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.

 

Does the YF-24 really exist?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
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?


Agreed! I would be surprised if the F-24 even had an Air-to-Air role. I believe that it might be a replacement for the F-117 Nighthawk on covert op's, such as providing CAS and possibally tactical reconnassance for Delta Force. It could fill the CSIRS mission, (that's right Mission). Covert Survivable In-weather Reconnissance and Stike, seems to be a mission, not a specific aircraft! Our research into the history of the term seems to suggest that it was first created in 1974 or '75, to describe a special mission.

It's intresting that you mention the YF-23. Personally, I've always though it might look simular to the A-12 Avenger. However, I think it might be a Northrop design. They have to be making money off of something, and Lockheed has the lion's share of most of the known aircraft contracts.

When will we get an answer? Probably not until after the F-117 retires from service. If the F-24 supports Black Op's, they are going to hide it as long as they can. As long as the F-117 is flying, they have the perfect cover! They can hide one stealth plane behind another with ease, because I suspect the size is probably simular.

Tim

[edit on 8-6-2006 by ghost]

[edit on 8-6-2006 by ghost]




posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I would wager my money on a remodeled YF-23.

By speculations of descriptions of the aircraft - I'd attribute it to a YF-23-like aircraft - or one basing off of the same technology... possibly with the ruddervators removed - although that's a little bit of a radical step.

The Navy needs something to replace and better the role of the F-14. The Super Hornet, though armed to the teeth, doesn't have enough get-up-and-go to perform timely intercepts or to conduct deep strikes.

A remodeled, and possibly larger version of the YF-23 would have some incredible advantages over that of any other aircraft. On the weapons side, it could easily be given very deep weapons bays that could allow it to carry a very wide variety of munitions. It could become one of the first self-supporting aircraft - capable of neutralizing multiple threats of varying nature while en route to a target.

Next is that the airframe has a very low drag design. From what I've heard in talking to some of the people who worked on it - they say that it was a great deal faster than what the 'estimated' records claim. The airframe is also a very unstable one, which lends itself very well to a maneuverable aircraft - even for a bomber/attack design. This would allow it to hold its own in air-to-air combat, meaning it would make a very nice interceptor.

The next most obvious trait is the stealth features. It's radar profile was 40% that of the F-15, and it was expected to be further reduced in the production model as modifications would have been made to the exhaust ducts since reverse-thrusting was no longer necessary. This puts it well below the radar profile of the F-22.

If we're looking at applications for the Navy - the wings could be relatively easily made to fold in on themselves, possibly reducing the width of the aircraft by as much as 45+% - assuming the frame can be made to tolerate the G-forces with such a configuration.

It would be a little heavy to get off of the deck of a carrier, though.... But that's why we're building newer carriers..... or, so I would hope.

To me, it would logically make sense to give the predecessor of the F-23 the F-24 designation - although that doesn't hold much merit when confronted with the possibility of other projects. It could be similar to the YF-17 and the F-18 ordeal. But I guess only time will tell.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I found this on another forum - thought the designation was interesting, and it vaguely conforms to shape/size that intelgurl mentioned earlier about the mystery Boeing project.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
I would wager my money on a remodeled YF-23.

By speculations of descriptions of the aircraft - I'd attribute it to a YF-23-like aircraft - or one basing off of the same technology... possibly with the ruddervators removed - although that's a little bit of a radical step.

To me, it would logically make sense to give the predecessor of the F-23 the F-24 designation - although that doesn't hold much merit when confronted with the possibility of other projects. It could be similar to the YF-17 and the F-18 ordeal. But I guess only time will tell.


I never though of that, but a YF-23 based design would be a good idea. One major advantage over the design I proposed is that an F-24 based on the YF-23 would be ideal for supercruise. Flying wing aircraft are efficent, but they have always been subsonic. If we assume the F-24 is a quick-raction strike aircraft (pure speculation on my part), logic sais the military would lean toward a supersonic design.

You know, you idea about the F-24 being an evolution of the YF-23. (Side Note: you talked about giving the predecessor of the YF-23 the designation F-24. I think you meant Sucessor, which is a fallow-on design. A predecessor is the one that comes before the current on (EX: the YF-17 was the Predecessor of the F/A-18 Hornet).

Given the history of the Northrop YF-17 evolving into the F/A-18 Hornet, I'd say your basic idea holds a lot of merit! Do you realize how much money they could save on R&D by building on the YF-23 to develop the F-24? They would be starting with massive amounts of test data left over from the ATF program. Assuming that they don't make many external changes in the aircraft, most of the preformance and aerodynamic data would still be useable! The only thing you came up with that I don't think is right is the idea of removing the ruddervators. If they did that, the basic controls for the plane would have to be completely reworked. I don't know, but I just can't see them going through all that trouble.

What could they possibly hope to gain for such a major and possibly expensive redesign?

Tim

[edit on 23-6-2006 by ghost]



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Just a thought on this thread as I was reading through is it possible the YF-xxx was a name attributed to a specific top secret mission of which only people with the highest clearence would be able to decipher which mission the code referred to?



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Prefixing an aircraft name with a Y implies that it is experimental or in the prototype and testing stage.

ie. The YF-22 and YF-23 were in direct competition with each other in the same program. Lockheeds YF-22 won over Northrops entry and when it became operational it became the F-22.

Similarly Northrop and Lockheed/General Dynamics were in competition for the LWF program. Lockheeds entry was the YF-16 and won to become the F-16. Northrops entry was the YF-17 which eventually became the F/A-18. I think it didnt become the F/A-17 as there were some modifications.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
Northrops entry was the YF-17 which eventually became the F/A-18. I think it didnt become the F/A-17 as there were some modifications.


Who's to say the same couldn't be true of the YF-23 and the F-24? If they did it once, they could easily do it again!

Tim



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 06:56 AM
link   
I've wondered that myself, Tim. Could the YF-24 be the FB-23 for instance?



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Maybe Waynos! As much as they screw with designations to confuse people,who knows!

Tim



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
Who's to say the same couldn't be true of the YF-23 and the F-24? If they did it once, they could easily do it again!


No-one!

If you read all the thread, that is one of the most popular theories. Remember thought that the F-24 doesnt exist and the YF-24 does, at least thats the most up to date information we have.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Thats just nitpicking though isn't it gfad? After all the YF-24 would only be a prototype for the F-24 according to the DoD system, its not like they are two different planes.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Of course, Im a chronic nit-picker! But we do have to remember that when joe lanni flew this plane it was only a prototype and that might all it ever is. Its quite possible that this, like other prototypes, may stay classified for years and possibly decades to come.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad

No-one!

If you read all the thread, that is one of the most popular theories.


gfad,

It was meant as a Rhetorical Question! it you read the sentence immedatly afterwards, I pointed out that it's been done before. In fact the YF-23 dirivitive is one of best F-24 theories out there. It fill in a lot of blanks about the YF-23, like why it seems to be even more secret today then the F-22.

If the F-24 is really a YF-23 dirivitive, it is possible that the project could be hiding in one of the Special Access Compartment of Senior Sky, the code name for the special access aspects of the ATF program from which the F-22A Raptor evolved.

Tim



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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. .


When i was in the Air Force in the 80s there were only 3 Agressor Squadrons and they all flew F-5 Tigers at that time. I was stationed in RAF ALconbury with 1 of the squadrons.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
[edit on 2-9-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I have pictures (offline 35mm) of the F-16s they used painted up in Russian colors. Desert camoflauge with red stars, and Russian unit markings painted on them. If I ever get the rest of my stuff here, I'll try to find them and scan them.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I have pictures (offline 35mm) of the F-16s they used painted up in Russian colors. Desert camoflauge with red stars, and Russian unit markings painted on them. If I ever get the rest of my stuff here, I'll try to find them and scan them.


The F-5 was was the main aircaft used by the Agressor units. The F-16 were recived but only right before the end of the program.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...


This arrangement continued until September 1988 when the 10th Tactical Reconnasance Wing at RAF Alconbury became a Tactical Fighter Wing, and the 509th and 510th were tranferred there.

With the transfer of the A-10s to Alconbury, the 527th Aggressor Squadron was transferred to Bentwaters. The mission of the 527th was to provide dissimiar air combat training for NATO pilots, using Soviet tactics. The squadron flew the F-5 Freedom Fighter at Alconbury, however after 12 years of intense flying, by 1988 the fleet of aggressor F-5Es was getting rather worn out as a result of sustained exposure to the rigors of air combat maneuvering. It was decided to re-equip the squadron with F-16C Fighting Falcons when the squadron was assigned to Bentwaters.

The 527th AS flew its last F-5E sortie from Alconbury on 22 June 1988. On 14 July 1988 the squadron was transferred, transitioning to F-16Cs by mid-January 1989 at Bentwaters. However, in 1990 with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the decision was made to terminate the entire USAF aggressor program. The 527th AS was inactivated in late autumn of 1990.


Source: home.att.net...


Consequently, the USAF began to consider retiring the F-5E/F fleet from service and started looking around for a successor. The F-16 was chosen as the successor, and F-16s began to be procured as F-5E/F replacements. However, since the F-16 was already in the USAF inventory, the dissimilar aspect of DACT was lost.

The 64th AS at Nellis ceased operations on April 1, 1988 in preparation to transitioning to the F-16. The 65th AS kept on flying the F-5E for another year or so to cover the transition period. The 65th AS F-5Es flew their last aggressor flight on April 7, 1989. The 527th AS flew its last F-5E sortie from Alconbury on June 22, 1988, transitioning to F-16Cs by mid January of 1989. The 26th AS at Clark was scheduled to dispose of its F-5Es in favor of F-16C/Ds and transfer to Kadena on Okinawa in early 1990.

However, in 1990, the decision was made to terminate the entire USAF aggressor program. The 527th AS was inactivated in late autumn of 1990. The 26th AS was disbanded before it could receive its new F-16s. The 64th and 65 AS were inactivated in 1990, but the loss of these two squadrons did not mark the complete termination of aggressor activities at Nellis. A small element formally known as the Adversary Tactics Division of the 57th Wing remains active at Nellis with a dozen or so camouflaged F-16Cs for the support of Red Flag exercises.



[edit on 2-9-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

The F-5 was was the main aircaft used by the Agressor units. The F-16 were recived but only right before the end of the program.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...


This arrangement continued until September 1988 when the 10th Tactical Reconnasance Wing at RAF Alconbury became a Tactical Fighter Wing, and the 509th and 510th were tranferred there.

With the transfer of the A-10s to Alconbury, the 527th Aggressor Squadron was transferred to Bentwaters. The mission of the 527th was to provide dissimiar air combat training for NATO pilots, using Soviet tactics. The squadron flew the F-5 Freedom Fighter at Alconbury, however after 12 years of intense flying, by 1988 the fleet of aggressor F-5Es was getting rather worn out as a result of sustained exposure to the rigors of air combat maneuvering. It was decided to re-equip the squadron with F-16C Fighting Falcons when the squadron was assigned to Bentwaters.

The 527th AS flew its last F-5E sortie from Alconbury on 22 June 1988. On 14 July 1988 the squadron was transferred, transitioning to F-16Cs by mid-January 1989 at Bentwaters. However, in 1990 with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the decision was made to terminate the entire USAF aggressor program. The 527th AS was inactivated in late autumn of 1990.


Source: home.att.net...


Consequently, the USAF began to consider retiring the F-5E/F fleet from service and started looking around for a successor. The F-16 was chosen as the successor, and F-16s began to be procured as F-5E/F replacements. However, since the F-16 was already in the USAF inventory, the dissimilar aspect of DACT was lost.

The 64th AS at Nellis ceased operations on April 1, 1988 in preparation to transitioning to the F-16. The 65th AS kept on flying the F-5E for another year or so to cover the transition period. The 65th AS F-5Es flew their last aggressor flight on April 7, 1989. The 527th AS flew its last F-5E sortie from Alconbury on June 22, 1988, transitioning to F-16Cs by mid January of 1989. The 26th AS at Clark was scheduled to dispose of its F-5Es in favor of F-16C/Ds and transfer to Kadena on Okinawa in early 1990.

However, in 1990, the decision was made to terminate the entire USAF aggressor program. The 527th AS was inactivated in late autumn of 1990. The 26th AS was disbanded before it could receive its new F-16s. The 64th and 65 AS were inactivated in 1990, but the loss of these two squadrons did not mark the complete termination of aggressor activities at Nellis. A small element formally known as the Adversary Tactics Division of the 57th Wing remains active at Nellis with a dozen or so camouflaged F-16Cs for the support of Red Flag exercises.

[edit on 2-9-2006 by ULTIMA1]


You may wish to reread your link! Unless I'm wrong, the Air Force didn't end the Advasary Program, instead they merged it into Red Flag. It might not be what it once was, but it's still around.


Now, how did we get from the YF-24(the topic of the thread) to F-16 fly agressor duty? From now on, can we try to stay on topic?

Tim



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

You may wish to reread your link! Unless I'm wrong, the Air Force didn't end the Advasary Program, instead they merged it into Red Flag. It might not be what it once was, but it's still around.

Now, how did we get from the YF-24(the topic of the thread) to F-16 fly agressor duty? From now on, can we try to stay on topic?

Tim


I think you missed these lines.

"However, in 1990, the decision was made to terminate the entire USAF aggressor program."

"A small element formally known as the Adversary Tactics Division of the 57th Wing remains active at Nellis with a dozen or so camouflaged F-16Cs for the support of Red Flag exercises."



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by gfad
 


The YF-24 does exist it looks just like the F-22 to be honest if you seen them next to each other you could never tell which is which




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join