Also had a look at the Patch design on the Dreamland Resort site.

There are 3 stars in the bottom section.
6 Visable stars in the top section and what looks like a 7th star hidden partly behind the top section of the birds left wing. 37 ??

The sword sheath tip is split into 2 sections - 2 dimensional nozzles?

Still looking to see if there are other indicators.

There is no seventh star, but the "six" stars look like the usual 5 stars and 1 star from many of the Det. 3 patches. Perhaps a little nod to the heritage of the test site.

The idea of a lunar eclipse was nice except possibly for the problem of the stars being superimposed over the gray "moon" instead of the black "sky." Rather than an eclipse corona, Maybe an afterburner?

The motto is a problem. FREEDOMUS AO ANAT COSAMUS looks like Latin, but it isn't. Parts of it look Greek (AO) and parts appear to be pseudo-Latin (FREEDOMUS). Maybe an anagram?

While we're on the subject, don't forget that there is only a 50% probability that this is the YF-24 patch. It could just as easily be the other "classified prototype" in which Lanni made a first flight.

Col. Lannis is highly respected and if his resume' posted on the Edwards AFB site says something, you can guarantee it's not a typo or misinformation.

I asked around, naturally no one confirms anything, that said, there were hints by industry people (Raytheon & Northrop) to the following:

The YF-24 may possibly be a tailess, delta winged, single engine, 2D vectored thrust, manned interdiction aircraft looking very much like the X-44 Manta/FB-22 Bomber concept - but smaller and not made by Lockheed.

It could possibly have a slightly smaller UCAV version that could interact in multiplicity with the manned aircraft using the advanced networking capabilities of Link 16.

If it exists it would be a technology demonstrator and possibly as many as 3 drones. Date of this system's testing would be around 2001-4 to present.
One professional said that if it exists "it would put the 'kill chain's' final link in place; ISR, Kill, then assessment/ISR, in one system series."

Originally posted by intelgurl
If it exists it would be a technology demonstrator and possibly as many as 3 drones. Date of this system's testing would be around 2001-4 to present.

Even if it was just a technology demonstrator, I'm still surprised that it received a "YF-2X" designator instead of a "YF-11X" or something else. If the drones were armed, one pilot could cover a lot of sky without putting themself at risk. I guess it could be sort of a mini-AWACS almost at a significantly reduced cost. The days of the dogfight might really be over...

Originally posted by intelgurl

It could possibly have a slightly smaller UCAV version that could interact in multiplicity with the manned aircraft using the advanced networking capabilities of Link 16.

If it exists it would be a technology demonstrator and possibly as many as 3 drones.

Drone?

I though we were discussing a manned aircraft! Intelgurl, do you have an outside source suggesting that the YF-24/ F-24 is unmanned? Everything I've ever seen seems to suggets that the aircraft in question is very simular to the cancelled Navy A-12 Avenger II. If this is the case, the F-24 should have a 2 man crew. I don't remember seeing anything about a UCAV version! Can you point me to this info?

Tim

Originally posted by ghost
Drone?

I though we were discussing a manned aircraft! Intelgurl, do you have an outside source suggesting that the YF-24/ F-24 is unmanned? Everything I've ever seen seems to suggets that the aircraft in question is very simular to the cancelled Navy A-12 Avenger II. If this is the case, the F-24 should have a 2 man crew. I don't remember seeing anything about a UCAV version! Can you point me to this info?

I don't have web or print source for my information. As stated in my post I asked some project manager types at Northrop and Raytheon. All i did was compile the information from different personal sources to sort of paint a picture of what it could be.

You will also notice I did not say the YF-24 (should it exist) is a drone, I said that it could be a manned aircraft with smaller unmanned versions that work in tandem with it. In my earlier post I also said it would probably not be a Lockheed creation. Now it seems that nearly all sources who name a company are naming Boeing. (who woulda thought that?)

The two seater which you suggest does seem to be supported by the conjecture of these professionals as well. The second position could be the controller for any drones that accompany the manned craft.

Just to add more fuel to the fire so to speak;

I just had a conversation with a guy who apparently worked with the restoration of the YF-23's (PAV-2) General Electric YF-120 turbofans - he suggested that the YF-24 designation could have something to do with the interim bomber program and that it could be the revised Northrop Grumman YF-23 configured for a long distance bombing roll.

This is the only viewpoint that radically differs from other aerospace professionals I've inquired of. The only thing is, I'm not sure this would fit in the timeline of Col. Lanni's resume'.

Interesting insider insight as usual intelgurl.

My first instinct was that the YF-24 is possibly a follow on from the YF-23, probably into a bombing role. But if what other posters have said is true, that Col Lanni's speciality is fighter flying it kind of put me off that idea. A redevelopment of the A-12 would really be brilliant, I would love to see that in the air yet the project was cancelled in 1991 if I remember right and wouldn't that be a long gap? 10 years to first flight for a plane which is practically into the prototype stage?

One theory I came across, but with absolutely nothing to substantiate it, as per usual, was that the YF-24 'might' be a scaled up, manned X-36. Following on from what Intelgurl said about a manned plane and a smaller drone, maybe it could be true? Anything on the possibility or otherwise on this theory Intelgurl?

Originally posted by waynos
One theory I came across, but with absolutely nothing to substantiate it, as per usual, was that the YF-24 'might' be a scaled up, manned X-36. Following on from what Intelgurl said about a manned plane and a smaller drone, maybe it could be true? Anything on the possibility or otherwise on this theory Intelgurl?

I suppose it's certainly possible. However, the manned craft just doesn't match the description of an X-36 aside from both being tailess.

Could the drones be X-36's? Maybe, but my intuition tells me that if the Boeing scenario is correct, the drones are either X-45's or something very close to a 45 - why retool when you have the solution already in your bag of tricks? Of course we should all know that the lessons learned from the X-36 were applied liberally to the X-45, therefore there is certainly some kinsmanship between the 36 & 45.

I personally am inclined to go with the YF-24 being the updated interim bomber version of the YF-23, but thats just my preference after talking to the GE guy.

But here's an interesting thought and one all of us enthusiasts must consider:
IF the YF-24 is indeed the YF-23 interim bomber version, then just what in the hell is this alledged Boeing project?

To drill down just a bit more - When you have guys from Raytheon, Northrop, Crane and BAE who don't know each other, all describing the same unknown Boeing project then that sort of makes you stop and think...

Intelgurl, as usual, great information. Thanks!

That's a great point. If this IS the YF-23 bomber then what's Boeing up to? I'd love to be able to go into their projects area and take a look around.

When you have guys from Raytheon, Northrop, Crane and BAE who don't know each other, all describing the same unknown Boeing project then that sort of makes you stop and think...

Yes, it certainly does, thanks for the reply Intelgurl, more food for thought.


btw, I miss your photo in your avatar, the cartoon bird is OK, but not nearly so attractive

[edit on 6-6-2006 by waynos]

Has there been any official AF statement on the presence of the YF-24 on Lanni's bio?

Originally posted by gfad
Has there been any official AF statement on the presence of the YF-24 on Lanni's bio?

Nope - total silence from the USAF.

I thought as much, just wondered.

I wonder what all those people who say "obviously the air force/navy/SS/MIB read these threads and if you say something too near to the truth you will be emailed/knee-capped/crucified" would say to that. If it was just a typo you would think it would be changed by now!

Originally posted by gfad
I thought as much, just wondered.

I wonder what all those people who say "obviously the air force/navy/SS/MIB read these threads and if you say something too near to the truth you will be emailed/knee-capped/crucified" would say to that. If it was just a typo you would think it would be changed by now!

They do read threads like this, no question about it.
The fact that "YF-24" is on Col. Lanni's resume' speaks volumes to me. That is one of many reasons I tend to go with the YF-24 ='s the YF-23 in bomber trim, because that would not be a "black project" as everyone knows Northrop Grumman is working on it. That being the case, Col. Lanni would not be breaking protocol by mentioning this aircraft.

The best I could get was that "YF-24" was not a typo. Aircraft designations like this (and YF-113G, YF-114C, YF-117A) are not classified. They are used in the flight logs (AF Form 5) which is also unclassified. Hence, there is technically no problem with including it in someone's official biography.

A number of Air Force officials have been exasperated by the attention this has drawn from enthusiasts, but this has not yet resulted in removing the "offending" items. Many Red Hat/ Red Eagle types have included YF-110 and YF-113 designations in their bios. This was the first thing to attract aircraft spotters and Area 51 researchers to the biographies.

The first time official sources indicated their surprise and discomfort came with the revelation, in 1999, that Dennis Sager's bio included the YF-113G "classified prototype."

"I was very surprised to see that in there," said one senior official at Edwards AFB. The reference was not, however, removed from subsequent releases of Sager's biographical data. Sager was perplexed by his sudden notoriety. "I wasn't that specific," he said, wondering why he was suddenly being asked for his autograph.

The discussions on various Internet forums really took off after Lanni's biography was noticed by enthusiasts in 2005. This came to the attention of officials at the Air Force Flight Test Center and the Pentagon. Apparently they do pay attention to what is being said in the forums.

But the mere fact that it is 'YF-24', an in-sequence DoD designation, rather than something in the more esoteric YF-110/113 sequence, suggests that it is something quite different and unrelated to the captured MiG's and whatnot these numbers are applied to, therefore it is screaming for attention by dint of the fact that we have a current, in sequence, number but no plane to stick it on. They've got nothing to be surprised about.

I agree completely. I also think that its more likely to be a bomber than a fighter due to the amount of money pumped into the f-35 and f-22. That in my mind does point to a bomber variant of the yf-23 which has been rumoured for a while at least.

When do you think we will get an answer to this question? Before the decade is out?