Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

F-19A Specter Stealth Fighter

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
If the F-19 exists that's fine and dandy but please note that every F designation does NOT end up in a viable, in-service aircraft. Where are the F-21, F-24, F-25, F-26?......you get the idea.


The F-21A Lion is the Israeli Kfir. 20+ were leased from Israel and used as aggressor planes for both the USAF and USN in the late 80's. The YF-24 does exist, but the only reference to it is in COL Joe Lanni's biography. Basically, the only number that was skipped up until the JSF was the F-19. Why the competing prototypes for the JSF program weren't YF-25 and YF-26 (instead of X-32/X-35) is anybody's guess. It's likely the USAF didn't want any questions asked about the YF-24, or maybe there have been several YF prototypes that are still unknown...

The silly thing to me is that the simple use of the nomenclature 'F-19' for an aircraft is completely contradictory to the funding or deniability argument previously presented in the thread. If an aircraft received the nomenclature, paperwork would have been done and civilians in the DoD at many levels would have to have known about it. If an aircraft were so secret, due to funding or for want of deniability, it is likely that there would be no DoD (or government) nomenclature at all, but it would simply go by whatever the manufacturer wanted to call it, similar to the Bird of Prey or the Polecat. My personal feelings are that the designation of 'F-19' may have actually been 'reserved' for the F-117 but never used.

[edit on 10-10-2006 by crusader97]




posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Guys you're misunderstanding me. I don't care whether the F-19 exisits or not. My original point was and still is that simply because there is a missing F number doesn't mean something sinister. The Kafir has nothing to do with US nomeclature and other Fs that aren't in inventory aren't automatically secret birds. Some A/C assigned a designation can be no more than design excercises to illustrate some feature for the military.

I could manufacture a yarn about the F-110 I suppose. Perhaps a couple of you know this plane. Its's the F-4! Back in the day they decided to change things and the Phantom was designated the F-110 by the AF for about 10 minutes


What was the F-109? Seek that info out and entertain yourself



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
Guys you're misunderstanding me. I don't care whether the F-19 exisits or not. My original point was and still is that simply because there is a missing F number doesn't mean something sinister.


Right! In case anyone is intrested here a quick list of SOME of the other missing "F" designation in the current series in the US:

F-1
F-2
F-9
F-13
F-25 to F-34 are also unused as far as we know!

I gurantee they are NOT all secret planes.

Tim

[edit on 12-10-2006 by ghost]



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Right! In case anyone is intrested here a quick list of SOME of the other missing "F" designation in the current series in the US:

F-1
F-2
F-9
F-13


That depends on how much you trust Wikipedia. Post 1962 the F-1 is the North American FJ Fury, the F-2 is the McDonnell F2H Banshee and the F-9 is the Grumman F9F Panther. F-13 was officially skipped due to superstitious reasons. No, it isn't very likely that F-25 through F-34 is full of classified aircraft. However, there really isn't a good reason as to why the DoD would simply start ignoring the 40+ year old nomenclature system. Cruizer - I understood the point - but the point has no precedence in the post 1962 system. A quick search for F-109 reveals that it was assigned to two aircraft - there are actually official USAF sources for this. Their are no official sources for anything dealing with the F-19 - it's more like a black hole than anything else.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   
The F-1 as in the North American Fury was the in service company designation not an official Air Force designation. It was a derivitive of the F-86 in that numbering system that lasted a few more decades. Same for F-2 and F9F. The F-4, F-5 and F-8 are NOT part of the new fighter numbering changeover. They are in company designations. The Vought F-8U was the original designation. You may remember the Vought F-4U Corsair from WW 2 that also had no relation to the current numerical sequences.

The F-111 was the last of the old system save for the F-117 which was so designated before the F-15 and F-16 came about. F-14 is a Grumman # thing not the government. They basically dropped dropped the 1st of the 3 digits so the F-115 became the F-15 and so on.

There were no officially designated fighters F-1 to F-13.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
The F-1 as in the North American Fury was the in service company designation not an official Air Force designation. It was a derivitive of the F-86 in that numbering system that lasted a few more decades. Same for F-2 and F9F. The F-4, F-5 and F-8 are NOT part of the new fighter numbering changeover.


Here's a link to a website that supports my previous statements concerning designations and also lists it's references (the original government documents) for the redesignation of aircraft after 1962. It's actually a very interesting site, and even has a section on the F-19/F-20 mystery.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
The F-1 as in the North American Fury was the in service company designation not an official Air Force designation. It was a derivitive of the F-86 in that numbering system that lasted a few more decades. Same for F-2 and F9F. The F-4, F-5 and F-8 are NOT part of the new fighter numbering changeover. They are in company designations. The Vought F-8U was the original designation. You may remember the Vought F-4U Corsair from WW 2 that also had no relation to the current numerical sequences.

The F-111 was the last of the old system save for the F-117 which was so designated before the F-15 and F-16 came about. F-14 is a Grumman # thing not the government. They basically dropped dropped the 1st of the 3 digits so the F-115 became the F-15 and so on.

There were no officially designated fighters F-1 to F-13.


Your post has so many errors in it, where does one start?
Corsair was F4U, not F-4U
It was not an F-8U, it was an F8U, later becoming F-8.

Of course aircraft designations are coordinated with the government, usually its going to the Dept of Defense that decides what the # will be. To say the F-14 is not a government designation is rather bizarre.

F-16 and F-15 came out before F-117, not the other way around.

The F-5 did have a in house designation, the N-156F, because it was a project they did all on their own. F-5 is the government designation.

F-15 was never the F-115.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer

There were no officially designated fighters F-1 to F-13.


You forgot about the YF-12! It never became operational, but it DID exist! The YF-12 was a prototype for an interceptor version of the Blackbird. IT was first flown in 1964. Two years After they started with the current sequince.

Tim



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Hey firepilot the hyphenated "F-4U and F-8U" were illustrating that the modern "F" designations beginning with the F-15 Eagle had nothing to do with the old F4U or F8U, ie., the F4U and F8U were not the early end that should be taken as F-4U or F-8U. See what I mean, or meant?

While the 1954 Northrop in-house project designation of the N-156F is valid, its official designation in service of F-5 has nothing to do with it going by the "new" numbering system. It couldn't since it was a contemporary of the F-100 under the old system that began in 1925 with the P-1. "P" for pursuit.

Being more explicit I mean the F-14 is so named by the naval sequence of designations. Instead of 'government' I meant Air Force as it has nothing to do with their sequencing. To Grumman in-house it was the G303. It's just a coincidence that it is a relative contemporary of F-16s and F-15s serving at the same time.

The F-117 designation was earmarked as such when it was in the idea and concept stage at a time of the 1925 sequences. The F-15 and F-16 came into being 1st. Never said the F-117 was first to fly only that is designation under the old system was applied 1st. This is not new as back in the old "P" system higher designations applied sometimes flew later than some lower numbers.

Under the OLD system the F-15 would have been the F-115 is what I was attempting to convey.


Ghost the YF-12 is a bizarre anomaly too. Originally called the A-11 in 1961, the armed interceptor concept model was the YF-12A which all ultimately shook down to the SR-71. And the F-12 is by no means the 2 digit switch hindgepin since the F-111 flew after the A-11/YF-12. All convoluted.

[edit on 10/14/06 by Cruizer]



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Ghost the YF-12 is a bizarre anomaly too. Originally called the A-11 in 1961, the armed interceptor concept model was the YF-12A which all ultimately shook down to the SR-71. And the F-12 is by no means the 2 digit switch hindgepin since the F-111 flew after the A-11/YF-12. All convoluted.



The A-12 , not the A-11 was the 12th and final design in the Lockheed "Archangel" designs for a supersonic replacement for the U-2.

Thus the "A" is not in the normal designations

If the YF-12A had made it into service it would have been as the F-12B.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
While the 1954 Northrop in-house project designation of the N-156F is valid, its official designation in service of F-5 has nothing to do with it going by the "new" numbering system. It couldn't since it was a contemporary of the F-100 under the old system that began in 1925 with the P-1. "P" for pursuit.


The F-100 flew in '53, the F-5 didn't fly until '59, and wasn't purchased by the US Gov't until '62. Thus, it was known as N-156 until the time it entered service in '62 and became known as the F-5.



Being more explicit I mean the F-14 is so named by the naval sequence of designations. Instead of 'government' I meant Air Force as it has nothing to do with their sequencing. To Grumman in-house it was the G303. It's just a coincidence that it is a relative contemporary of F-16s and F-15s serving at the same time.


Development of the F-14 was started in 1968 after the cancellation of the F-111B. The specification that led to the development of the F-111 was called TFX and was given in 1960 (so it was designated under the old system - I don't know why it wasn't redesignated after '62). The specification (VFX) for the F-14 was given in '68, so it was designated with the next available number under the joint (post-'62) system - F-14 (since F-13 was skipped).


The F-117 designation was earmarked as such when it was in the idea and concept stage at a time of the 1925 sequences.


The F-117 was conceptualized in 1973, over a decade after the new system was in place.


Under the OLD system the F-15 would have been the F-115 is what I was attempting to convey.


By timeline the F-15 would have been the F-113

I'm really not trying to be a nit-picker - I'm just trying to keep the facts straight.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Cruizer, you are partially correct, but not entirely. By this I mean yes, the designations of the A-4, F-4, F-8 etc ARE rooted in the 'old stylee', but you are mistaken in saying they have nothing to do with the post 1962 system. Basically all operational types were reclassified under that system, the A3J becoming the A-5 for instance, but as far as possible 'familiar' designations were adapted to conform to the new system. Thus the F4H became the F-4 - though there was never allowed to be an F-4H to avoid confusion, and the the A4D became the A-4, again without the A-4D designation being applied for the same reason as before. These 'new' designations were very much part of the new system though, and F-5 DEFINITELY so.

For example the F4H-1F was redesignated as the F-4A, the F4H-1 became the F-4B and the F-110A became the F-4C. The F4H-1P and RF-110A however BOTH took on the designation RF-4B. I have a complete and contemporary list detailing the changes which actually dates from when the system was changed if there are any questions about specific other models.

Likwise your opinion that the F-14 fitting sequentially with the F-15 and F-16 is mere coincidence is also quite wrong. It fits because it was started just before the F-15 (1968) and was designated under the same common system, it was no coincidence at all.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Yeah crusader the F-5 project was commenced in 1954 at a time when current fighters like the F-100, F-104, F-105, F-106 were flying. Since the F-5 vwas conceived as an export figher under the Military Assistance Program it was never intended as a front line US machine- hence the different designation. If the F-111 flew in 1964 under the old designation, after the F-5 in 1962 how is the F-5 in the new system since it was a MAP design?

Our F-14 was coincidentally the Grumman designation in sequence from theie 1st fighter the F2F in 1933, the F3F, F4F Wildcat, F5F prototype, F6F Hellcat, F7F Tigercat, F8F Bearcat, F9F Panther, F10F Jaguar protype, F11F Tiger, F12F Tiger ugrade. There was no F13F Tomcat but should have been. Superstition won out and the F-14 is simply the next Grumman/Navy designation. The fact that it coordinates with the "new" system was not lost on the brass who took the opportunity to integrate it into the "all Fs for all services."

The Navy's designation system lasted until September 16, 1962, when the US Defense Department decided to introduce a new designation system. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara supposedly got frustrated when his advisers tried to explain the aircraft designation system to him, and was surprised to find that the Navy and the Air Force had two different designation systems, often for what was basically the same airplane (F-110 for the Air Force version of the Phantom, F4H for the Navy version). The Secretary ordered that the Navy abandon its separate designation system and redesignate all of its aircraft according to the Air Force system. For fighters, the Air Force sequence had reached F-111, and the Defense Department decided to start a brand new fighter designation series with 1, which would cover both Navy and Air Force fighters. Existing Navy fighter aircraft in service at that time were assigned new numbers in the new unified fighter system.

Air Force fighters in service at the time- F-100, F-101, etc., retained their original designations, but new Air Force fighters ordered after 1962 were assigned numbers in the new unified designation scheme- F-15, F-16. After the F-14 Tomcat Navy planes were assigned the one-service F designation such as the YF-17 which became the basis for the F/A-18.


New Designation/ Old Designation
North American F-1/ Fury North American FJ Fury
McDonnell F-2 Banshee/ McDonnell F2H Banshee
McDonnell F-3 Demon/ McDonnell F3H Demon
McDonnell F-4 Phantom II/ McDonnell F4H Phantom/F-110 Spectre
Douglas F-6 Skyray/ Douglas F4D Skyray
Convair F-7 Sea-Dart/ Convair F2Y Sea Dart
Vought F-8 Crusader/ Vought F8U Crusader
Grumman F-9 Cougar/ Grumman F9F Cougar
Douglas F-10 Skyknight/ Douglas F3D Skyknight
Grumman F-11 Tiger/ Grumman F11F Tiger


Nobody who really knows has explained it the F-19 stuff. It's been suggested, and sounds plausible,that it was called F-19 to start with but the number was changed as a security measure after the open press started using that designation in the early 1980s (the aircraft first flew in 1981, but wasn't revealed to the public until 1988). Why they picked F-117 as the new number is a mystery.

The USAF Museum lists "Lockheed F-19 CSIRS" among the fighters, with a note "see F-117".

The "F-19" may have been part of a "leak identification" project; it's common practice in many black projects to create several false stories and track down leaks by watching to see which one gets out. The descriptions of the "F-19" also were very misleading regarding how to shape a stealth aircraft, with lots of round curves, which wasn't practical then. (The A-11 would have logically been a ground attack aircraft)

The designation F-19 has been "used" for something else, as there is a NASA document titled "XF-19 EW suite" (Document ID: 19770060541 A (77A43393)), published Jul 1, 1977, which mentions "the projected XF-19 U.S. STOL fighter-bomber" and that "The XF-19 is designed for forward area tactical interception of hostile aircraft and missles, or for tactical close air support, with
capability of operating from unimproved/minimal/damaged runways, or small ships."

However, the document is only about desirable features of the ECM system of a possible future STOL fighter-bomber and "XF-19" is just a number the author uses for the hypothetical aircraft as it was the next "free" number then.

There's also the separate question of why it was given an F-series (fighter) designation at all. Some think it should have gotten an A- or B- designation, as it's got no air-to-air capability. But F- is correct for pure ground attack fighters too under the old system.

The F-117 has been popularly known as "Nighthawk" for some time; the Air Force made the name official on 24 June 1994.

The three main theories (in no specific order) are:
1. No reason whatsoever: The Pentagon just picked a random number.
2. The aircraft was using the call sign "117" (possibly for reasons connected with the following theory, or possibly just an arbitrarily assigned number) on some of its early test flights, and the number just happened to stick presumably for lack of any other designation. When Lockheed got around to printing pilot's manuals for the aircraft, they were labelled "F-117", and from then on it became official.
3. F-117 follows the designations F-112 to F-116, in the old USAF designation scheme, which were applied to some other aircraft types -- but if so it's unclear which ones.

Some believe F-112 to F-116 were used for foreign types such as MiG-21 and Su-17 being flown in secret and as F-117 was too, it got a number in that series.

Pilot biographies on the USAF's official web site www.af.mil lists YF-110 and YF-113 among aircraft types flown for pilots who have served with 4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron. YF-113G seems to have been the Flogger G MiG-23 variant, it's not clear if any other YF-113s also were of the MiG-23/27 family or not.

Another explanation is that it's just a continuation of the old scheme, as applied to later aircraft, and never redesignated F-19 (as F-111 never was), sort of like this:
F-4 F-110 Fictional designations between " "
F-111
F-14 "F-112"
F-15 "F-113"
F-16 "F-114"
F-17 "F-115" This doesn't take into account F-5 and YF-12,
F-18 "F-116" and had the common scheme not been adopted
F-117 the USN would have kept its old system, possibly leaving the "F-19"
spot for F-117



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Originally posted by Cruizer



The descriptions of the "F-19" also were very misleading regarding how to shape a stealth aircraft, with lots of round curves, which wasn't practical then.


Cruizer could you please elaborate on this a little. The Navy F-19, currently still in use, of which 62 airplanes were built and the airplane in which Gen. Bonds was killed in (not the MiG 23 which was a disinfomration story) had a bat wing, rounded edge form. Thanks.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   


the F-5 project was commenced in 1954 at a time when current fighters like the F-100, F-104, F-105, F-106 were flying. Since the F-5 vwas conceived as an export figher under the Military Assistance Program it was never intended as a front line US machine- hence the different designation. If the F-111 flew in 1964 under the old designation, after the F-5 in 1962 how is the F-5 in the new system since it was a MAP design?


because the F-111 was always intended as a front line aircraft, unlike the F-5 as you rightly say, and the F-111 designation had been allocated ahead of the system change.

The F-5 was NOT concieved as an export fighter under the MAP, it was a Northrop private venture and was only adopted by the MAP after three years of flight testing and when it had reached a point where Northrop was about to scrap the entire project.

The N156F appears in the 1959, 60 and 61 editions of the annual Observer's Aircraft book, it is missing from the 1962 edition with a note, instead, appearing in the T-38 entry that "a single seat fighter derivative, the N-156F, was developed but has attracted no orders and is likely to be abandoned". the following years edition (1963) sees the type reinstated under the designation F-5A after its adoption as an export fighter under MAP, proof of its designation being applied under the new system. The 1961-62 Jane's also features it as the N-156F, it did not become the F-5 until after the new system had been adopted.

Re the F-14 Tomcat, it is nothing more than a coincidence






New Designation/ Old Designation
North American F-1/ Fury North American FJ Fury
McDonnell F-2 Banshee/ McDonnell F2H Banshee
McDonnell F-3 Demon/ McDonnell F3H Demon
McDonnell F-4 Phantom II/ McDonnell F4H Phantom/F-110 Spectre
Douglas F-6 Skyray/ Douglas F4D Skyray
Convair F-7 Sea-Dart/ Convair F2Y Sea Dart
Vought F-8 Crusader/ Vought F8U Crusader
Grumman F-9 Cougar/ Grumman F9F Cougar
Douglas F-10 Skyknight/ Douglas F3D Skyknight
Grumman F-11 Tiger/ Grumman F11F Tiger


and, after the Lockheed YF-12, and missing 13 for superstitious reasons the next new fighter programme launched was a long range naval interceptor called the F-14, the fact that it also fitted Grummans previous sequence is neither here nor there.

No one has ever explained why the Sea Dart became the F-7 though, even though the programme itsef had been dead for 7 years?



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   
John- "way back when" the aviation publictions and periodicals were surmising that the XF-19 would look sort of like a mini SR-71 owing to the empnage and semi-stealth lines which were the best we knew at the time. I recall the artist's concepts. The F-117-style angular shape thinking still coming. It simply seemed to me in hindsight that there was much disinformation about as to what was a practicle stealthy shape. I wondered then if the artist concepts were original or from leaked info designed to throw everyone off.

Waynos I got the same books as you and know about the private venture before the MAP deal and the rest of F-5 history. I am simply not satisfied that it was anything more than a one off designation for a plane the USAF never originally intended to use in inventory. Can't see how it was named under the new system when it was ordered in April 1962 and the official new sequences came out in mid-September, 1962.

All I can tell you is the F13F was the very next Grumman company designation of project G-303 and that it became the F-14 as the changeover came about. It would have been the F14F to avoid the triskaidekaphobia. Since every previous Grumman design followed the FxF system everybody at the company knew their next plane would be the X13F or X14F to avoid the number 13.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   

I am simply not satisfied that it was anything more than a one off designation for a plane the USAF never originally intended to use in inventory.


Well two points here cruizer *I surmise* (meaning I do not have a written account of this) that the tri service designation system was not invented overnight and a lot of thought and planning went into it first. A gap of six months therefore is nothing and the F-5 number could easily have been pre planned to fit after the then 'worlds best fighter' F-4 in the system. If you have the same books as me, as you put it, and know the F-5 history why did you claim otherwise in more than one post, earlier claiming it to be a contemporary of the century series in an attempt to portray the designation to be 'wrong'? Any glance of the availble books from Observers/Jane's/whoever spells it all out in detail. There doesn't seem to be anything not to be satified about in this instance as far as I can see.

Secondly, you seem to be claiming that the F11F etc was a Grumman system, it was not. It was a Navy system and the designations were allocated by the Navy, not the manufacturers. I get the feeling that you know this however and maybe you only mean that the F14F designation was the obvious next one for any Grumman fighter under the previous system?

If that is the case then we could argue back and forth over this point ad nauseum as your point fits but so does mine. I am happy to see it as no more than a coincidence given the information I have available to me and the fact that *nothing* mentions 'F14F' at all, only the Grumman design number and YF-14 and F-14 are mentioned.

[edit on 15-10-2006 by waynos]



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   
How can Gen Bond crashing in a Mig-23 be a disinformation story, when that was never the official story anyways?

[edit on 15-10-2006 by firepilot]



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
The Navy F-19, currently still in use, of which 62 airplanes were built and the airplane in which Gen. Bonds was killed in (not the MiG 23 which was a disinfomration story) had a bat wing, rounded edge form. Thanks.


John,

The Mig was and still is a part of a Top Secret Technical Intelligence program. It's not even officially supposed to be in the US. Why would it be used as a cover story for something else?

Sorry, but I have to agree with Firepilot on this one!

Tim

[edit on 16-10-2006 by ghost]



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Originally posted by ghost




The Mig was and still is a part of a Top Secret Technical Intelligence program. It's not even officially supposed to be in the US. Why would it be used as a cover story for something else?

Sorry, but I have to agree with Firepilot on this one!

Tim



The secret of the existence of the F-19 was so vital to keep that it was probably decided to trade one secret for another. John Alexander told me he was in Ben Rich's office when Rich got the call. John said that Ben turned to him and said, "Gen. Bond has just been killed in a MiG-23." Gen. Bond would have had no reason to be flying the MiG 23 during that time, but not many people knew that we even had one. It probably seemed like a safe bet. Alexander's story tells us that Rich was in on it from the beginning. I speculate that the MiG 23 'accident' story was ready for any accident of the F-19.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join