Current mystery aircrafts/urban legends

Taking into account that LM continued MUTT tests long after RQ-180 was flown...so if they finally build SencorCraft as it was envisioned?
Interesting that neither TR-X or SC mentioned or came in mind to authors.
 
Back in 2014 websites such as ATS and Dreamland Resort were rumors of an real image of the YF-24 being on the internet. I know this was previously discussed on this exact forum but I want to bring light to it again, for speculation purposes of course. I am aware ATS doesn't have the best reputation. I'm having a suspicion that the users claiming on both links below are the same individual. On the ATS link, someone did post an "image" of the YF-24, but in reality it was a image from the Boeing Model 24 study. On the Dreamland Resort forum, the user "weavty1" was dropping hints for people hunting the supposed YF-24 photo. Once again, I'm very sure its the same individual behind both profiles playing tricks on people.

Links: https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1015080/pg4


Cheers.
Mind if we go back to this as well? Is there a possibility there really is an image of the YF-24 out there?
 
Possibility of what? That USAF and industry have built a fighter demonstrator for a _what_ program?
When? Why would they invest billions in security when ATF and JSF demonstrators were white world? Who did pay for that?
 
Mind if we go back to this as well? Is there a possibility there really is an image of the YF-24 out there?

A "YF-24" was mentioned in someone's USAF bio.
Various persons have decided that the "YF-24" was the Boeing MRF-24. The MRF-24 evolved into the Boeing JAST and X-32.
The MRF-24 design studies were used for other things, like testing folding canards, strakes, etc. (in wind tunnels) as well as an "MRF-24X" configuration with no tail, enhanced LO, etc. Again, most of the mentioned of "YF-24" on sites such as ATS that have "insider info" are describing these studies.

There is no evidence that the "YF-24" is in any way connected to the MRF-24 concept, and it is highly unlikely that any connection exists. The "YF-24" is likely something else.
 
It may be interesting to listen to Heater Heatley, who is a former Naval Aviator, whose pictures were used in an article that inspired the creation of the movie Top Gun (inwhich he cameoed in and later wrote the book The Cutting Edge), and who flew MiGs out of Groom Lake before the USAF's CONSTANT PEG program. He flew as an an instructor at Top Gun and flew with both the 64th and 65th Aggressor Squadrons. His talk about life out at Groom Lake and the activities there were very entertaining and informative.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u53sBmfIh5Y
 

Attachments

  • heater.jpg
    heater.jpg
    42.2 KB · Views: 126
Last edited:
Ah ha! This is where they keep them. Downtown Hanoi. Who knew?

An elevator to the laser-cut tunnel complex I bet. Well, the locals are experts in tunnels.

ChrisView attachment 710459
The only review on Tripadvisor is from someone complaining that they were refused entry. Coincidence? I don't think so.
 
His talk about life out at Groom Lake and the activities there were very entertaining and informative.
Heater Heatley talks about buried aircraft at Groom Lake, OPSEC processes after a crashed aircraft event, an aircraft that was being used to transport the Delta Force Troopers 'lights-out' into Groom (not a C-130 he says) during rehearsals for Eagle Claw, and his cover story while flying the MiGs.
 
What a suprise, the newbie (me) is about to ask another question. I've seen online mentions of the USAF admitting to 2 Black Projects in the year 2002. Ive seen mentions of it, but I haven't been able to find the original source, or if the USAF even said such thing in the first place.

A comment in this website debunking fake pictures of Aurora mentions it. Can somebody please help me find the original source or citation of this?
 
A comment in this website debunking fake pictures of Aurora mentions it.
I don't know the source of the pictures, however, the aircraft in the pictures has the same lines and proportions to the Testor's XR-7 Thunder Dart with the engine pods removed. The model came out in 1993 and the photos surfaced in circa 2005. It is not difficult to fake an aircraft model in flight. When I was a kid I used to build models, place them on the middle of a large pane of glass with a dark sheet on the ground to eliminate ground reflections, and photograph the models from the ground looking up. I was amazed at how real the aircraft looked flying. I imagine a fishing line or some other technique was used to photograph the 'Aurora' model.
 

Attachments

  • Thunderdart.jpg
    Thunderdart.jpg
    22.8 KB · Views: 103
I don't know the source of the pictures, however, the aircraft in the pictures has the same lines and proportions to the Testor's XR-7 Thunder Dart with the engine pods removed. The model came out in 1993 and the photos surfaced in circa 2005. It is not difficult to fake an aircraft model in flight. When I was a kid I used to build models, place them on the middle of a large pane of glass with a dark sheet on the ground to eliminate ground reflections, and photograph the models from the ground looking up. I was amazed at how real the aircraft looked flying. I imagine a fishing line or some other technique was used to photograph the 'Aurora' model.
I know the pictures im fake, what I was asking for is in my previous comment, the 2002 USAF acknowledgement of 2 active black programs.
 
Possibility of what? That USAF and industry have built a fighter demonstrator for a _what_ program?
When? Why would they invest billions in security when ATF and JSF demonstrators were white world? Who did pay for that?
I should probably stay out of this, but mentioning JSF as white world triggered some painful memories. JSF itself was certainly white world but it was built on a long-running foundation that was anything but. If you trace it back, JSF had, at the time of the first contractor downselect, been referred to as JAST, Joint Advanced Strike Technologies. The purpose of JAST was to develop system technologies, generate requirements for nex-generation strike aircraft, and ultimately build a demonstrator vehicle. At the same time, in parallel, DARPA had its ASTOVL (Advanced Short Take Off Vertical Landing) technology exploration going, and eventually it was decided to merge the two programs into one, essentially adding STOVL features to what JAST was already doing. This was all well reported at the time, but the problem was that ASTOVL itself wasn't what it seemed to be, at least not in its later stages. The old JSF history site (since taken down but still available via Wayback) revealed that the conclusion of the first-phase ASTOVL studies had shown that in fact the required technologies wouldn't be available anytime soon, so in 1987 DARPA went to Skunk Works and began funding STOVL technologies secretly. ASTOVL itself from that point on became the cover story for those activities. Also in the mix was the STOVL Strike Fighter (SSF) which was evolved from unacknowledged work by Lockheed paid for by NASA Ames, and in fact it was Lockheed who, as a result of the SSF results, suggested a joint USAF/USN effort to develop a next-generation stealthy fighter. ASTOVL/SSF led to CALF (Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter) where ASTOVL and SSF were still different aircraft aimed at different customers, but that didn't last long, because it was clear that there wouldn't be enough money to fund entirely separate aircraft performing similar missions.

When JAST emerged out of this tangle, Lockheed instantly had a huge advantage in the critical technologies for the STOVL variant, which became a key deciding factor in the JSF contract award for all 3 Services as well as exports. So while JSF was technically white world, it was built on top of a process that was definitely not. Anyone who wants to get the details should take a look at this, the preserved record of what was on the jsf.mil site for many years: https://web.archive.org/web/20061112005516/https://www.jsf.mil/history/his_prejast.htm
 
I know the pictures im fake, what I was asking for is in my previous comment, the 2002 USAF acknowledgement of 2 active black programs.

In 2002 Boeing and USAF announced a historical program, Bird Of Prey.
I do not think that USAF has ever acknowledged a current/ongoing program being conducted at Groom Lake.
 
In 2002 Boeing and USAF announced a historical program, Bird Of Prey.
I do not think that USAF has ever acknowledged a current/ongoing program being conducted at Groom Lake.
Well, not acknowledged another aircraft but rather the existence of 2 black projects, with the details unknown. Don't know if it's a random lie that has been going around of if it really happened.
 
Well, not acknowledged another aircraft but rather the existence of 2 black projects, with the details unknown. Don't know if it's a random lie that has been going around of if it really happened.
You may be thinking about the Ministry of Defence (UK) 'Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) in the UK Air Defence Region' report, available here.

Volume 2, part F and G considers western aircraft that may be misidentified as UAPs, specifically SR-71, F117, and B2, yet para 3. and 6 are redacted. Following is Figure 1: SR-71, Figure 6: F-22, Figure 7: F-117, Figure 8: UCAV concept, and Figure 9: B-2, yet Figures 2: and 5: are redacted. Some have inferred that the the two redacted paragraphs and figures represent two black projects.
 
Last edited:
You may be thinking about the Ministry of Defence (UK) 'Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) in the UK Air Defence Region' report, available here.

Volume 2, part F and G considers western aircraft that may be misidentified as UAPs, specifically SR-71, F117, and B2, yet para 3. and 6 are redacted. Following is Figure 1: SR-71, Figure 6: F-22, Figure 7: F-117, Figure 8: UCAV concept, and Figure 9: B-2, yet Figures 2: and 5: are redacted. Some have inferred that the the two redacted paragraphs and figures represent two black projects.
It could just as well be the U-2, or at least one of the figures. Not totally sure why it'd be redacted, but it would fit it and doesn't seem to be mentioned in the other docs that I looked in. The other could be a global hawk, and the redactions could be to do with both being active recon aircraft, although the document is probably a little too early (2000) to mention the rq4. Also could be some sort of RAF aircraft that was redacted for whatever reason(s).
 
Last edited:
You may be thinking about the Ministry of Defence (UK) 'Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) in the UK Air Defence Region' report, available here.

Volume 2, part F and G considers western aircraft that may be misidentified as UAPs, specifically SR-71, F117, and B2, yet para 3. and 6 are redacted. Following is Figure 1: SR-71, Figure 6: F-22, Figure 7: F-117, Figure 8: UCAV concept, and Figure 9: B-2, yet Figures 2: and 5: are redacted. Some have inferred that the the two redacted paragraphs and figures represent two black projects.
No, it isn't this one but ive seen this document before. This document was released to the public in 2006, the one im searching for was apparently released in 2002, but since not even the brilliant minds here can find it, im just going to assume said acknowledgement was fake all along. But thanks for the help.
 
Regarding two unknown AF designs:

Congressional Research Service identified the first flight of the NGAD demonstrator as August 21, 2020. Here demonstrator refers to a technology demonstrator and not a prototype, which would indicate a near-production design.

Col. Dan Javorsek piloted a YF-220 and an X-273, likely during 'data masked' assignments in his biography, from August 2012 and July 2017. He received AF Form 8 qualification to fly these two aircraft operationally.

If the NGAD demonstrator wasn't funded as NGAD until FY15 and it didn't fly until August 21, 2020, then the YF-220 and X-273 (2014-2017 period for Javorsek) were aircraft that preceded NGAD. YF-220 could be a Russian/Chinese FME aircraft or something else (possibly precursor to NGAD). The X-273 is an experimental designation, which could have been an experimental version of an NGAD design or, again something else. The X-273 could have been a DARPA funded project as one person alluded to in another website (DLR).
 
Last edited:
Is there interesting linkage to SOFTA/ATT/Senior Citizen?

No, all that is known for certain about SENIOR CITIZEN is that it was an RDTE program for airlift.

It is generally believed to be a special operations aircraft, however there has never been evidence to substantiate that.
 
Regarding two unknown AF designs:

Congressional Research Service identified the first flight of the NGAD demonstrator as August 21, 2020. Here demonstrator refers to a technology demonstrator and not a prototype, which would indicate a near-production design.

Col. Dan Javorsek piloted a YF-220 and an X-273, likely during 'data masked' assignments in his biography, from August 2012 and July 2017. He received AF Form 8 qualification to fly these two aircraft operationally.

If the NGAD demonstrator wasn't funded as NGAD until FY15 and it didn't fly until August 1, 2020, then the YF-220 and X-273 (2014-2017 period for Javorsek) were aircraft that preceded NGAD. YF-220 could be a Russian/Chinese FME aircraft or something else (possibly precursor to NGAD). The X-273 is an experimental designation, which could have been an experimental version of an NGAD design or, again something else. The X-273 could have been a DARPA funded project as one person alluded to in another website (DLR).
Cool find! Definitely writing this on my notes. First the YF-113G, then the YF-24, YF-45D, and now the YF-220 and X-273, is there any other aircraft mentioned in AF bios that I am not aware of? This is my first time hearing about these 2 fellas. According to some quick research both designations were removed from his bio and are now referred to as "a
prototype, and a demonstrator aircraft".
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    184.2 KB · Views: 99
Last edited:
It could just as well be the U-2, or at least one of the figures. Not totally sure why it'd be redacted, but it would fit it and doesn't seem to be mentioned in the other docs that I looked in. The other could be a global hawk, and the redactions could be to do with both being active recon aircraft, although the document is probably a little too early (2000) to mention the rq4. Also could be some sort of RAF aircraft that was redacted for whatever reason(s).
Let's say the 2 redacted images were not still unacknowledged aircraft like some believe, the 2 images could have been the RQ-3, P-175, and or MQ-1.
 
Let's say the 2 redacted images were not still unacknowledged aircraft like some believe, the 2 images could have been the RQ-3, P-175, and or MQ-1.

I would bet on one of them being the U2. The other I'm not so sure, MQ-1 would maybe fit but doesn't seem as likely. Maybe a harrier due to VTOL capabilities
 
No, all that is known for certain about SENIOR CITIZEN is that it was an RDTE program for airlift.

It is generally believed to be a special operations aircraft, however there has never been evidence to substantiate that.
The senior citizen will not have anything to do with the sightings of the super V/STOL that were seen in Minnesota in the late 80s ??
 
I read the rules and I don't think it is an violation to advertise a thread, seriously though, I am interested in all of the types of commemorative items out there dedicated to classified programs, including ones we still don't know about. One example being the "Indigo Delta Kilo" Manta patch that later turned out to belong to the X-44 UAV. There are plenty of patches, challenge coins, and artifacts that I am still not aware of. If you guys- want to contribute, here is the thread I made: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/classified-patches-and-other-commemorative-items.42450/

Cheers.
 
Is there interesting linkage to SOFTA/ATT/Senior Citizen?
No idea, I was working advanced Harriers (including supersonic Harrier III High End, a.k.a. Harrier 21) then ASTOVL and a tiny bit of SSF, then full-time JAST and JSF with A/F-X tossed in for variety. There were strict security barriers between programs that needed them. The Internet came into being during all this but not like it is now, so we pretty much only knew what we read in the magazines or picked up from presentations at conferences and conversations with counterparts at other companies and government agencies, who naturally wouldn't talk about sensitive programs.
 
I read an article about the producers of the film using a seat for the darkstar from another classified or decommissioned bird that was going to be thrown away but the person who was responsible for designs for things in the film asked if it could be used for the filming process and was agreed. Interesting to say the least.
Do you have the article? If so, please link it.
 
Definitely an... interesting designation. In the same vein as Col. Dan Javorsek's "YF-220", Col. Joseph Lanni's "YF-24", and Col. John Manclark's "YF-110" and "YF-113" (although I'm pretty sure those were both FME MiGs). There seems to be a trend of test pilots and officers casually mentioning unknown platforms in their biographies/resumes. Makes me wonder if it's some kind of long-running practical joke? I'd be a little surprised if 3-4 different pilots collectively made the exact same slipup like this, but stranger things do happen.
Depending on when exactly the YF-110 was flown, that could be a legit number.

The F-4 was numbered as F-110 Spectre before the 1963 DOD designation unification.
 
I also recall reading something about the hangar at China Lake (35.673833025942955, -117.68950625726588) housing some sort of classified project that had to be moved for filiming.
If that’s the case I reckon it’s the hangar just to the east of the hangar you mentioned. There seems to be a lot going on at your location: lot’s of buildings, massive parking lot, lot’s of offices.

The hangar just to the east is a bit smaller, with a lot less people involved. In my opinion that makes it a more likely location for a black project, but I’m just guessing here of course.

Both hangars seem to have extra security and are isolated from the rest of the base, so surely something spooky is going on.
 
If that’s the case I reckon it’s the hangar just to the east of the hangar you mentioned. There seems to be a lot going on at your location: lot’s of buildings, massive parking lot, lot’s of offices.

The hangar just to the east is a bit smaller, with a lot less people involved. In my opinion that makes it a more likely location for a black project, but I’m just guessing here of course.

Both hangars seem to have extra security and are isolated from the rest of the base, so surely something spooky is going on.

You may be right, I can't remember the exact quote, it may even have said as much but it was something along those lines. Can't seem to find the article now

edit, found it:

although it says they moved something, not something classified. weren't even supposed to point the camera there initially, certainly could be something interesting.
 
Last edited:
Im really curious to learn where the F-121 rumor took form. Ok so an Delta-Wing aircraft makes an appearance next to an F-22 in an art piece...how does this mean a black project is in the works? Purely just a legend.
 

Attachments

  • f121-hughes.jpg
    f121-hughes.jpg
    23.6 KB · Views: 58
  • f121-hughes-complete.jpg
    f121-hughes-complete.jpg
    294.5 KB · Views: 54
You may be right, I can't remember the exact quote, it may even have said as much but it was something along those lines. Can't seem to find the article now

edit, found it:

although it says they moved something, not something classified. weren't even supposed to point the camera there initially, certainly could be something interesting.
So we may possibly have 3 classified aircraft that were hinted at by Top Gun Maverick. First, the control stick which belonged to aircraft that took 2 flights. Then the rumoured aircraft whose seat may have been used the for Darkstar. Finally, the hint of something classified having to be moved because of filming.
 
Depending on when exactly the YF-110 was flown, that could be a legit number.

The F-4 was numbered as F-110 Spectre before the 1963 DOD designation unification.

When the DoD instituted the Mission-Design-Series (MDS) designation system, the Navy F4H-1 became the F-4A and the Air Force F-110A became the F-4C. The Air Force prototype had been designated YF-110A.

In 1968, during Project HAVE DOUGHNUT at Area 51, the pilots needed a way to log their flight hours in unclassified documents and the maintainers needed a designation for use in maintenance records. They couldn't use the real designation (MiG-21F-13) so they came up with an MDS designation that had not been used and would never be used for a production airframe: YF-110B.

In 1969, there was another program at Area 51, this time an evaluation of the MiG-17F. Two airframes were flown under the names HAVE DRILL and HAVE FERRY. Their respective MDS designations were YF-113A and YF-1114C.

So, that's where the YF-11X designations come from. The numbers were not allocated in sequence, nor were the suffix letters. That's why it fells somewhat confusing, perhaps intentionally so.

It's all explained in that new book: Dreamland: The Secret History of Area 51.
 
Has anyone else noticed that artwork and descriptions of the "Brilliant Buzzard" look/sound like the SR 75 Penetrator model kit? Google Brilliant Bizzard and you'll see what I mean.
 
Has anyone else noticed that artwork and descriptions of the "Brilliant Buzzard" look/sound like the SR 75 Penetrator model kit? Google Brilliant Bizzard and you'll see what I mean.

"Brilliant Buzzard", "Snow Bird", "SR-75 Penetrator", "XB-70 Aurora" are all different names for the same thing.
 
"Brilliant Buzzard", "Snow Bird", "SR-75 Penetrator", "XB-70 Aurora" are all different names for the same thing.
What sort of amazes me is that the SR 75 model kit came out before the Brilliant Buzzard sightings started to happen. It just so happens that theres an giant white plane with canards in the sky that looks like a model kit! Of course, that's if the sightings/shenanigans are believable in the first place.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom