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.
originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge
originally posted by: boomer135
originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
It's very real. Just classified still.
From the pdf file that somehow leaked out it is the F-35 in every aspect with added thrust vectoring. It is the same dam plane!!!
It looks nothing like the 35
I suggest you look at page 23!! www.scribd.com...
originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge
I have constantly defended the F-35 but after reading what I just read this whole program needs to be sold to Israel and Britain. It cost the same as the dam Raptor did and now it cant even be fueled from a standard fuel truck without it overheating and shutting down on the tarmac or catching fire.
Their moronic solution was to paint the fuel trucks white. That's just in the U.S., Not gonna work in the desert of the middle east and they might as well paint a big bulls eye on the fuel trucks now. How about Lockheed fix the dam plane?
foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com...
They are a sorry bunch of plane manufactures anymore. I pray Northrop gets the next contract just because of the turds the rest have given us of late.
Why the hell buy a plane that is SLOWER, not even stealth with a decent bomb load and riddled with constant problems and cost the same as a twin engine Raptor?? The Marines need a Vtol fighter like they need a whole in the head. Congress is out of their dam minds and now the Navy is starting to get mad at the turd they pushed to get.
This will be the ruin of our air dominance until it is cancelled. The F-16 will fly circles around this thing and carry more weapons at the same time.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge
The Model 24 was a technology demonstrator. It had nothing to do with the YF-24 program. Its only purpose was to test the technologies in that paper.
originally posted by: Barnalby
a reply to: aholic
To further push my theory of "politics and the JSF killed the YF-24/NATF and that's why we won't see any of it", take a look again at the Northrop NATF concept.
I'm addition to being a completely different aircraft from the YF-23 (and one which is clearly a dogfighting air-superiority fighter in the same vein as the typhoon/f-22/f-15, which again supports my theory that whatever the YF-23 was based off of, it was almost certainly NOT a fighter), it also appears to be a radical departure from the F-22, sacrificing all-out stealth in the name of extra maneuverability to save money without sacrificing any real capabilities. I mean look at it, it's as if someone threw a Euro-Canard and a YF-23 into a blender, with some added Northrop F/A-18 DNA thrown in for good measure.
Just as the Typhoon/Rafale can reportedly fly circles around the F-22, at least in a dogfight, this thing could have been a real "killer app", offering better maneuverability than the F-22 with F-35-level stealth and at a lower price point, further pissing off the USAF and the F-22/JSF lobby.
originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: aholic
I have a problem with big separate wings in what would be a revolutionary aircraft. I would have to go with something in the 3 or 4 range.
Also, coming in here late, still have not seen a good explaination of the mentioning of the YF-24 in the Colonel's writings.
Security of projects like that are so strict, that not being cognizant of that does not make sense. Additionally, some heavies probably had to proof read that before he published, and there is no way they could miss it.