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

a reply to: Barnalby

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"

My second attempt at the YF-24 mistery:

The timing of the whole story fits a span that goes from the early to mid 90s. During those years there were a plethora of known programs going on: NATF, MRF, A-X, JAF, CALF, JAST.

NATF was killed because the Navy realized that putting the N to the ATF was going to add too much weight on their aircrafts. To avoid this, they would have had to join the ATF long before, in an earlier phase of the program.

Side tracking, on JSF.mil there was an interesting resume on many of these programs i named before. They required capabilites that overlapped much with each other, and on this basis they merged and led to the JSF as we know it today.

Speculation starts now and i'm going to quote from GlobalSecurity here:

DARPA competitively awarded two contracts in March 1993 to conduct critical technology validation of two CALF concepts. Lockheed was awarded a $32.9M contract to conduct risk reduction of a shaft driven lift fan and McDonnell Douglas was awarded a $27.7M contract to conduct risk reduction of a gas driven lift fan.

Boeing later approached DARPA and offered to meet DARPA's financial contribution if they were allowed onto the program.

In March 1994, Congress appropriated an additional $6M to fund a direct lift STOVL concept. Following a procurement competition, Boeing was selected to conduct this effort, offering to cost share an additional $6M to enable a similar level of risk reduction as the Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas and put them in a competitive position to vie for a follow-on demonstration program. Further provisions included a $10M contribution each from Congress and Boeing for the following year, bringing Boeing's total contract up to $32M.

Hey, Boeing is making nice money despite jumping late in the program don't you think?

For all three contractors, the Critical Technology Validation Phase included continued design work on both operational and associated low cost demonstrator aircraft, affordability analyses, and small scale and component testing culminating in large scale powered model testing to validate not only propulsion system performance but to ensure no adverse performance effects from operation in ground effect such as stability and control problems, lift losses and hot gas ingestion.

Like These ones for example.

And nicest tidbit of info

The government imposed only a single requirement - that the aircraft weight empty be less than 24,000 lbs. This weight target was set for two reasons. First, this weight was consistent with the thrust available for vertical landing from an F-119 class engine. Second, since parametric cost estimating relationships show strong correlation with weight, this also ensured that a low cost design would be achieved. The demonstrator aircraft would be based on this design, employing a common outer moldline, to validate performance predictions and demonstrate manufacturing affordability initiatives. However signature reduction materials and treatments would be left off the demonstrator to reduce cost. The demonstrator aircraft would also demonstrate the commonality between the Air Force and Marine Corps variants by using common tooling and producing both configurations.

Now.
The X-35 and X-32 weigh less than 24,000 lbs, right? Erhm, no. Not really to be honest.
But hey, the Model 24 operating weight empty is 19,980 lbs.

Fast forward, Dec. 22, 1994. The following JAST program contracts were awarded and announced:

Prime: Boeing Defense and Space Group, Seattle, WA.
Title: Tri-Service Weapon System Concept
Award: $27,614,120

Prime: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, St. Louis, MO.
Title: Joint Strike Weapon System Concept Definition and Design Research
Award: $28,193,501

Prime: Northrop Grumman Corp. Advanced Technology and Development Center, Pico Rivera, CA
Title: Joint Strike Weapon System Concept Definition and Design Research
Award: $24,085,919

Prime: Lockheed Ft. Worth Co., Ft. Worth, TX
Title: Joint Strike Weapon System Concept Definition and Design Research
Award: $19,900,000

[and later on in the middle lines]

Prime: Boeing Defense and Space Group, Seattle, WA.
Title: JAST Multi-service Common Airframe
Award: $1,740,920

Only for Boeing. Not LM, nor Nortrhop, nor McD.

Well, alright i guess...

look what BAE found

www.youtube.com...

looks interesting, anyone got a confirmation on this one?


also this is pretty cool

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: penroc3

Think the upside down plane/model is called "Replica".
Someone on here said it was getting cleaned before being put on display and it was used to demonstrate the UK's stealth capabilities to partners/allies across the pond before they were allowed in on other projects.

a reply to: Jukiodone

interesting. It doesn't look like a F-22 and it seems to have two engines so it cant be a F-35 so I wonder what it is a model of?

I think someone in the comments of that video noted that the canopy is quite right either.

The empenage is similar to Tacit Blue in the first video.

a reply to: penroc3

I believe Replica was just a design study before the UK officially went with the F-35. I think they are using it now for testing of BAE's UAV craft.

a reply to: Jukiodone

How would that work exactly?

The UK signed on as the sole partner in the F-35 program way back in 1996 so it won't be that. There is no way they would agree to be a level 1 partner and put in billions if they were excluded from specific parts of the design/construction.

www.newscientist.com...-640esWem

BAe Replica wiki article

a reply to: big_BHOY

It wouldn't.
Sammamishman or the Wiki link give a better summary than my memory.

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: penroc3

I believe Replica was just a design study before the UK officially went with the F-35. I think they are using it now for testing of BAE's UAV craft.

The picture of the upside down RCS test model is codenamed 'Replica' and was one of the concepts developed to meet the UK MOD FOAS requirement. FOAS was cancelled and superseded by DPOC which was then cancelled as part of the strategic defence review. Replica did not fly, but other platforms and demonstrators may have.

The reason it's upside down is so that an RCS can be acquired for the underside of the aircraft. The RCS Range at Warton is on the south side of the airfeld where we test and develop the more interesting airframes.

Corax, Replica and several other low observable concepts and platforms were used to develop our understanding and contribution to the JSF program and the currently flying Taranis UCAV.

F-35 meets the requirements of the defunct FOAS and DPOC programs, our main site in the UK for F-35 is Salmesbury, neither Replica, Taranis or F-35 are YF-24.

Cheers
Robbie

a reply to: Jukiodone

It wasn't simply a design study nor was it at attempt to blackmail the US or LM into being let in on stealth technology.

Here is an article from 1991 where they show designs and talk about stealth:

www.flightglobal.com...
www.flightglobal.com...
www.flightglobal.com...

This page needs translating but it offers a good array of images:

www.hitechweb.genezis.eu...

Essentially like tons of other potential advanced pieces of tech the MOD has passed on over the decades, it was canned because the money was not there to see it through to completion.

a reply to: big_BHOY

Oh, the sad story of the UK post-WWII, where they've easily had some of the best designers and concepts of any armed force out there, but have never had the money to pay for any of it.

It would have been awesome to see stuff like the Replica, the Avro 730, and the Hawker P.1154 fly.

a reply to: Barnalby

Yep, has been happening for too long and has included everything from carriers to bombers (TSR-2) to fighters (Tornado 2000, BAE Replica etc). Heck, they were even looking into flying wing stealth bombers in the late 80's.

The CVA-01 carrier in 1966:

en.wikipedia.org...

Designer said the day it was cancelled was one of the best days of his life. All because of the interference from above him due to cost constraints and lies from the RAF who produced dodgy maps to show aircraft alone could get the job done.. It had all the latest innovations like 3D radar, novel flight deck arrangement etc.

Whenever there is something good on the horizon, you can guarantee that there will be a 'White Paper' coming out shortly after to announce a cancellation and budget cuts.

originally posted by: johnthejedi24
Hmm, Boeing lost the JSF competition with their X-32/F-32, but the dating for the YF-24 would give it a mid-to-late 90s fly date. Be pretty much impossible to keep something secret on a flat-top 24/7 and the JSF program was ongoing during the supposed time-frame of the YF-24...and still secret mainly due to politics, hmmm? I don't know what else to say except that all this speculation we've all been doing on various projects for the last 25 years is getting frustrating, I'd expected more to be out there by now in the public domain.

The current resume of Joseph Lanni (who is now a USAF Brigadier General) makes no mention of "YF-24" at all despite saying that "numerous classified prototypes" are among the aircraft flown by Lanni. In all probability, the May 2004 edition of the resume by Joseph Lanni mentioning "YF-24" among the aircraft flown by him (web.archive.org...://www.edwards.af.mil/units/bio/lanni-bio.html) is merely a typographical mistake, but it is possible that the kind of aircraft that crashed at RAF Boscombe Down in September 1994 was one of the classified aircraft flown by Lanni at Edwards AFB.

In any case, the USAF never allocated a cover YF-24 designation to whatever classified aircraft was flown by Lanni.

a reply to: Potlatch

The Air Force wasn’t going to leave a classified designation in the open, so of course it’s not on his resume anymore. Classified designations do, rarely, get out into the world while they’re still classified, but not for long.

a reply to: Potlatch

If you are going to resurrect an ancient thread, you should probably do some actual research before making your "contribution." Don't simply toss out an assumption based on no data.

The YF-24 designation was used for an actual classified aircraft. The designation was removed from Lana's bio after it generated a lot of unwanted attention from people who use these discussion boards.

Such cover designations are frequently used in official USAF biographical sheets. A number of examples have appeared over the years. It's apparently a personal choice as to whether the subject includes a designation such as YF-110B or simply refers obliquely to "classified prototype aircraft."

The entire point of the cover designations is that they are unclassified designations for classified aircraft. They are primarily used in such unclassified documents as the pilot's flight record (AF Form 5).

originally posted by: Shadowhawk
a reply to: Potlatch

If you are going to resurrect an ancient thread, you should probably do some actual research before making your "contribution." Don't simply toss out an assumption based on no data.

The YF-24 designation was used for an actual classified aircraft. The designation was removed from Lana's bio after it generated a lot of unwanted attention from people who use these discussion boards.

Such cover designations are frequently used in official USAF biographical sheets. A number of examples have appeared over the years. It's apparently a personal choice as to whether the subject includes a designation such as YF-110B or simply refers obliquely to "classified prototype aircraft."

The entire point of the cover designations is that they are unclassified designations for classified aircraft. They are primarily used in such unclassified documents as the pilot's flight record (AF Form 5).

I see. I should emphasize that the Northrop Tacit Blue and Boeing Bird of Prey also received cover designations, being designated YF-117D and YF-118G respectively. Since you note that the resume by Joseph Lanni mentions "classified prototype aircraft", do you consider it likely that the YF-24 was a classified technology demonstrator?

a reply to: Potlatch

People who flew various aircraft in "black" programs often refer to these planes as "classified prototypes" or "specially modified test aircraft." Most of the time, they are not true prototypes in the sense of being the forerunner to a production model. The YF-117A is a notable exception because it was the full-scale development prototype for the F-117A.

If someone questions an Air Force pilot as to the nature of the YF-113E on his flight record, he can just say, "That was a classified prototype." It was definitely classified, and the Y prefix in the designation implies that is was a prototype, so the story sounds plausible. Of course we now know that the YF-113E was a MiG-23MS, which was a foreign-built production model. If used for testing, it almost certainly carried special instrumentation, so it could be accurately described as a specially modified test aircraft.

Airplanes like TACIT BLUE and the Bird of Prey carried YF designations for documentation purposes. They were technology demonstrators rather than true prototypes, so, the term "classified prototype" might be only slightly more accurate.

In one instance, a pilot noted that he had made several flights in a "classified advanced technology demonstrator." Now, that sounds less ambiguous. There there was the YF-113G that "was taken from design to first flight" in a classified program. That wording sounds less like a foreign production aircraft and more like a domestically produced prototype or demonstrator.

None of this gets us any closer to whether or not the YF-24 was something exotic and new, or just another foreign fighter jet. The non-standard numbering system now includes a mix of two-digit and three-digit YF designations. It's intended to obscure what aircraft are being flown, and it works.

Now that I understand that the YF-24 designation wasn't used for a prototype jet fighter (a number of captured or defected MiGs brought to Nevada for evaluation in the 1970s were officially described as "classified prototypes"), it's worth mentioning that a resume by Colonel Dan Javorsek lists YF-220 and X-273 among the aircraft that Javorsek flew, and either of these designations was applied to the NGAD technology demonstrator mentioned by USAF officials in late 2020, although X-273 in my opinion is more likely to have been assigned to the NGAD tech demonstrator because the resume never mentions the phrase "classified prototype".