Another thread on the YF-24 (or rather: "what's in a name?")

originally posted by: B2StealthBomber
a reply to: CiTrus90

www.scribd.com...

I'll just leave this here..

Chime in if I'm wrong here but this was the Air Force's Plan C if the ATF competition was canned by the suits. Boeing was tapped to produce a follow on that would be affordable, low capability but in the least get the snowball rolling on 5th gen tech and tactics. If it was needed the cash would be flung in their direction, but it wasn't.

We've touched upon this before and this is not the droids we've been looking for, thus its declassified nature. It was never pursued.

Now...was one of these things built to test and evaluate? And did the aforementioned pilot have anything to do with it? Even though this bird never saw production?

My knowledge of the AF informs me that they are never caught without alternatives. Even when a project is sure the win, they will have another already beginning to burn rubber just in case......

Just look at the headlines now....

a reply to: B2StealthBomber

Ok, that's the ICE study report in which the USAF used the Boeing Model-24 baseline aircraft concept.

It was released (not to the public) in march 1996 and summarized the work conducted between october 1994 and january 1996 by the team involved in the ICE study.

Nowhere in it is said that testing was conducted on a 1:1 flying article.

The only part that may hint at such a thing is the following one:

The overall ICE effort is divided into two phases. Phase I covers the initial development and preliminary analysis of the candidate effectors, while Phase II will concentrate on the testing and validation of the chosen effector concepts.

This contract is focused on the Phase I efforts and is divided into four distinct tasks.

However the ICE program study soldiered on well beyond 1996, check here for example:

ICE 101

Where whis time (1998) a different configuration from Model-24 was taken into consideration.

Does this mean there is an ICE 101 flying around at TTR or Groom? Not necessarily.

These were just studies, and we're starting to see the fruits of all this work in the concepts put forward for the future 6th generation fighters, i.e. platforms without vertical tails but still highly manouvrable.

a reply to: aholic

I remember Boomer135 wrote that the YF-24 was a bird that lost a competition, and in this regard it may relate to a plan C.

However, every competition needs at least one other participant, so we should have a rival for the YF-24. The only concept i've ever seen that could fit this description is the following one:



Which, at least to me, looks like a NG product and so could well fit as a rival to a joint LM-Boeing product.

While all of this is extremely fascinating, i don't see a secret competition of this sort between "second choices" aircrafts like a plausible thing to do. There is no good reason for such a thing, most of all when you consider that these concepts were for fighter planes, not bombers (as we can see the LRS-B is being flown in secret) or ISR platforms.

a reply to: CiTrus90

I think he was talking about the F-23.

That concept is different to the actual -24, there's one thing that's not on that concept that's definitely on the real one Lol

a reply to: B2StealthBomber

I think he was talking about the F-23.

Remember guys the yf-24 is a bird that lost a competition, not something that was built for any other purpose.

LRS-B thread

Definitely not talking about the YF-23.

That concept is different to the actual -24, there's one thing that's not on that concept that's definitely on the real one Lol

What concept? The one in the PDF file to the ICE program you linked or the image of the concept i've posted?

Because if you mean the latter i clearly stated that it's a different aircraft.

Now since we are speculating, what if there is a flying version of:

The Innovative Control Effectors (ICE) aircraft is developed by Lockheed under an Air Force Research Laboratories (AFRL) sponsored program. It is a single engine, multi-role, supersonic, tailless fighter aircraft in the 38,000 lb (gross takeoff weight) class. It has a 65 degree sweep delta wing and an internal weapons carriage bay. The configuration incorporates all-aspect low observable technologies and is sized for a 1,100 nautical mile air-to-ground mission. The conventional control effectors include elevons, symmetric pitch flaps, and outboard leading edge flaps. The innovative control effectors include pitch and yaw thrust vectoring, all moving tips, and spoiler slot deflectors. The all moving tips and spoiler slot deflectors have zero lower deflections limits.

I pay the Boeing Model 24 theoryand fallible memory.

anyone trying to make more of it needs a great deal more evidence than Lanni's comment.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

It's very real. Just classified still.

Yeah sorry but "because I say so" doesn't count as very good evidence for me.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Yeah sorry but the whole jail thing means you won't get it until it's declassified.

very few people know what the yf24 was created for. and it did have a competitor. unfortunately its not declassified yet so it cant be spoken of. however, i have proof that the yf22 and the EMD f22's were in fact F-22A and also F/A-22's. Nothing to do with the YF-24. I did the majority of the refueling sorties out of Edwards in the early 2000s with these EMD raptors, and i have many pics that say what the aircraft is on the tail.


heres just one with the F/A-22 designation. you can look at my photobucket for the rest...

very early pic...

a reply to: boomer135

It didn't have anything to do with those Lockheed supercruising/quiet supersonic demonstrators that were supposedly seen around Groom in the late 90's, did it?

a reply to: Barnalby

They're still around. I've seen one over Wyoming several times. The -24 was an actual competition entry.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Hmmmm. I'm trying to think of what would justify a competition and a non-bogus "F" designation, yet would still be highly classified after all these years.

An F-117 replacement, maybe?

a reply to: Barnalby

I cannot tell a lie. Until it's declassified, I'll never tell.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Oh I know, it's just fun to speculate...

a reply to: Barnalby

Why do you think we have so much fun in this forum?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah and working as far as one can from the aerospace industry or the military (though the J-Stars was practically developed in my backyard), I need to get my fix somewhere...

In my neck of the woods, all the "I can't really talk to you about what I do" folks tended to design things other than aircraft.