The A-17 Experimental Stealth Attack Plane

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 10 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I have a friend in millitary and said he saw one of theese fly over him in iraq




posted on May, 10 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost

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


Wouldn't it be a NorthtropGrumman/Boeing project... now that Panthomworks is a Boeing division...

[edit on 10-5-2006 by carcharodon]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   
True, the A-17 from what I understand is a Northrop Grumman project.

Shattered OUT...



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   
In that photo it would have to be a pretty awkward angle for them to be Tomcats or Tornados. Still, it's possible.

Perhaps this is the famed Aurora/TRB-3/A-17 except they're the same plane.

Still, there's always different opinions.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by AboveTopSecret.com
 


That picture is soooooo fake: it is a modified picture of the alien fighters on "Independence Day"



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Are you guys on something? Who here has seen "Independence day"? I agree with the guy on page 3, this is an alien craft, from a movie!!!!! It is a modified picture of one of the alien fighters!!



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by yoyodine

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.

Very interesting topic. But there is a point of relevance to finding an F-111 replacement. As here in Australia we did untill recently operate the F-111C "Warthog" As our primary means of delivering ordinance at the strategic level. The F-111C was perfect for our needs at the time, because in Australia we are defended by the tirany of distance. Which is best exploited by an attack bomber that can attack over very long distances. We do not have the finance to field heavy B-52 class aircraft, or the support infrastructure to support KC-xx refueling aircraft.

The F-111C took a failing US aircraft into the RAAF, and a theatre where it would shine - and shine it has. With the proposed F-35A + KC-xx, the supply chain for munitions is complex, vunerable and unresponsive. This combination cannot readily change its axis of attack. Whereas the F-111 could on short notice attack any target within a radius encompassing Jakarta and Korea on ANY approach vector! As it does not require Aerial support. Australians I believe ought to be concerned over this loss in capability.

What sparked my interest, and lead me to this site were the specs for the YF-23, and the interesting possibility of adapting that aircraft for a similar combat radius, alebit with stealth capability. The YF-23 and A-17 that seems to be based upon it appear to be the only modern aircraft that can match the mission profile of an F-111.
edit on 26-3-2012 by LizardFromOz because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Looks like it would fill the role of a low level penetration aircraft that could also fill the F117`s role only with a bigger payload capacity.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join