Key Points and Summary – The U.S. Air Force made a “strategic blunder” in 1991 by choosing the YF-22 over the more advanced YF-23 prototype.
-The YF-23 was a more futuristic design, prioritizing the all-aspect stealth, speed, and range needed for modern, beyond-visual-range combat.
Northrop YF-23 National Security Journal Photo. Taken on July 19, 2025.
-The Air Force, however, being risk-averse, chose the more conventional and maneuverable YF-22 (or F-22) because it clung to outdated dogfighting dogmas.
-This failure of vision left the U.S. with the F-22, a brilliant but costly and limited fleet, while the YF-23’s principles are only now being rediscovered for 6th-generation fighters.
The YF-23 Black Widow II Still Haunts the U.S. Air Force
The YF-23 captured that spirit—uncompromising, futuristic, indifferent to the antediluvian theater of close-in dogfighting.
And yet, it lost.
Not because it couldn’t accomplish the mission. Not because it wasn’t technologically mature. And not, of course, because it was worse than the YF-22.
It lost because it didn’t adhere to the standard rules in an institution still mired in the Cold War mentality.
It was just too radical for the United States Air Force of the early 1990s, and too honest about the future of warfare.
YF-23 National Security Journal Close Up Photo. Taken July 20, 2025.
In hindsight, with the benefit of time’s clarifying perspective, pinning our hopes on the YF-22 over the imperfect and cautious disobedience of the YF-23 seems a strategic blunder: long-term survivability and stealth sacrificed in exchange for short-term complacency and familiarity.
The YF-23 Black Widow II Was Everything…
The YF-23 was what everything in a peer-level fight was supposed to be about: stealth, range, speed, and the ability to kill without being seen.
Northrop’s airframe — sleek, menacing, and an almost alien silhouette — didn’t bother to coddle the dogfighting traditionalists.
Instead, it focused on the sort of war that we now understand characterizes the 21st century: high-end, sensor-rich, precision-targeted, and unforgiving.
Where the YF-22 could out-turn its competition, and perform airshow-quality maneuvers, the YF-23 would rather not dogfight at all.
And in the business end of modern air combat, that’s the idea. You don’t win by dancing — you win by managing not to be seen until it is too late.
Technically, the YF-23 was stunning. It attained supercruise (supersonic flight without afterburner) with both the Pratt & Whitney YF119 engine and the General Electric YF120 engine.
It did so in tests without sacrificing either range or infrared stealth. Its stealth profile was broader-spectrum than the YF-22’s, designed not just to minimize head-on radar returns, but to kill the cross section from all possible angles.
X-32 and YF-23 Together at U.S. Air Force Museum. Image: National Security Journal.
YF-23 Black Widow II Up Close National Security Journal Photo.
YF-23 Black Widow II from National Security Journal Photo Shoot.
Its exhaust system was cleverly buried and shielded to minimize its heat signature — an early acknowledgment that IRST systems would one day matter as much as radars.
And its delta diamond wings and V-tail surfaces helped to ensure that it had a radar signature as ghostly as its shape at the same time it retained stability at extreme speed.
Its performance could hardly have been more of a success. The two prototypes flew smoothly. The test flights were successful. It was one of those designs that screamed opportunity for inevitable tweaking down the road.
Why Did the YF-23 Fighter Lose to the F-22?
In 1991, however, the Air Force did arrive at its answer. The YF-22 won. And the F-22 Raptor was born.
Why?
On paper, arguments about agility and cockpit visibility justified it — and neither characteristic was unimportant — but not decisive in a time when the first shot often decided the battle.
The real reasons were more a matter of psychology, institutional risk aversion, and defense politics.
Lockheed had momentum and political capital; Northrop was embittered by its bruising last few years with the B-2. The YF-22 had the appearance of a fighter aircraft. The YF-23 seemed like the future, and that frightened people.
The irony, of course, is that the Air Force specifically attempted to jump to the future with the Advanced Tactical Fighter program. But when the chips were down, it couldn’t get over the familiar dogmas of maneuverability and visual combat.
The YF-22 was more maneuverable, yes — but it was also more conventional, more known, more usual. And the F-22 Raptor, which evolved from that design, would be the world’s best air supremacy fighter in its time. But that era is ending.
The Consequences
But the world we confront now is not the world of 1991.
It’s not even the world of 2001. China has established an extensive anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) network spanning from the South China Sea to the Tsushima Strait.
Russian S-400 and S-500 missiles can penetrate the airspace of the Nordics and other NATO frontline nations.
Iran and North Korea are both using passive radar, long-range SAMs, and mobile air defense tactics.
Dogfighting is next to nothing in this atmosphere. First rule of surviving: Don’t be seen. The second is don’t linger. The third is to strike before they even know you’re there.
According to this logic, the YF-23 would fit in better with a 2025 Air Force than the F-22 ever did.
F-22 Raptor. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
Its stealth is cleaner. Its range is more extended. Its speed is greater. Its thermal signature is lower. It’s precisely the sort of platform you’d like to see operated in tight, contested, sensor-saturated skies. In many ways, it was the next-generation fighter before anyone was willing to acknowledge it.
And let’s not pretend like this is only romantic hindsight. The YF-23 airframe was capable of many of the design elements now being pursued in the NGAD program – adaptive engines, modular design, optionally manned abilities, and extreme stealth were all possible in the YF-23 airframe, if not demonstrated.
A Generation Ahead…
The YF-23 Black Widow II was an entire generation ahead of its time, and it’s no coincidence that every serious debate about next-gen air dominance now resonates with its DNA.
And it’s only fair to admit that no prototype ever promises a successful production aircraft. The YF-23 might have encountered development problems. Tying it into weapons, sensors, and comms might have been difficult. But that argument goes both ways — the F-22 was hardly problem-free.
Eventually proving too costly and complicated to sustain, fewer than 187 airframes were produced for a program planned to reach 750. Its software aged quickly. The stealth covering needed very careful maintenance. And for all its potential lethality, it’s poorly suited to long-duration missions in the sort of vast battlespaces we now imagine in the Indo-Pacific.
The YF-23, however, was designed for range and endurance. Its internal bays were generous. Its engines were built for range and high-altitude cruising. Its radar reflection was small enough that even long-range over-the-horizon sensors could hardly see it. It seemed to belong in 2030, not 1990.
That may have been its worst sin. It was making the future too legible, too soon. The Air Force blinked.
What We Can Learn from the YF-23 Mistake
We can’t undo the decision. But we can learn from it.
The moral of the story is not that the F-22 failed — it didn’t.
MORE – The Iran War Could Restart Any Second
The lesson is that in turning points, courage counts. When you bet on the conventional — even if the traditional is excellent—you often wind up behind the future. And when the future does arrive — it always does — it is merciless to those who clung to yesterday’s answers.
The YF-23 was a risk. But it was the good kind of risk—the calculated, forward-thinking wager on survivability, adaptability, and strategic clarity. And had it gone into production, it would have redefined America’s air dominance in ways we are just starting to understand.
Now, as we ponder NGAD and keep an eye on the next wave of sixth-generation systems, there is a good reminder in the Black Widow. It was not merely a lost prototype—it was a warning. The price of playing it safe at a time of rapid change doesn’t just lead to technological stagnation; it leads to strategic irrelevance. The YF-23 didn’t fail us. We failed it.
And if we do it again—say, by choosing the F-35 Ferrari over the F-47 NGAD—the next time it won’t merely be aircraft that will be lost. It may well be war.
U.S. Air Force Maj. Kristin “BEO” Wolfe, F-35A Lightning II Demonstration Team pilot and commander, flies an F-35 assigned to the 421st Fighter Generation Squadron at the Wings Over Houston Airshow, Tx., Oct. 15, 2023. Wings Over Houston showcases vintage World War II aircraft alongside the thrills of modern aviation, and has supported a variety of local and national charities during its 39-year history. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Kaitlyn Ergish)
About the Author: Dr. Andrew Latham
Andrew Latham is a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities and a professor of international relations and political theory at Macalester College in Saint Paul, MN. You can follow him on X: @aakatham. He writes a daily column for National Security Journal.
More Military
We Almost Touched the F-117 Stealth Fighter
Zhduny
July 25, 2025 at 3:06 pm
YF-22 won because it looked ‘right’ during the waning days of the administration of bush the elder.
During bush the elder’s time, the USAF ruled the roost.
Not today.
Today, we have fighters like the Su-57 which can turn on a dime and give the USAF feelings of seeing blue lights (an urge to press the panic button).
The USAF today is no longer the ruling monarch of the air.
But some generals in DoD today are still smart enough to holler about them seeing invisible blue lights. In space, where according to them, China is now advancing, night and day.
And also, advancing day and night. F-22 ? Can’t fly to space.
bobb
July 25, 2025 at 3:48 pm
Today, china is acknowledged to be (slightly) ahead of US in military aerospace, but few would agree with that publicly.
But that edge could easily be frittered away due to the great stupidity of xi jinping.
Xi is extremely stupid, even fully letting ukrainian nazis hold chinese citizens to ransom. When he should have severed ties to the nazis in 2022.
Right now, thailand is fighting cambodia tooth and nail, over an ancient temple, preah vihear and its immediate grounds.
Thailand is in the wrong, as the site truly belongs to cambodia, like what taiwan is to china. (chinese real state.)
But xi is so stupid that he’s becoming completely silent and at a time when chinese ‘tourists’ are facing huge great massive danger in thailand, with crime, murder, kidnapping and scamming being at top of all-time favorites.
Thailand is a place where black magic is commonly practised, although cambodia itself isn’t too far behind.
You gotta be there to believe it. (the black magic business.) It’s really numero uno in some regions of thai–land.
To hell with xi. May the thai black magic get to him.
Jim
July 25, 2025 at 10:12 pm
“antediluvian” … I prefer prediluvian, myself.
YF-23 is much more akin to the F-35 from the picture provided.
Chuck Yeager made a great salesman for the F-22… you know, the right stuff.
Anyway, we’re here, but I don’t think we know exactly where we stack up these days.
Both Russia and China have aircraft which could give us a run for our money…
… oh, sure, some people say, don’t worry, we’re in the lead… but are we?
I suggest we should treat it as peer-to-peer situation until we know different.
Bring back the YF-23… in spirit… well, we need some preliminary wind tunnel work… today, with computer assistance we should be able to generate multiple prototypes on screen, as it were, and have a good idea of their performance.
Even in an age of drone warfare, manned fighters are still crucial, we got several coming up in the hopper… I hope they deliver on the expected performance which defense contractors are brimming about.
Perhaps, the point of the story is to suggest we can’t afford to makes that many more mistakes.
Not with what we see & hear out of Russia & China, both seem to have their act together… do we?
Or do we just think we do… based on past glories… leading to a fall. I don’t want to see that.
Commentar
July 26, 2025 at 3:12 am
Why is russia today struggling (truly in a desperate struggle) so badly, so terribly, against fascist ukraine.
Reason is putin’s unfathomable STRATEGIC BLUNDER.
WHAT’S THAT.
His blunder is his glaring failure to upkeep his nuclear arsenal.
Putin, was always more interested in doing countless travels, meetings, visits, sports events and celebrations while wearing flashy clothes.
I was wondering so long and hard why russia has been struggling to stay above water in the life-or-death battle with the nazis.
Finally, i realised even tiny north korea has its small nuclear force kept in far better condition than russia.
Had north korea been in russia’s place in the biden-scripted ukro conflict, the nazis would have tasted defeat a long time ago.
Great moral lesson here.
Always, always, always keep your nuclear arsenal in tip top condition, ready for fast immediate use.
Commentar
July 26, 2025 at 4:03 am
Mikhail Gorbachev oversaw the collapse of the USSR.
What was Gorbachev’s biggest ever strategic blunder.
His dismissal of Andrei gromyko as Soviet foreign minister.
Gromyko was maestro incomparable as soviet foreign minister, and his dismissal was a horrible-horribly fatal strategic blunder.
One that directly led to Gorbachev’s many errors committed during his leadership and the subsequent fall of the Soviet union.
The fall of the Soviet union ruined the lives of millions and millions of ordinary people and paved the way for the rise of the oligarchs also known as the robber barons.
It was the greatest strategic blunder of the 20th century.
Anyone who has a brain must not avoid studying this blunder.
Greg Hagopian
July 26, 2025 at 2:25 pm
What I never hear talked about in this YF22 vs YF23 decision is the impact that McDonnell Douglas, the A12 fiasco and John McDonnell along with Dick Cheney had on the selection process for this fighter program – one that would become a replacement for the F15. Seems that this fact alone would have provided the successful incumbent manufacturer’s team a competitive advantage, but apparently it did not.
I remember hearing rumors that the air force was told that it could select whichever fighter they preferred, but that only the F22 would be funded.
Let’s also not forget that the F22 prototype burned up on the tarmac and the entire selection process was delayed in order to allow the Lockheed fighter program to catch up with the Northrop and McDonnell effort.
Personally, I think politics played a big role in the ultimate selection of a winner in this competition.
Maximus
July 26, 2025 at 5:19 pm
The YF-23 relies on the Gish Gallop like no other aircraft except for maybe the Gripen. Half truths and misinterpretations have been repeated so often for so long that the half truths are accepted as truths.
Both technology demonstrators that participated in the ATF competition exceeded the requirements in speed and stealth. The YF-22 and YF-23 were both stealthier than the ATF requirements.
I’m always amused when articles like this pop up claiming the YF-23 was the faster demonstrator. The fastest it ever flew in the ATF was 1.8 Mach. Tom Morgan field took YF-22 to Mach 2.02 with power to spare. No F22 driver is looking to dog fight. It is BVR master that just happens to be super maneuverable. The YF-23 would have had modest maneuverability comparatively so. That would’ve been a little difference between how these two fighters were employed tactically. Who gives a damn if the aviation enthusiast think YF-23 was snubbed or not? We know that a F22 fully armed ready for war can super cruise at Mach 1.7-1.8. The F 22 raptor super cruises just fine. There is some merit that the General Electric adaptive engines were certainly more revolutionary and probably needed to be an option for F 22 and F35.
I definitely admit the black widow and gray ghost incredibly awesome looking fighters, but I do believe that USAF pick the correct aircraft for them.
Mike Thompson
July 29, 2025 at 10:35 am
The 23 was a much better aircraft but the AF liked the vectored thrust aspect of the 22 over the reduced heat signature of the 23.
Andrew
August 1, 2025 at 1:22 pm
How much of this article is AI written? There are some areas that are obviously written by an AI, quite likely OpenAI given the word choice and sentence structure.