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: 6
8
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby



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"


My second attempt at the YF-24 mistery:

The timing of the whole story fits a span that goes from the early to mid 90s. During those years there were a plethora of known programs going on: NATF, MRF, A-X, JAF, CALF, JAST.

NATF was killed because the Navy realized that putting the N to the ATF was going to add too much weight on their aircrafts. To avoid this, they would have had to join the ATF long before, in an earlier phase of the program.

Side tracking, on JSF.mil there was an interesting resume on many of these programs i named before. They required capabilites that overlapped much with each other, and on this basis they merged and led to the JSF as we know it today.

Speculation starts now and i'm going to quote from GlobalSecurity here:


DARPA competitively awarded two contracts in March 1993 to conduct critical technology validation of two CALF concepts. Lockheed was awarded a $32.9M contract to conduct risk reduction of a shaft driven lift fan and McDonnell Douglas was awarded a $27.7M contract to conduct risk reduction of a gas driven lift fan.



Boeing later approached DARPA and offered to meet DARPA's financial contribution if they were allowed onto the program.



In March 1994, Congress appropriated an additional $6M to fund a direct lift STOVL concept. Following a procurement competition, Boeing was selected to conduct this effort, offering to cost share an additional $6M to enable a similar level of risk reduction as the Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas and put them in a competitive position to vie for a follow-on demonstration program. Further provisions included a $10M contribution each from Congress and Boeing for the following year, bringing Boeing's total contract up to $32M.


Hey, Boeing is making nice money despite jumping late in the program don't you think?


For all three contractors, the Critical Technology Validation Phase included continued design work on both operational and associated low cost demonstrator aircraft, affordability analyses, and small scale and component testing culminating in large scale powered model testing to validate not only propulsion system performance but to ensure no adverse performance effects from operation in ground effect such as stability and control problems, lift losses and hot gas ingestion.


Like These ones for example.

And nicest tidbit of info

The government imposed only a single requirement - that the aircraft weight empty be less than 24,000 lbs. This weight target was set for two reasons. First, this weight was consistent with the thrust available for vertical landing from an F-119 class engine. Second, since parametric cost estimating relationships show strong correlation with weight, this also ensured that a low cost design would be achieved. The demonstrator aircraft would be based on this design, employing a common outer moldline, to validate performance predictions and demonstrate manufacturing affordability initiatives. However signature reduction materials and treatments would be left off the demonstrator to reduce cost. The demonstrator aircraft would also demonstrate the commonality between the Air Force and Marine Corps variants by using common tooling and producing both configurations.


Now.
The X-35 and X-32 weigh less than 24,000 lbs, right? Erhm, no. Not really to be honest.
But hey, the Model 24 operating weight empty is 19,980 lbs.

Fast forward, Dec. 22, 1994. The following JAST program contracts were awarded and announced:

Prime: Boeing Defense and Space Group, Seattle, WA.
Title: Tri-Service Weapon System Concept
Award: $27,614,120

Prime: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, St. Louis, MO.
Title: Joint Strike Weapon System Concept Definition and Design Research
Award: $28,193,501

Prime: Northrop Grumman Corp. Advanced Technology and Development Center, Pico Rivera, CA
Title: Joint Strike Weapon System Concept Definition and Design Research
Award: $24,085,919

Prime: Lockheed Ft. Worth Co., Ft. Worth, TX
Title: Joint Strike Weapon System Concept Definition and Design Research
Award: $19,900,000

[and later on in the middle lines]

Prime: Boeing Defense and Space Group, Seattle, WA.
Title: JAST Multi-service Common Airframe
Award: $1,740,920

Only for Boeing. Not LM, nor Nortrhop, nor McD.

Well, alright i guess...
edit on 24-2-2015 by CiTrus90 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 03:12 AM
link   
look what BAE found

www.youtube.com...

looks interesting, anyone got a confirmation on this one?


also this is pretty cool

www.youtube.com...
edit on 26-2-2015 by penroc3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 03:51 AM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

Think the upside down plane/model is called "Replica".
Someone on here said it was getting cleaned before being put on display and it was used to demonstrate the UK's stealth capabilities to partners/allies across the pond before they were allowed in on other projects.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Jukiodone

interesting. It doesn't look like a F-22 and it seems to have two engines so it cant be a F-35 so I wonder what it is a model of?

I think someone in the comments of that video noted that the canopy is quite right either.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
The empenage is similar to Tacit Blue in the first video.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

I believe Replica was just a design study before the UK officially went with the F-35. I think they are using it now for testing of BAE's UAV craft.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Jukiodone

How would that work exactly?

The UK signed on as the sole partner in the F-35 program way back in 1996 so it won't be that. There is no way they would agree to be a level 1 partner and put in billions if they were excluded from specific parts of the design/construction.

www.newscientist.com...-640esWem



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 03:51 AM
link   
a reply to: big_BHOY

It wouldn't.
Sammamishman or the Wiki link give a better summary than my memory.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 06:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: penroc3

I believe Replica was just a design study before the UK officially went with the F-35. I think they are using it now for testing of BAE's UAV craft.

The picture of the upside down RCS test model is codenamed 'Replica' and was one of the concepts developed to meet the UK MOD FOAS requirement. FOAS was cancelled and superseded by DPOC which was then cancelled as part of the strategic defence review. Replica did not fly, but other platforms and demonstrators may have.

The reason it's upside down is so that an RCS can be acquired for the underside of the aircraft. The RCS Range at Warton is on the south side of the airfeld where we test and develop the more interesting airframes.

Corax, Replica and several other low observable concepts and platforms were used to develop our understanding and contribution to the JSF program and the currently flying Taranis UCAV.

F-35 meets the requirements of the defunct FOAS and DPOC programs, our main site in the UK for F-35 is Salmesbury, neither Replica, Taranis or F-35 are YF-24.

Cheers
Robbie



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Jukiodone

It wasn't simply a design study nor was it at attempt to blackmail the US or LM into being let in on stealth technology.

Here is an article from 1991 where they show designs and talk about stealth:

www.flightglobal.com...
www.flightglobal.com...
www.flightglobal.com...

This page needs translating but it offers a good array of images:

www.hitechweb.genezis.eu...

Essentially like tons of other potential advanced pieces of tech the MOD has passed on over the decades, it was canned because the money was not there to see it through to completion.
edit on 27-2-2015 by big_BHOY because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: big_BHOY

Oh, the sad story of the UK post-WWII, where they've easily had some of the best designers and concepts of any armed force out there, but have never had the money to pay for any of it.

It would have been awesome to see stuff like the Replica, the Avro 730, and the Hawker P.1154 fly.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

Yep, has been happening for too long and has included everything from carriers to bombers (TSR-2) to fighters (Tornado 2000, BAE Replica etc). Heck, they were even looking into flying wing stealth bombers in the late 80's.

The CVA-01 carrier in 1966:

en.wikipedia.org...

Designer said the day it was cancelled was one of the best days of his life. All because of the interference from above him due to cost constraints and lies from the RAF who produced dodgy maps to show aircraft alone could get the job done.. It had all the latest innovations like 3D radar, novel flight deck arrangement etc.

Whenever there is something good on the horizon, you can guarantee that there will be a 'White Paper' coming out shortly after to announce a cancellation and budget cuts.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join