The A-17 Experimental Stealth Attack Plane

Stealth Spy - I have some question about a supposed TR-3B.

Why would it use rocket engines? Does it leave our atmosphere? If it used rocket engines that would be a extremely un-efficient craft.

How big is it (supposably)? You said it has a crew compartment, but it doesn't petrud much from the craft, wich makes me think that this thing is fairly large.

I think another question, which is a bit more to the point, is this:

If we have an aircraft in existence with such amazing capabilities and means of lift/propulsion, then why, in the Name of Ghod, are we spending billions and billions of dollars on developing, building, retrofitting, and maintaining such hideously obsolete aircraft such as the F-22, F-35, F-15, F-16, F/A-18E/F, B-2, C-17, and AH-64D?

And why isn't my company using such technology to crush Airbus Industrie (the Servants of Satan) instead of spending our own billions developing the 7E7 Dreamliner and trying to sell the KC-67 to the Air Force?

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
I think another question, which is a bit more to the point, is this:

If we have an aircraft in existence with such amazing capabilities and means of lift/propulsion, then why, in the Name of Ghod, are we spending billions and billions of dollars on developing, building, retrofitting, and maintaining such hideously obsolete aircraft such as the F-22, F-35, F-15, F-16, F/A-18E/F, B-2, C-17, and AH-64D?

- Excellent questions.

It's nice to see some rational thought here on such matters......not a believer in the anti-grav then?

And why isn't my company using such technology to crush Airbus Industrie (the Servants of Satan) instead of spending our own billions developing the 7E7 Dreamliner and trying to sell the KC-67 to the Air Force?

- We love you guys too.

Don't worry, when we've sewn up all the various options with our full range (bet you're looking forward to the A350 killing many/most of your 7E7 sales, huh? ) you can still maybe stay in the business.

How about you guys become what many of us in Europe had to become for a few decades......thanks to low US scullduggery and until we finally got ourselves together properly.

How about a decade or two as fitters for us?.....as opposed to many of us doing it for the US.

Sorry I mean 'partners' taking a 'share'.

It'll be good for yous and keep your skills base going......in things like manufacturing engine pods or maybe - if you're good and do them cheap enough - entire engines!

Wow can you imagine that, huh?

Sorry for the individual hardships and all (really) but what goes around comes around, enjoy.




[edit on 24-10-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Off_The_Street - Because I doubt Boeing has any "exotic" types of propulsion.

While Lockheed probably does, skunk works has has been in the black buss longer then phantom works.

Phantom does produce good aircraft, but they havn't made any thing amazing, so they dont have the cloak that skunkworks has.

I think the only place where exotic propulsion exists is Area-51, Skunk builds the crafts and then delivers them to groom where they integrate the craft with its propulsion.

[edit on 24-10-2004 by Murcielago]

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Some thoughts on the �A-17 Stealth Attack Plane�

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.

My data source is an old 1993 issue of Popular Science. You do know that the Aardvark carried laser-guided Smart Bombs? I know the GPS weapons are more accurate and reliable then the older Paveway II and Paveway III LGB, but the Aardvark's range, speed, and payload were an asset for larger targets.

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:

They don't, huh? Before you stick to that clame you might want to look at this and reconsider:

A-12 Blackbird Spy Plane

and this:

A-12 Avenger

The first one is the A-12 Blackbird (forerunner of the SR-71 Blackbird spyplane). The second is a failed 1980's program to build a Carrier-based attack plane. This proves that "A-12 has been used TWICE since the 1960's.

The data's out there, you need to catch up on your research!

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

Tim, let�s cut to the chase. You said that the Northrop A-17 was reportedly designrd "...using techonlogy from the YF-23. everything I've ever seen states that the A-17 is Northrop Grumman/USAF program.".

Are you saying that your only source of data for the Northrop A-17�s design is an eleven-year-old Popular Science magazine?

You say: �You do know that the Aardvark carried laser-guided Smart Bombs? I know the GPS weapons are more accurate and reliable then the older Paveway II and Paveway III LGB, but the Aardvark's range, speed, and payload were an asset for larger targets.�

The key word there is �were�. The fact of the matter is that the F-111 is an airplane without a mission; it�s performance is, when you think about it that way, irrelevant.

Regarding two names for the �A-12� The original A-12 was a �holding name� for the SR-71, and there never were, as far as I know, any production aircraft called �A-12�.

And, of course, the MD/GD A-12 never flew either; indeed, we didn�t (I say �we� because I was working for MD at the time but was not involved an any A-12 stuff) even finish a prototype.

The bottom line is this:

There isn�t any evidence I�ve seen for an A-17; so far, no one has come up with any. If there really is an A-17 (and some of you folks seem pretty insistent on this point), then why don�t its protagonists have something more than gossip on it?

"We love you guys too."

Careful, sminkey; I'm a married man.

"Don't worry, when we've...."

"We've"? Are you an EADS employee?

"... sewn up all the various options with our full range (bet you're looking forward to the A350 killing many/most of your 7E7 sales, huh? ) you can still maybe stay in the business."

Yes. Building AH-64Ds and C-17s for the UK MoD, just like we're doing now.

"...How about you guys become what many of us in Europe had to become for a few decades......thanks to low US scullduggery and until we finally got ourselves together properly.

Skullduggery? You mean the United States was responsible for the Saunders Roe Princess and the wing fatigue on the Comet IV? Dang. I thought that was Top Secret.

"Sorry I mean 'partners' taking a 'share'.

Hey, we have no problem with you taking a share. Remember, Westland plc (or what used to Westland until the Italians bought it out) did a great job of building our Apache Longbow.

"It'll be good for yous and keep your skills base going......in things like manufacturing engine pods or maybe - if you're good and do them cheap enough - entire engines!"

BTW, sorry to hear that ANA dealt out Rolls Turbomeca as the engine supplier for their fifty 7E7s. I understand it wasn't a quality issue -- just cost.

murcielago says:

" While Lockheed probably does [have exotic propulsion capabilities]...I think the only place where exotic propulsion exists is Area-51, Skunk builds the crafts and then delivers them to groom where they integrate the craft with its propulsion."

If that were true, then why would the government build any aircraft with those old-fashioned, obsolete jet engines? Think about it: if the government had some form of clearly superior aircraft propulsion, they would either license it to several of the large systems integrators like Boeing, Lockmart, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon and specify it in their classified procurements -- or they'd provide it to one of those contractors, and that one would be the only place they'd get their aircraft from?

And if there were some magic whizzbang propuslion system, then why are we still using and losing normal aircraft in Afghanistan and Iraq?

There are a lot of great technologies underway right now, including pulsed ramjets. And there really might be some sort of engineering model of an anti-gravity machine (although I doubt it). But if it worked, we'd be using it and not "anything else". But we are using "anything else" -- we're spending billions and billions of dollars on "anything else".

Therefore we simply don't have any magic propulsion -- yet.

Skullduggery? You mean the United States was responsible for the Saunders Roe Princess and the wing fatigue on the Comet IV? Dang. I thought that was Top Secret.

The only thing wrong with the Princess was that nobody wanted it, such a waste of a beautiful aircraft

There was no wing fatigue issue on the Comet 4, indeed Comet 4 wings are still being built today for the Nimrod. There was however an issue with metal fatigue around the cabin windows on the Comet 1, De Havilland is owed a debt of gratitude by Boeing, Douglas et al for selflessly making sure that nobody else suffered such tragedies, as an employee of Boeing I thought you would know that.

When skullduggery is mentioned however you would do well to refer to the SR177 and TSR2 to see what sminkey is on about.

edit, I do agree with what you say on the post above however and it baffles me how people can believe in tosh such as this.

[edit on 25-10-2004 by waynos]

Waynos says:

"The only thing wrong with the Princess was that nobody wanted it, such a waste of a beautiful aircraft."

That is the death knell of many aircraft. In the Saunders Roe case, it was a plane that was based on an obsolete approach, i.e., water landing. By the 1950s, the concept of a passenger-carrying flying boat was dead. Better runways and airports meant that future long-range airliners would be land-based aircraft, without the weight and drag of a boat hull.

When I was a kid living in Micronesia, our only aircraft were flying boats, Consolidated PBY-5As in the early fifties, and replaced by Grumman SA-16s around 1957 or so. Now all the Islands have airports and the carriers fly either 737s or MD90s. Tempus fugit.

Douglas made the same mistake in 1946, when they came out with the Super DC-3. Great plane, bad timing, since, between the time of the introduction of the original DC-3 and its successor the Super DC-3, we had WWII which provided a bazillion more modern 4-engine aircraft for a lot cheaper than Douglas wanted to sell.

I personally believe that the "hub-and-spoke" concept is on its way out, as more and more people want to fly from here to there without returning to a hub. For example, Thursday morning I am flying from Phoenix to Belize City via Houston, which is an airline hub. Not big problem there, but... a week later, I will be flying from Belize City to Mexico City -- by way of Houston ??!!?? That's like flying from New York to Philadelphia by way of Miami (or from Bath to London by way of Edinburgh)!

Airbus is betting the farm on the continuance of the hub-and-spoke system, with its A380s. It's got a lot of orders for them, but they're primarily for Mideast hubs. I don't think that the French will make any money on the A380 for a long time, if ever; then need to sell a lot of them to recoup their development costs (or they would if they had to pay back their loans on a scheduled basis) and I don't think they're going to meet their quota. The last thing they (or their partners) want is another technological marvel like the Concorde!

Remember, about 10 to 30 percent of aircraft orders are later delayed or cancelled, because of the tremendous lead times and changing commercial environment. It's going to be an interesting decade for both the Good Guys and the Bad Guys.

[edit on 25-10-2004 by Off_The_Street]

I can see where you're coming from with your arguments on the hub and spoke system to to a large degree I agree with you. After all it makes perfect sense to fly direct when you have the option. I disagree with your view that Airbus is depending on the continuation of this system for its future however. The A350 is a direct competitior for the 7E7 so Airbus is covering its bases and for direct flights the A340-600 is the longest ranged airliner so far, I believe. The market for very large aircraft is not totally dependant on hub and spoke operations as there is a considerable market for direct routes that are best served by large aircraft, the transatlantic routes from London or Paris direct to New York or Washington for example, also in the far east you get 747's flying domestic routes, which is a major market for the A380 as ageing 747's need replacing down the years.

BTW, the A380 isn't French, its also British, German, Spanish and Dutch.

Getting back to the Princess, you are quite right of course when you state that the coming of the long range landplane killed off the flying boat. Saro designed a landplane version of the Princess to try and salvage the project but by the time it would have flown the Comet 4, 707 and DC-8 would have all been on the scene so it was just as well they didn't pursue it. It was still a marvellous aeroplane however and had none of the drawbacks that bedevilled the dismal Bristol Brabazon.

[edit on 25-10-2004 by waynos]

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Airbus is betting the farm on the continuance of the hub-and-spoke system, with its A380s.

- I think you'll find all bases are covered when the A350 is announced very soon.

It's got a lot of orders for them, but they're primarily for Mideast hubs.

- Well the European airlines have yet to come in in a serious fashion just yet but I think they will soon enough. Afterall the thing hasn't even flown yet!

There's a little while to go 'till all those 747-400's need replacing!

I don't think that the French will make any money on the A380 for a long time, if ever; then need to sell a lot of them to recoup their development costs (or they would if they had to pay back their loans on a scheduled basis) and I don't think they're going to meet their quota.

- Sales have to hit 250 - 300 to break even. They're around half way there now.

I'd say half way to break-even before the first flight is pretty good going.....and something few other large projects have ever come anywhere near.

The last thing they (or their partners) want is another technological marvel like the Concorde!

- That's true.

Remember, about 10 to 30 percent of aircraft orders are later delayed or cancelled, because of the tremendous lead times and changing commercial environment. It's going to be an interesting decade for both the Good Guys and the Bad Guys.

- Well that's the truth.

We shall see but right now I'd rather be working for this side of things than the US side.....and I have to say I can only see it staying that way for the next decade at least.



[edit on 25-10-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

Regarding two names for the �A-12� The original A-12 was a �holding name� for the SR-71, and there never were, as far as I know, any production aircraft called �A-12�.

you are wron, wrong, oh so wrong. The A-12 was REAL, it was a spyplane used by the CIA and its name was the A-12 Oxcart. It was different from the SR-71 because it only contained a photoreconaissance suite, only had room for one pilot, and used RAM in certain spots while the SR-71 only used iron ball paint. Look it up on google if you dont believe me.

SminkeyPinkey
bet you're looking forward to the A350 killing many/most of your 7E7 sales

Primaris Airlines has confirmed there order of 20 737 and 20 7E7.

20 7E7's sold

Waynos says:

"The A350 is a direct competitior for the 7E7"

The A350 doesn't exist yet, even on paper. And I fail to see how a re-engined A330 will provide the 20 percent decrease in operational costs.

"The market for very large aircraft is not totally dependant on hub and spoke operations as there is a considerable market for direct routes that are best served by large aircraft, the transatlantic routes from London or Paris direct to New York or Washington for example..."

Correct; not totally, but since not all airports are capable (or will be capable) of servicing the A380, that means that if I wanted to go (for example) from Phoenix Sky Harbor to Kyoto Kansai and wanted to take the A380, I'd have to take a smaller plane from PHX to Los Angeles International, then fly the A380 from LAX to Tokyo Narita, then a smaller plane from Tokyo Narita to Kyoto Kansai. My return flight would also involve three airplanes.

Both the A340 and the B777 can easily fly from Phoenix to Kyoto, but it's not likely that they would, because they'd need a bunch of folks (not as much as the 747 or the A380, but still a bunch) to provide the seat-miles to make the flight earn some money.

I doubt that you could get enought people every day (or even every other day) to make the flight worthwhile. But with a littler long-range airplane that can actually earn money with, say, 125 passengers, the idea of a direct flight from PHX to Kansai makes more sense. And that is what Boeing is counting on with the 7E Dreamliner.

"...also in the far east you get 747's flying domestic routes, which is a major market for the A380 as ageing 747's need replacing down the years.

True, but ageing 747s can be replaced by 777s quite well, too.

"BTW, the A380 isn't French, its also British, German, Spanish and Dutch."

And the 7E is not necessarily American, it is Japanese (Subaru, for example will make much of the hydraulics, and Mistubishi will build the wings), Chinese, and a bunch of other folks. but the guiding group is American, just like the Guiding hand behind Airbus is French.

"Getting back to the Princess, you are quite right of course when you state that the coming of the long range landplane killed off the flying boat. Saro designed a landplane version of the Princess to try and salvage the project but by the time it would have flown the Comet 4, 707 and DC-8 would have all been on the scene so it was just as well they didn't pursue it. It was still a marvellous aeroplane however and had none of the drawbacks that bedevilled the dismal Bristol Brabazon."

If you don't have it, let me suggest you get a book called "The World's Worst Aircraft", by Bill Yenne. It has the Brabazon there (as well as the DC-10 and the Boeing GAX).

Originally posted by Off_The_Street




Regarding two names for the �A-12� The original A-12 was a �holding name� for the SR-71, and there never were, as far as I know, any production aircraft called �A-12�.

The A-12 was the production model of the YF-12, produced for the CIA and operated by the CIA, as the 1129th SAS (Special Activities Squadron) "The Road Runners", out of Groom Lake and first operationally flown from Kadena AB, Okinawa in 1967. THe SR-71 was an updated A-12 model built for the USAF and operated by the USAF which took over the A-12s duties in late 1968. The A-12 flew, quite a bit actually.

On the topic of the A350 and 7E7, I have a few things to say:

The main cost benefits of the 7E7 are that it is built using more composites than normal, cutting initial production costs (but raising repair costs later on) and making the plane lighter. The new engines for it are also radical, being electric start rather than APU start, thus reducing the need for a primary APU and hence less weight. Also the hydraulics are going to be electric based, thus eliminating the requirement for engine bleed and increasing engine power as a result.

The A350 is to be based on the A330-300, with the bodies coming off the same production line before internal fitting occurs. The wings for the A350 are to be new designs, with large amounts of composites to reduce weight. Engines are probably going to be exactly the same as those purchased for the 7E7, as GE and RR are not in an exclusive contract with Boeing for those engine classes, but engines will be of the bleed type.

Now we come to the crunch. The 7E7 price point has been tentativly announced as $125million USD, with no reductions as normally happens with list prices (a list price for a 777 is around $120million USD but you can usually get them from Boeing for ~ $90million USD or so, but not with the 7E7, Boeing has said it will sell at its list price).

The A330-300 lists at $80million USD, not counting list price reductions. Internal figures at Airbus shows the upgrading to A350 standard to add around $15million per plane, which gives us a tentative list price for the A350 at $95million USD.

Over a 10 year fiscal cycle, will the 7E7 save an airline more than $30million USD? The best guess figures Ive come up with is a break even, so Im willing to say that over a 10 year period, the A350 and the 7E7 are likely to be equally as economic. After that 10 years, if the planes havent been worn out, then you will probably see the 7E7 take the lead. Problem is, most major airlines sell aircraft on after 5 - 10 years in service, as customers want better interiors, more luxury etc. We shall have to wait and see!

What this is really going to do is allow airlines to apply financial pressure on Boeing to reduce the price of the 7E7, as they see a competitor in the field with a lower price point. The commonality of the A330 and the A350 will allow cheaper maintenance and overhauling, something that the 7E7 wont have with any of Boeings fleet. Owing also to the commonality between the airbus airframes, it will probably be easier to convert pilots to the A350 from the A330, and certification will probably take less time.

I have read a book by that name, not sure if its by Bill Yenne but if it is the chapters on the Brabazon and Me 163 were absolutely brilliant, and hilarious. The only aircraft book that had me laughing out loud! I recommend it to anyone.

edit; my god this thread has wandered.

[edit on 25-10-2004 by waynos]

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Tim, let�s cut to the chase. You said that the Northrop A-17 was reportedly designrd "...using techonlogy from the YF-23. everything I've ever seen states that the A-17 is Northrop Grumman/USAF program.".

Are you saying that your only source of data for the Northrop A-17�s design is an eleven-year-old Popular Science magazine?

No, there are also a couple of websites. the Magazine was my Main source of data, but not the only one by far.

You say: �You do know that the Aardvark carried laser-guided Smart Bombs? I know the GPS weapons are more accurate and reliable then the older Paveway II and Paveway III LGB, but the Aardvark's range, speed, and payload were an asset for larger targets.�

The key word there is �were�. The fact of the matter is that the F-111 is an airplane without a mission; it�s performance is, when you think about it that way, irrelevant.

Not Really the ability to stike targets over long range is still a valid mission. Plane like the F-111, F-117, and F-15E provide a complmentry capability to the Heavy bomber fleet. If you are right that the mission doesn't exist, why do we still fly F-117? The B-2 with its stealth and smart weapons should have Made the F-117 Obsolete, but it hasn't. Care to explain your thinking?

Regarding two names for the �A-12� The original A-12 was a �holding name� for the SR-71, and there never were, as far as I know, any production aircraft called �A-12�.

And, of course, the MD/GD A-12 never flew either; indeed, we didn�t (I say �we� because I was working for MD at the time but was not involved an any A-12 stuff) even finish a prototype.

I'll give you 1/2 a point on this one. You're 100% right that the MD/GD A-12 never Flew. but, as for the Blackbird, the A-12 was the CIA Version. Most of the history of the CIA's Blackbirds is still classified, But it is known that they did fly Recon missions over Southeast Asia during Viet Nam under the Code Name: Black Shield. They also few over North Korea after the USS Publo was siezed there. If you want more info on the use of the CIA's A-12 Blackbird, see if you can get a copy of the book: A-12 Blackbird Declassified

The bottom line is this:

There isn�t any evidence I�ve seen for an A-17; so far, no one has come up with any. If there really is an A-17 (and some of you folks seem pretty insistent on this point), then why don�t its protagonists have something more than gossip on it?

Black programs are very hard to track! I just gave you the info I have. Now it's up to you to look over the facts and see what you think.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

Originally posted by Murcielago
Stealth Spy - I have some question about a supposed TR-3B.

Why would it use rocket engines? Does it leave our atmosphere? If it used rocket engines that would be a extremely un-efficient craft.

How big is it (supposably)? You said it has a crew compartment, but it doesn't petrud much from the craft, wich makes me think that this thing is fairly large.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
I think another question, which is a bit more to the point, is this:

If we have an aircraft in existence with such amazing capabilities and means of lift/propulsion, then why, in the Name of Ghod, are we spending billions and billions of dollars on developing, building, retrofitting, and maintaining such hideously obsolete aircraft such as the F-22, F-35, F-15, F-16, F/A-18E/F, B-2, C-17, and AH-64D?

And why isn't my company using such technology to crush Airbus Industrie (the Servants of Satan) instead of spending our own billions developing the 7E7 Dreamliner and trying to sell the KC-67 to the Air Force?

What did you guys expect. I fly one of those things ???

All that i know about is the contents of that link i posted earlier.

Infact i too am not fully convinced about its existence .