Foreign planes are flown by Red Squadrons for the most part. They train, fly, and "fight" just like the other country does. For many years the USAF and USN had several squadrons that flew F-16s and F/A-18s exactly how the Soviets would fight against a US force.

A Black project CAN be anything. Tacit Blue, and Have Blue are good examples. Both were steatlhy, the Have Blue became the F-117 after some modifications were made to the airframe.

As far as the first flight bits, it COULD be first flights by USAF pilots, not actual first flights. Almost all actual first flights are done by company pilots, although there are some USAF pilots that are on loan to the different companies as test pilots.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Foreign planes are flown by Red Squadrons for the most part. They train, fly, and "fight" just like the other country does. For many years the USAF and USN had several squadrons that flew F-16s and F/A-18s exactly how the Soviets would fight against a US force.

So the Red Squadrons and their specific aircraft mix aren't classified? Would a "Classified Flight Test Squadron" not be the first group to fly newly aquired foreign aircraft? What's the point of flying F-16's and F/A-18's as aggressors if you have squadrons of unclassified foreign aircraft freely available? It seems like a waste of money and time to me to continue training against your own aircraft if you have the other freely available.

Remember when the XST prototypes were flying (in the 70's), and the personnel that were working with one program couldn't really interact with those working on another program? Seems like it would be pretty tough to run a squadron of aircraft like that. I think a lot of people assume that there is this one squadron that just flies all of these great top secret experimental stealth aircraft, when I think that that idea couldn't be further from the truth. You likely have one or two programs running at any given time, with little to no interaction between individuals on different programs. You MAY rotate active duty test pilots through to compare aircraft, but likely not often to prevent a pilot from divulging too much about competing aircraft to manufacturers (the blank feature of the Northrop aircraft allows it to handle much better at low altitude...).

Originally posted by Zaphod58
As far as the first flight bits, it COULD be first flights by USAF pilots, not actual first flights. Almost all actual first flights are done by company pilots, although there are some USAF pilots that are on loan to the different companies as test pilots.

That kind of takes the "coolness" out of his statement. "I was the first pilot to fly this aircraft...on a Thursday in June."

If the YF-24 exists, and COL Lanni flew really did fly it when he was working as a test pilot from '89 to '92, I wonder if it is more likely to have been some variant of the canceled A-12? IIRC the Air Force was looking at the aircraft, and was supposed to start purchasing it in 1992. First Flight was originally scheduled for the fall of '90, but delayed until the fall of '91. However the aircraft was cancelled in January of '91. One of the original General Dynamics design contenders for the ATF program was an aircraft called "Sneaky Pete", which is what the A-12 design was based on. Could they have developed this in conjunction with the A-12, since the designs were so similar?

When the Red Squadrons were so prevalent, then Soviet planes WEREN'T easy to get. The only ones we had been able to get our hands on were defectors, and then we gave them back a short time later.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Foreign planes are flown by Red Squadrons for the most part.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
When the Red Squadrons were so prevalent, then Soviet planes WEREN'T easy to get.

Which is it? Do the Red Squadrons have foreign planes, or do they fly US aircraft as aggressors? The two statements seem contradictory to me.

I know the story of the MiG-25 in Japan, but what about other aircraft that may have been acquired through other routes during the 80's?

Ok, pay closer attention here now. When Agressor Squadrons were at their most prevalent (the 1980s and early 90s) Russian planes weren't all over the market, therefor they flew F-16s and F/A-18s. NOW, Russian planes are all over the market and are much easier to get hold of, so there are several squadrons that fly them. The two statements are NOT contradictory. The Japan defection wasn't the only one, just the most well known. There was a MiG-15 in Korea, where the NK pilot landed at the wrong airfield, and a couple of others that are less well known.

The Special Projects Flight Test Squadron (often referred to as the "Classified Flight Test Squadron" or "The U.S. Air Forces only classified fligjhttest squadron") tests such aircraft as the YF-117A (SENIOR TREND), YF-117D (TACIT BLUE) and Bird of Prey ("technology demonstrator") and YF-113G ("classified prototype") under a combined test force (USAF and contractor) concept.

The soviet type aircraft (YF-113A, YF-114C, etc.) have been tested as "foreign materiel exploitation" programs or "specially modified test aircraft" by the Red Hat/Red Eagle units such as the 6513th Test Squadron (it later became the 413th FLTS and gained a new mission) and 4477th TES (later Det 2, 57th FW and Det 3, 53 TEG).

Interestingly, the YF-24 has been described as a "classified prototype" which tends to put it in the same category as the other protoypes and demonstrators. Two project emblems in Col. Lanni's possession appear to represent the YF-24 and the other "classified prototype" in which he made a first flight. The term "classified prototype" was used emphatically in Dennis Sager's biography to separate the YF-113G, an airplane he helped take "from development to first flight" and that he was "the first Air Force pilot" to fly, from the Soviet types he flew as a Red Hat.

Please excuse me for butting in, but I have been following this thread and had a couple questions:

Originally posted by Shadowhawk Two project emblems in Col. Lanni's possession appear to represent the YF-24 and the other "classified prototype" in which he made a first flight.

Which two emblems are you referring to, and where did you find them?

Are you referring to the ribbons on his uniform in his bioraphy pic, if so which ones?

Sorry. The emblems were in his office. One of them is posted on Dreamland Resort. Althought it appears on a section titled "YF-24," that part of the article is about Lanni and his various assignments and projects. He made first flights of two "classified prototypes" (one of which was the YF-24). The emblem on the web site features an eagle carrying a sword. The other emblem (not pictured) featured a dragon with a dagger and skull. Either emblem could represent the YF-24.

Wow I've never really noticed that emblem before even thought ive read that page loads. What is the background? Could it be the moon and the corona during a solar eclipse, oh no theres stars on it.

Anyway the most interesting thing about it i thought was the script underneath "FREEDOMUS AO ANAT COSAMUS". I assumed it was latin but couldn't find any of those words in the online latin dictionary I found (although I dont know how reliable it is) and a single wierd entry on a google search. Does anyone have a possible meaning for it?

Originally posted by gfad
In the same article a black project source states that YF-24 was a radio callsign for the Su-27 Flanker. This doesnt make sense thought to me, I didnt think they used a planes name as a callsign

I suspect that this may have either been a mistake or disinformation. A designation like YF-24 would NEVER be used as a callsign. By Definition, a call sign is a word, or set of words fallowed by numbers that are used to identify an aircraft, or Just a word if it identifies an Air Traffic Control Center. Here's a list of some known Call Signs:

Air Force 1- An Air Force aircraft carring the US President.

Black Jack- The air traffic control center for Nellis Air Force Base, range operations center.

Bandit 100- First YF-117 test mission. (From the Book Nighthawk)

Marine 1- Marine helicopter used to transport the US President.

Noble Eagle (#)- NORAD Fighters on Combat Air Patrol after 9/11. (Note: there were many of these flights, but I son't know the numbers they used.

There are NO call signs that look like an aircraft designation.

Tim

Thanks ghost, thats just what I thought. If they were going to disinform you would think that they would make the reason plausible or at least make sense! I would guess at that explanation jsut being a mistake.

Has there been an official AF statement on the YF-24 reference on Lanni's biog.?

Base on the Information I have, I think the F-24 might look simular to the cancelled A-12 Avenger. In case anyone's not sure what the A-12 looked like, here's a picture:




The Fallowing statement is PURE SPECULATION on my part. Reguard it as a guess, and keep an open mind!

I would venture to guess the the F-24 lacks the A-12's provision for folding wings, and that might have a darker color scheme to allow for covert night op's. I base this on the fact that most aircraft that are used for Special Op's in the US are land based.

Tim

[edit on 1-6-2006 by ghost]

The YF-24 as A-12 (or derivative) is pretty much what I said in a previous post. The timeline for Lanni as test pilot, the Air Force's interest in the A-12, and the aircraft's development match up pretty good. After looking at the "FREEDOMUS AO ANAI COSAMUS" emblem on the Dreamland Resorts site, I can't help but wonder if there are some clues to the shape of an aircraft in the image (like in the Bird of Prey patch, but not as obvious). Whether it's the YF-24 or Lanni's other classified aircraft, the dark forms on the right wing (eagle's right) of the eagle look inconsistent with the more natural shading on the left. Additionally, the dark forms on the right have a pattern that is very similar to the repeated flame pattern on the outer edge. This is pure speculation of course.

Originally posted by ghost
Base on the Information I have, I think the F-24 might look simular to the cancelled A-12 Avenger.

I think thats a very interesting theory and definately a realistic possibility. What information do you have? Is it any more than what is mentioned in this thread? I also think that the sudden cancellation of the a-12 project was very strange and a bit of a waste of millions of dollars! Maybe the air force thought the same!

If the YF-24 was a fighter based on the A-12, what gap would it fit? Is there a current requirement in the USAF for a certain type of fighter that cant be fulfilled by the JSF or F-22?

Ghost if you do have any additional info on the YF-24 I really would like to hear it as i think this is probably one of the hottest topics at the moment in black project circles.

Originally posted by gfad
If the YF-24 was a fighter based on the A-12, what gap would it fit? Is there a current requirement in the USAF for a certain type of fighter that cant be fulfilled by the JSF or F-22?

I certainly don't know what information ghost has, especially since that statement was followed up by "this is pure speculation", but as far as your question, I thought the Air Force originally intended the version of the A-12 that they purchased to be a replacement for the F-111 - filling the intermediate bomber role.

Could the YF-24 be the bomber variant of the YF-23 (black widow)?

I remember reading about a YF-23-based "regional" bomber concept awhile ago. I dont know if that concept ever got a destination. I always thought the Black Widow was a great design.

I still think the YF-23 is a great design and I really hope they make a bomber variant but if they did then surely it would be the YB-23 or at least YB-something. Unless of course they are following the naming conventions of the F-117a!

Could a YF-23 bomber variant be made to have some limited Air to Air ability? I mean since the design was orginally intended to be a Fighter.

If it had a gun or even 1 Air to Air missile for defense it would be more deserving of the "F" then the Nighthawk IMO. Unless they are still hiding some features of the F-117A it would seem to have zero fighter ability.

I can see where ghosts theory works and it may well be, I can't shoot the theory down yet anyway ;-)

For everyone speculating about a bomber variant of the YF-23, or anything else, I think the most relevant piece of information which I presented in the very first post (a while ago now) is that Col Lanni is highly specialised in the air to air spectrum and it is generally believed, if unproven, that his selection to fly the YF-24 was precisely due to this specialised knowledge. As some have already pointed out test flying is generally done by company pilots so Col Lanni's involvement here, in my mind, points to it being a fighter, not a bomber, even more so than it being called YF-24, rather than YA-24 or YB-24, which, as we all know, is no guarantee of role these days.

His list of aircraft flown definitely doesn't stray too far from the fighter realm - except for maybe the HH-60. I wonder what percentage of US Air Force test pilots are as specialised in the air to air spectrum, and if there is any "cross-training" done within general aircraft types?