the wing air mat. To overcome this problem, after numerous solutions, Northrop has adopted two 45 degree outwardly inclined drifts to put them in free air flow. By 1969, the inclined fins were approximately twice their original size and advanced to a partially overlapping wing position. By the late 1970s, the horizontal stabilizers were widened and protruded beyond the exhaust nozzle line at a very sharp angle and the drift had the tilt angle reduced to just 18 degrees.


The aircraft was designed according to the principle of relaxed statistical stability, with the aircraft being longitudinally unstable, with a tendency to lift its nose upwards. Combat maneuvers would be drastically increased to the point where the limiting factor would be the pilot. However, Northrop did not feel that the 1960 Fly-by-wire control system was sufficiently reliable, and provided the ship with conventional, servo-assisted controls.
The P-530's hood was a large, frameless molding with a bulging cross section that provided the pilot with clear 360-degree view and good sight lines over the nose and down each side.

 

hg5zjST.jpg

 

The maximum takeoff weight of the P-530 was estimated to be 40,600 pounds (18,420 kg) and a maximum Mach 2 speed was expected. The armament was to be a single rotating 20mm M61 cannon mounted on the centerline under the nose, and a Sidewinder missile could be used on the wing. A series of missiles and bombs could be used at external points, three at home wing and one at the center line under the fuselage.
Potential customers for the P-530 Cobra were the western nations they wanted and could afford for fighter aircraft that outperformed the F-5A / B. The main targets were all F-104 Starfighter users, as well as several Middle Eastern countries, including Iran. It is estimated that the P-530 program's development costs are $ million, and the price of each unit manufactured would be $ 2 million (see NE), assuming a total acquisition equivalent to that of the F-5.
On January 28, 1971 Northrop unveiled its P-530 program to the world. A model of the P-530 was built and over 5,000 hours of wind tunnel testing. However, there were no buyers.
As early as 1965, the USAF began the concept formulation studies of new high performance fighters. These included the FX, a heavy interceptor / air superior fighter, and an advanced daytime light fighter.
The FX was in the 40,000 kg class and would be equipped with advanced and sophisticated long range radars and armed with long range radar guided air-to-air missiles. 

 

OaIsQEk.jpg

 

The light fighter would be in the 25,000 pound range and with a wing load designed to perform 25% better than the Mig-21.
The appearance of the Mig-25 Foxbat with its Mach 2.8 in 1967 overwhelmed Department of Defense analysts and led to a redirection in USAF combat plans, with high performance being the ball of the day and top concern. The FX concept would emerge with the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle, a twin-engine fighter with advanced avionics and long-range missiles, as well as the Navy F-14.
In 1969, a Pentagon momorando suggested that both the Air Force and the Navy adopted the F-XX as a replacement for the F-15 and F-14, respectively, as both aircraft were becoming increasingly expensive. Both services resisted vigorously and both projects continued.


In 1971 an RFP was issued for a Lightweight Fighter-LWF. The RFP required a high thrust-to-weight ratio, a gross weight of less than 20,000 pounds (about 10 tons) and high maneuverability. No attempt should be made to match the Mig-25's performance - the emphasis would be on what was thought for the most likely future air combat conditions - battles at altitudes of 30,000-40,000 meters and speeds from Mach 0.6 to Mach 1.6. The small size was emphasized as the small size of the Mig-17 and Mig-21 proved difficult to detect visually during fighting in North Vietnam.
The RFP specified three main objectives:

 

  • The aircraft must fully exploit the advantages of emerging technologies,
  • Reduce the risk and uncertainties involved in large scale development and production by
  • Provide a variety of technology options to meet future military hardware needs.

 

Northrop believed it had the foundation for the LWF with its P-530 Cobra project. Company name P-600 was given. Strangely enough, the P-600 was almost identical to the 1971 P-530 Cobra. However, the P-530 was always regarded as a multi-purpose aircraft with significant air-to-ground capability, while the P-600 was to be purely a fighter. air-to-air, minimal weaponry, one cannon and two Sidewinder missiles per wing.

 

zhrFxo8.jpg

Northrop YF-17 September-October 1974

 

The P-600 would be powered by two General Electric YJ101-GE-100 turbofans generating 15,000lb (6,800kg) thrust each with afterburner. The two engines were assembled together to minimize asymmetric effects in the event of an engine loss. The maximum takeoff weight of the P-600 was initially just £ 21,000 (9,525 kg), but soon grew to £ 23,000 (10,400 kg). The landing gear was much simpler than on the P-530, the weight reduction was considerable. A much larger proportion of the structure was graphite fiber.
An in-flight refueling receptacle was installed above the nose. the M61 cannon was transferred to the top of the nose rather than underneath.
complete fly-by-wire control was adopted. The tail circuits were quadrupled, but the ailerons were simple because the aircraft could always be controlled in the roll by horizontal stabilizers.

The cockpit of the P-600 was almost identical to that of the P-530. An inertial navigation system (Litton LN-33) was planned, but Northrop, at the USAF's request, did not need to use a large, expensive multi-mode radar, and designers kept a narrow nose with a pointed conical shape. However, in April 1974, Northrop hired Rockwell to produce a compact radar with an antenna that could fit inside the narrow nose.

Four other manufacturers submitted bids - Boeing, General Dynamics, Ling-Temco-Vought and Lockheed. In March 1972, the USAF concluded that the Boeig 908-909 was the first choice, with the General Dynamics Model 401 and the Northrop Model P-600 in seconds. The Vought V-1100 and Lockeed CL-1200 Lancer had been eliminated.

 

a9KcabT.jpg

The two motors were assembled together to minimize asymmetric effects in the event of an engine loss. note the cropped lERX.

 

1X2oaSf.jpg

The interesting photo in this post shows the Northrop YF-17 and the General Dynamics YF-16 in flight together. At the time this picture was taken, the aircraft were competing one versus the other in the U.S. Air Force (USAF) Lightweight Fighter (LWF) program.

 

The General Dynamics model and the Northrop model were chosen for development. In April 1972 and the contracts for two YF-16 (72-1567 / 1568) and two YF-17 (72-1569 / 1570) were signed. Unlike the prefix "X" (experimental) the prefix to be used was the "Y" (development) to indicate that a mixture of shelf materials and experimental technologies were being used.

The YF-16 was single-engine, with its single Pratt & Whitney F100, while the YF-17 was birreator. At the time, the Air Force was still very much committed to the F-15 fighter, and viewed the LWF program more as a technology demonstration project rather than a serious effort for a production aircraft. At the same time, contracts with Pratt & Whitney for a version of the F100 turbofan specially adapted for a single-engine aircraft and for General Electric to develop the new and smaller YJ101 engine were signed.

 

gwF1BSj.png

Photo 5.3-The Northrop YF-17 competed unsuccessfully with General Dynamics YF-16 in a fly-off in mid-1974 to become the Air Force light fighter. Northrop later teamed with McDonnell-Douglas to develop the YF-17 in the successful Navy Hornet F / A-18.

 

The first YF-17 took off on its first flight on June 9, 1974 from Edwards Air Base. On June 11, the YF-17 became the first American fighter to speed up sound in level flight without the use of afterburners. The second YF-17 first flew August 21, 1974. The two prototypes performed a series of 288 test flights, totaling 345 hours.

Meanwhile, the governments of Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway have begun to consider possible replacements for the Lockheed F-104G Starfighter. They formed a multinational group to choose the successor, and agreed to evaluate the Northrop YF-17, Dassault Mirage F.1, SAAB JA37 Viggen and General Dynamics YF-16. The winner of the US contest would probably be the favorite candidate, but countries wanted to see if the USAF would actually buy the plane for themselves before making any commitment to an American candidate.

 

Within the USAF there was strong institutional bias from some sectors against the possibility that light fighter could be acquired by European countries as they realized that it would be a threat to the F-15 program. However, the prospect of a large European order has whetted the appetite of other Air Force sectors, which have come to regard the project as much more than just a technology demonstration program. To try to converge the F-15 class and lobby that the LWF program was not a threat to him, the LWF program was renamed Air Combat Fighter (ACF) by the Department of Defense.

In September 1974, Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger announced that he was considering the production of contest winner LWF to meet the USAF, Navy and export requirements.

 

Northrop_YF-17_Cobra_01569_03.jpg

Northrop YF-17 Cobra taken at roll-out on April 4, 1974 in Northrop Hawthorne plant.

 

Until then, the LWF / ACF program had been largely an academic exercise for the USAF, but the possibility of a large European purchase order led the USAF to change its mind and predict large-scale service use for the aircraft. . However, the emphasis would shift from a simple daytime superiority hunt to a multipurpose hunt.
The USAF decided that the ACF would supplement the F-15 in service, alleviating fears of force. For the production of the ACF, it was agreed that the fighter would have a larger radar antenna, giving the aircraft some BVR capability. On September 11, 1974, the USAF announced plans to purchase 650 fighters, with the possibility that this could be increased to 1,400 or more. This change was made to assure potential NATO clients that the USAF would be fully involved with the new fighter.

 

8281314807_3394b84a5c_b.jpg


Although the Northrop candidate demonstrated remarkable flying qualities and was actually superior in certain areas, on January 13, 1975, the USAF announced that the YF-16 had been selected as the winner of the ACV contest. The YF-16 was a little faster than the YF-17 and its F-100 was a proven engine used on other aircraft already in service. The J101 engine was brand new, which would require huge investment in tools, spare parts and documentation. Also, the J101 was considered a bit weak and was not a true turbofan like the F100. YF-16 was considered less expensive.

That could have been the end of the line for Northrop's design had it not been for the Navy to wish for a new fighter. By August 1974, the navy's own VFAX program had been chaired by Congress that instructed the navy to choose its fighter from the two ACF rivals. Northrop decided to team up with McDonnell Douglas to promote a version of its YF-17 and offer it to USN. This project would later become the F / A-18 Hornet, which was commissioned by Marina in May 1975.

 

Ac1Qdgm.jpg

YF-17 Cobra doing 20mm M61 vulcan cannon fire test

 

lZKDRUf.jpg

 

(SpecificationsYF-17)

Spoiler

Crew: 1
Length: 55 ft 6 in (16.92 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft 0 in (10.67 m)
Height: 14 ft 6 in (4.42 m)
Wing area: 350 sq ft (33 m2)
Empty weight: 21,000 lb (9,525 kg)

Gross weight: 23,000 lb (10,433 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 30.630 lbs (13,894 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric YJ101-GE-100 turbojet, 14,400 lbf (64 kN) thrust each (with reheat)
Performance: Maximum speed: 1,320 mph (2,124 km / h; 1,147 kn) at 40,000 feet (12,000 m) Range: 2,800 mi (2,433 nm; 4,506 km) Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,000 m)

Armament: Guns: 1×20 mm (0.79 in) M61 Vulcan Gatling Gun Missiles: 2 × AIM-9 Sidewinder

 

source:

 

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Open for discussion. :salute:

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the poll,

 

1.  “I said no” on the question indicates there was another question, but it does not appear.

 

2.  Could you add “Other” option on the Br question?

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather we leave experimental rejects in trees that are lacking in content. Also, I'm sure there are other production vehicles we can have for the mach 2 category without resorting to a diet f18.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CaptainBallistic said:

I'd rather we leave experimental rejects in trees that are lacking in content. Also, I'm sure there are other production vehicles we can have for the mach 2 category without resorting to a diet f18.

When we reach this point (Rank VII-VIII), this could be a good Rank VI-VII premium.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kamikazi21358 said:

When we reach this point (Rank VII-VIII), this could be a good Rank VI-VII premium.

If it was stripped of payloads outside of minimal air to air then I would consider it. Premium vehicles should not have a capacity to dictate the meta much like the recent additions have.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, CaptainBallistic said:

If it was stripped of payloads outside of minimal air to air then I would consider it. Premium vehicles should not have a capacity to dictate the meta much like the recent additions have.

It would be at an appropriate battle rating of course.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, kamikazi21358 said:

About the poll,

 

1.  “I said no” on the question indicates there was another question, but it does not appear.

these options have a problem, I already reported this problem in the poll
17 hours ago, kamikazi21358 said:

2.  Could you add “Other” option on the Br question? 

The highest rating in the game right now is 10.0, I put this option 1.3 higher just because we don't know how it will be in the future for Gaijin
 
 
17 hours ago, CaptainBallistic said:

I'd rather we leave experimental rejects in trees that are lacking in content. Also, I'm sure there are other production vehicles we can have for the mach 2 category without resorting to a diet f18. 

You're only aiming at the American regular line, I'm analyzing it as a whole. This airplane can come as a regular line as well as premium tier-6, or even as an event vehicle. And the F-18 can come as a regular line, usually without any problem

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves with fourth-gen fighters like this.  Let's wait till Gaijin gets around to adding proper third-gen fighters (stuff like the F-4 and MiG-21) before we talk about these.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea there's no need for a rejected prototype, for nation that has plenty of production examples, in such time period, making such an addition unnecessary to fill any tech gaps.

Edited by RanchSauce39

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, RanchSauce39 said:

Yea there's no need for a rejected prototype, for nation that has plenty of production examples, in such time period, making such an addition unnecessary to fill any tech gaps.

it was not rejected the navy picked it up and it became the f-18

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, *seadogpirate said:

it was not rejected the navy picked it up and it became the f-18

 

 

Yes it was..... The YF17 was rejected by the Air-force  for thier lightweight fighter  program competition ( which was hosted by the USAF specifically) , because thats what that specific model was designed for to compete based on USAF requirements.

 

 The YF17  is not the F/A18. FOr all intents and purposes is almost a totally new aircraft. The Navy brass specifically stated that MCD had to try to design an aircraft that looked similar to YF17, purely because they (  as it proved out so)  believed  congressional oversight committee would be more likely to provide funding of the project if they  believed it to be a mere derivative, and thus saving money.

 

LWF was not a navy program.  VFAX  was a navy specific program  to meet need  as a lower cost supplement for the ill fated F111B  and F4 phantom replacement, for a which then. was revived after the LWF program, as such selected the YF17 as a basis to further develop a new aircraft based on thier specific requirements, which eventually resulted in MCD designing and building the F/A18.

 

Spoiler

would suggest this read to learn fully about F/A18 development, and also comprehend just how significant the changes were from YF17. Looks can be deceptive.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Hornet-Inside-Story-F-18-ebook/dp/B00KQ6PKH6

 

 

 

On 26/08/2019 at 00:36, CaptainBallistic said:

I'd rather we leave experimental rejects in trees that are lacking in content. Also, I'm sure there are other production vehicles we can have for the mach 2 category without resorting to a diet f18.

 

On 26/08/2019 at 00:45, Rokkerboyy said:

Imagine suggesting we get the YF-17 before the F-5E or even F-5A. This is far from the first Mach 2 jet we should get. And you are so sure of the post you dont even give people the option to say no in the post.

 

Edit: Ah you added it after I had looked

 

Edited by RanchSauce39

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not against having this in the game, but there are so many aircraft that should be added first - there are plenty of jets from the 50s and 60s before they should be looking at early 70s prototypes. A-4, A-7, F-8, F-105 to name four obvious ones - and that's just for the US. If it was added it would probably work best as a premium, with the F-16 and F/A-18 put in the tech tree at the same time. I think we are still several updates away from that point though.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.