Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The A-17 Experimental Stealth Attack Plane

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 21 2004 @ 12:27 PM
link   
A-17 EXPERIMENTAL STEALTH ATTACK PLANE Generally regarded as a fourth generation low-observable design, the A-17 is believed to have evolved from the YF-23 Advanced Tactical Fighter, and will replace the F-111 Fighter Bomber. The YF-23 lost out to Lockheed's F-22, but it's technology could easily be adapted for use on other projects. Shaped with complex curves and compound curvature, the A-17 is contoured to minimise radar and aerothermal signatures as it carries out it's mission of electronic warfare and deep reconnaissance. The engine exhaust geometry is reminiscent of the B-2, where the aft section of the engine nacelle slopes down to meet the aft trailing edge of the tail. The engine exhaust is buried deep within the trough, effectively masking the infra-red signature from observation from below. The two large vertical tail surfaces, serve to mask the exhaust from the sides. No positively-identifiable white world pictures exist of the plane, but sightings have been reported at RAF Boscombe Down in the UK, and Cannon AFB, New Mexico. Two events help to identify the A-17's existence. In September 1994, an unusual aircraft was seen over Amarillo, Texas meeting the description of the A-17. The plane was dumping fuel, preparing for an emergency landing. On a scanner, the pilot, using the callsign "Omega", was heard reporting a malfunction. At the time, two F-111s were acting as chase planes. A man named Steve Douglass captured two unusual flying triangles on video. He believes they could be A-17s, but admits they could also be F-117s, Tornados, or F-14s. Photo of flying triangles taken by Steve Douglass




posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 07:16 PM
link   
the engines look like the ones on the YF-23.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
the engines look like the ones on the YF-23.


That is because the A-17 was reportedly design using techonlogy from the YF-23. everything I've ever seen states that the A-17 is Northrop Grumman/USAF program.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 07:41 AM
link   
HEY! That looks like a PHUKHING UFO???

Gee! I wonder where they got the idea to create one of those???

Do you think they paid the aliens to have that blue print? Perhaps. Perhaps in blood they signed their signatures.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 11:10 AM
link   
why doest it have to be alien tech it can be all man made



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 11:22 AM
link   
why would it be an A-17 if it carries out recon and Electronic warfare?



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 09:06 PM
link   
the same reason the F-117 was given the F= fighter



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Could this be the long rumored TR3-A?



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I doubt the military is looking for a F-111 replacement. F-16's and F-18's are now handling the same duties. The Super Hornet will handle this roll far into the future.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 12:00 PM
link   
There is one reason I think the A-17 might exist as an F-111 replacement. Neathier the F-16 nor the F/A-18 have the range and payload to replace the F-111 Aardvark. Why would anyone replace one plane with another that is less capable? The F-16 and F/A-18 are both great planes in their own right, but they still can't match the F-111's preformance.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
Why would anyone replace one plane with another that is less capable?


Uh, they did it with the F-14/F18E superbug......Why not again?



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
There is one reason I think the A-17 might exist as an F-111 replacement. Neathier the F-16 nor the F/A-18 have the range and payload to replace the F-111 Aardvark. Why would anyone replace one plane with another that is less capable? The F-16 and F/A-18 are both great planes in their own right, but they still can't match the F-111's preformance.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance


Why does it need to be replaced? We haven't had any in inventory since 1996, don't think it's missed. With in-air refueling and GPS guided bombs, an F-18 carrying only 5 bombs can destroy targets with more efficiency than an F-111 with 20 bombs. Besides, the military would rather put a UAV or Cruise Missile in theater than an aircraft.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I'd say the A-17 is this "Aurora" which i highly doupt lives up 2 the reports. Sorry to burst some bubbles. Anyone can draw an aircraft or take a picture. In the book "Deception Point" by Dan Brown a team of Delta Force operatives uses the Aurora . He gives a short description: strange looking, misted methane propulsion, Mach 3 at half power,Pulse Detonation Wave Engines, Mach 6+, 110ft long 60ft wide, smooth crystalline patina of thermal tiles. While flying the misted hyrogen-methane engines leave a pluse contrail. So we could believe him and assume that any picture without the pulsed contrail isnt the A-17. Plus what good would a mach 6 bird do ; it could outrun its own weapons. And maneuvering can't be easy. The A-17 and Aurora would both be enormous assets to the USA



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by P_38lightning
Plus what good would a mach 6 bird do ; it could outrun its own weapons.


Not necessarily, the momentum of the missilewould be the same as it separates, then increase as a rocket kickes in, or it could simply use a kinetic ability where the bomb slides off a Rail. Kinetic weapons make very good bunker busters, and the higher the speed the higher the GPE, the higher the kinetic energy, and the deeper an iron bomb could go (explosive warhead would just crumple, bu the shock of the iron bomb would be just as devistating)



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I thought the USAF replaced the F-111 with the F-15E?



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
I thought the USAF replaced the F-111 with the F-15E?


Would the F-117 also have been a possible replacement for the F-111 or didn't they make many of those? This new plane could be based on the F-117 and YF-23 designs but maybe cheaper and more manoverable.



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 12:30 PM
link   
I'd seen this in Discovery a long time back.
There was an interwiew with its photographer.

It was also spotted by an oil rig worker, who drew sketches of the same. It looked more triangular than the ATS graphics.

The pentagon had denied its existance and was sued by the same oil rig worker.

I personally would'nt be surprised if this is the Aurora.



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
I thought the USAF replaced the F-111 with the F-15E?


That was 1994. so i guess there were a few F-111's operational during that time. besides, it would'nt hurt anyone if they use them as escort aircrafts.



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Could this be the long rumored TR3-A?


I doubt.....

The TR-3 does not have large tail fins from what i know of it. It is more of a saucer like triangle that is fully flat









For more info on this unbelieveable craft, visit The Ultra Top Secret TR-3B



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Some thoughts on the “A-17 Stealth Attack Plane”

I do not understand most of the information on this thread at all.

The first post says: ” Generally regarded as a fourth generation low-observable design, the A-17 is believed to have evolved from the YF-23 Advanced Tactical Fighter, and will replace the F-111 Fighter Bomber. The YF-23 lost out to Lockheed's F-22, but it's technology could easily be adapted for use on other projects.”

Evolved how? |The body shape is completely different, as the apparent size and the role itself. Saying that an”attack plane is evolved from an air superiority fighter and will replace a fighter bomber and then will carry out its mission of EW and deep reconnaissance” is akin to saying that “the new Ferrari sports car is derived form a Peterbuilt 18-wheeler and is designed to replace the Bluebird school bus, which makes it a really great bass boat”.

Some of the rationale for such an aircraft simply don’t make any sense:

Above top secret.com says: “In September 1994, an unusual aircraft was seen over Amarillo, Texas meeting the description of the A-17. The plane was dumping fuel, preparing for an emergency landing. On a scanner, the pilot, using the callsign "Omega", was heard reporting a malfunction….”

Aircraft don’t use scanner frequencies; there are both UHF and VHF frequencies that are military use only. furthermore, if the aircraft or its testing were classified, they'd probably use a KG secure communications device anyway. Saying that the pilot was using scanner frequencies makes about as much sense as the pilot calling in his problems on a cell phone. That’s not the way it works.

” At the time, two F-111s were acting as chase planes.”

F-111’s don’t act as chase planes; they are too big and cumbersome to get in really close to provide in-flight visuals of the test aircraft -- and they cost too much to be used for such a role. If you look at all the test aircraft in flight, you’ll notices that their chase planes are usually either T-38s or F-16s: light, agile aircraft well-suited to such a task.

Here’s another:

” A man named Steve Douglass captured two unusual flying triangles on video. He believes they could be A-17s, but admits they could also be F-117s, Tornados, or F-14s.”

He’s right, it could be a lot of planes; in other words, it’s not positive identification at all.

West Point saus: ” the engines look like the ones on the YF-23.”

How can you tell? First, the F-23’s nacelles were very large, because they were configured to take two different engines, one GE and one P&W (depending on whether there would be thrust reversers involved -- this was later dropped from the requirement list). In any event, you can't see the engines on either of the two pictures, so you have no way of telling what kind of engine there is.

Tim says:

” That is because the A-17 was reportedly design using techonlogy from the YF-23. everything I've ever seen states that the A-17 is Northrop Grumman/USAF program.’

What information is this? Where do you get your information? As someone who has been in the aerospace and defense business for about thirty years, why haven’t I been able to find all this data? Where are your sources?

” The F-16 and F/A-18 are both great planes in their own right, but they still can't match the F-111's preformance.”

What performance are you talking about? The Aardvark is, to be perfectly honest (and no slur against my Australian colleagues) an obsolete aircraft. Its longer range and high sspeed are simply not that big of a deal, as another board member pointed out: one fourth of the bomb load, given gps-guided smart bombs, would do more damage than the Aardvark could do as a bomber, anyway.

sabre says: ” This new plane could be based on the F-117 and YF-23 designs but maybe cheaper and more manoverable.”

Look at it? What possible characteristics of that drawing suggest that it would based on either of those two aircraft (whose respective roles make them about as different from each other as any single-seat jets around)?

Finally, the military never repeats its names or numbers of aircrafts. Northrop, as many of you will recall, did make an A-17 which went into service. Here is a picture of it, around 1936:






new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join