It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another thread on the YF-24 (or rather: "what's in a name?")

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: aholic

To further push my theory of "politics and the JSF killed the YF-24/NATF and that's why we won't see any of it", take a look again at the Northrop NATF concept.

I'm addition to being a completely different aircraft from the YF-23 (and one which is clearly a dogfighting air-superiority fighter in the same vein as the typhoon/f-22/f-15, which again supports my theory that whatever the YF-23 was based off of, it was almost certainly NOT a fighter), it also appears to be a radical departure from the F-22, sacrificing all-out stealth in the name of extra maneuverability to save money without sacrificing any real capabilities. I mean look at it, it's as if someone threw a Euro-Canard and a YF-23 into a blender, with some added Northrop F/A-18 DNA thrown in for good measure.

Just as the Typhoon/Rafale can reportedly fly circles around the F-22, at least in a dogfight, this thing could have been a real "killer app", offering better maneuverability than the F-22 with F-35-level stealth and at a lower price point, further pissing off the USAF and the F-22/JSF lobby.




posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

And when they painted tankers and transports green the Middle East damn near trashed them from overheating. All aircraft have issues that require overcoming and this aircraft is no different.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   
I hate you guys.

I clicked this thread and got totally sidetracked. THIS is why I'm here and it is an honor to read all of your experiences and knowledge that comes with it.

Alright, enough kissing ass.

More please!




posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

Nice background boomer. Whose the little guy getting some fresh suds?



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge

originally posted by: boomer135

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

It's very real. Just classified still.


From the pdf file that somehow leaked out it is the F-35 in every aspect with added thrust vectoring. It is the same dam plane!!!


It looks nothing like the 35


I suggest you look at page 23!! www.scribd.com...


we must be talking about different aircraft. my apologizes. I was refering to the yf-24 looking nothing like the F-35.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

I think we've talked about those whitepapers, and jump in here guys, but didn't we decide that this was a Boeing endeavor that never made it past ink? The model-24 had some wind tunnel testing if my info is correct but never saw much else. Please correct me if I'm off center.

Wanted to add (ETA), that model-24 gets frequently confused with the YF-24 but they are actually different aircraft.
edit on 23-2-2015 by aholic because: addition

edit on 23-2-2015 by aholic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge
I have constantly defended the F-35 but after reading what I just read this whole program needs to be sold to Israel and Britain. It cost the same as the dam Raptor did and now it cant even be fueled from a standard fuel truck without it overheating and shutting down on the tarmac or catching fire.

Their moronic solution was to paint the fuel trucks white. That's just in the U.S., Not gonna work in the desert of the middle east and they might as well paint a big bulls eye on the fuel trucks now. How about Lockheed fix the dam plane?

foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com...

They are a sorry bunch of plane manufactures anymore. I pray Northrop gets the next contract just because of the turds the rest have given us of late.

Why the hell buy a plane that is SLOWER, not even stealth with a decent bomb load and riddled with constant problems and cost the same as a twin engine Raptor?? The Marines need a Vtol fighter like they need a whole in the head. Congress is out of their dam minds and now the Navy is starting to get mad at the turd they pushed to get.

This will be the ruin of our air dominance until it is cancelled. The F-16 will fly circles around this thing and carry more weapons at the same time.


Please please please dont fall into the media "hype" about the F-35. The jet costs nowhere near what an F-22 costs when you look at the total cost of the program. By 2019, the F-35A will cost around 85 million with the engine in todays dollars, and the total cost per aircraft will continue to decrease as full rate production kicks in and we start building thousands of them. Not to mention, the only thing the F-22 can do better than the F-35 is air to air. Not surprising considering thats why they built it. But avionics wise, the F-35 blows the raptor out of the park.

As with the fuel thing, thats not unique to this aircraft. There are a bunch of aircraft that operate the same way. In the desert, we just parked the fuel trucks under some yawning out near the flightline and it solved the problem.

Of course the F-35 is slower! Its only got one engine! But dont make the mistake of comparing it to the F-22 like alot of media types do. They are two completely different airplanes that are made to complement eachother, not compete against eachother. My personal opinion is that the F-35B is what caused all the problems with this jet from the start. We should not have even tried to combine the three services into one aircraft. We might be able to get away with the navy and air force versions, but having to redesign the aircraft just to make the lift fan fit really put a damper on the program early on.

You say its not even stealth...The four star general of Air Combat Command says its even more stealthier than the raptor. Now im not sure where they are getting their logic from, or even how they can say that, but hes not the only one that has made that statement. So i conclude that they must be talking about all aspect stealth and not just its radar cross section, which is somewhere between the F-117 and the F-22 in size.

Theres alot of misinformation or flat out lies out there about the JSF program. The past couple of weeks ive been writing up a "mega thread" about the F-35 including all the positives and negatives that are proven as fact, as well as some other things. I'm really trying to be neutral in it but its really hard to be. lol. Stay tuned for that thread in the next few days or so...



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: aholic
a reply to: boomer135

Nice background boomer. Whose the little guy getting some fresh suds?


Oh its just an F-35....But thanks! only took me five hours to get it the way i wanted it.




posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

nice job!



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: aholic
a reply to: boomer135

nice job!


thanks!



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

The Model 24 was a technology demonstrator. It had nothing to do with the YF-24 program. Its only purpose was to test the technologies in that paper.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

The Model 24 was a technology demonstrator. It had nothing to do with the YF-24 program. Its only purpose was to test the technologies in that paper.


Plus there are way better aircraft in that paper than that model 24. lol



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

True. It was a VERY interesting paper.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

Oh boys, just to catch everyone up.








I have a favorite. Which one is yours?



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barnalby
a reply to: aholic

To further push my theory of "politics and the JSF killed the YF-24/NATF and that's why we won't see any of it", take a look again at the Northrop NATF concept.

I'm addition to being a completely different aircraft from the YF-23 (and one which is clearly a dogfighting air-superiority fighter in the same vein as the typhoon/f-22/f-15, which again supports my theory that whatever the YF-23 was based off of, it was almost certainly NOT a fighter), it also appears to be a radical departure from the F-22, sacrificing all-out stealth in the name of extra maneuverability to save money without sacrificing any real capabilities. I mean look at it, it's as if someone threw a Euro-Canard and a YF-23 into a blender, with some added Northrop F/A-18 DNA thrown in for good measure.

Just as the Typhoon/Rafale can reportedly fly circles around the F-22, at least in a dogfight, this thing could have been a real "killer app", offering better maneuverability than the F-22 with F-35-level stealth and at a lower price point, further pissing off the USAF and the F-22/JSF lobby.


Ok take this part of your theory and throw it in the trash...your really close on just your first guess. This kind of goes away from it a little..



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   
I dont really like any of them. But that last one kind of looks like Lockheeds sixth gen design, which i think is really cool looking.




posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

Which one were you referring to?



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: aholic

I have a problem with big separate wings in what would be a revolutionary aircraft. I would have to go with something in the 3 or 4 range.


Also, coming in here late, still have not seen a good explaination of the mentioning of the YF-24 in the Colonel's writings.
Security of projects like that are so strict, that not being cognizant of that does not make sense. Additionally, some heavies probably had to proof read that before he published, and there is no way they could miss it.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: aholic

The first one because it's the SHARC concept "wind tunnel model" that looked like an awfully mature design for something that was allegedly just a NASA aerodynamics study.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: aholic

I have a problem with big separate wings in what would be a revolutionary aircraft. I would have to go with something in the 3 or 4 range.


Also, coming in here late, still have not seen a good explaination of the mentioning of the YF-24 in the Colonel's writings.
Security of projects like that are so strict, that not being cognizant of that does not make sense. Additionally, some heavies probably had to proof read that before he published, and there is no way they could miss it.


because designators like yf-24, yf-113g, yf-118, etc., are non classified designators for classified aircraft. The designation by itself isnt classified, however when you pair it with a specific airplane then its classified. Now im not saying thats what happened in the colonels bio, but it could have been a minor oversight with people not thinking there were tons of dudes and dudettes on the internet that would go ape # over it.

shadowhawk is the expert on that sort of stuff. He may chine in here if i missed something.
edit on 24-2-2015 by boomer135 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join