The A-17 Experimental Stealth Attack Plane

I have a friend in millitary and said he saw one of theese fly over him in iraq

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]

True, the A-17 from what I understand is a Northrop Grumman project.

Shattered OUT...

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.

reply to post by AboveTopSecret.com


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

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!!

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.

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.

originally posted by: ghost

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

The designation A-12 for the Lockheed single-seat spyplane that became the forerunner of the SR-71 wasn't a military designation, but instead the shortened form of Archangel-12, the Lockheed Skunk Works designation for the final design of Lockheed's proposed replacement for the CIA's U-2s.

The writers of the article about a supposed stealthy swing wing fighter bomber in the January 1995 issue of Popular Science simply assumed that the putative stealthy fighter-bomber would be called A-17 because they claimed without evidence that A-14 and A-15 were assigned to competing designs that lost out to the canceled A-12 Avenger II and noted that an unbuilt close air support version of the F-16 was informally dubbed A-16. The designation A-14 was eventually reserved in the early 2000s for one Embraer Super Tucano counter-insurgency aircraft evaluated by the US Navy, which was designated A-29B.

Link:
www.designation-systems.net...(addendum).html