F-117 Developments ??

[Sundog]

As for the F-19, I still believe there MUST have been a separate program carrying that designation at some point, because the F-117 is not a fighter and has never been one. Can you imagine the "Wobby Goblin", as its pilots once named it, in a dogfight with any Russian fighter? NOT!

I don't follow this reasoning.

I don't see how the fact the F-117 isn't a fighter leads to the conclusion there must have been an F-19 that was a fighter.

I also don't agree with your theory, but at least you clearly labelled it a theory.

Indeed, the Tacit Blue wasn't a fighter either, yet it received the F-117 designation. I forgot where I read it, it may be at this site, but someone stated the USAF used the F-XXX series as designators because it fit within the "standard forms" they used for flight plans, etc. Not to mention, since they're secret aircraft, it keeps people guessing what the actual type is if anyone runs across the designation.

After all, the U-2 was never a utility aircraft either.

 

[aero-engineer]

And the F-117 was tested with the AIM-9. Ground firings did take place...

I thought it was a single ground firing?

Remember, the SENIOR TREND program was originally the "Advanced Tactical Aircraft". (I different "ATA" than the Navy's later ATA which became the A-12)

aero-engineer

 

[CFE]

Remember, the SENIOR TREND program was originally the "Advanced Tactical Aircraft". (I different "ATA" than the Navy's later ATA which became the A-12)

That's true, as the original ATA was split into "ATA-A" and "ATA-B" programs. "ATA-A" became SENIOR TREND (F-117,) while nothing became of the larger ATA-B (as far as we know, based on the publicly-released information.) There's a great overview here:
http://www.f-117a.com/ATA.html

My big question about ATA-B is why the plane is so long, proportional to its wingspan. The length/span ratio on ATA-B is noticably larger than on the F-117.

I also question the assertion that Lockheed's ATB design was an outgrowth of ATA-B. If ATA-B was so difficult to handle at takeoff, I'd doubt that it looked anything like the two flying-wing designs that have been postulated for Lockheed's ATB.

 

[quellish]

I also question the assertion that Lockheed's ATB design was an outgrowth of ATA-B. If ATA-B was so difficult to handle at takeoff, I'd doubt that it looked anything like the two flying-wing designs that have been postulated for Lockheed's ATB.

Over the lifetime of the ATB competition Lockheed may have had several designs. Originally ATB was a direct outgrowth of the ATA-B work, but by the time Northrop and Lockheed were competing the requirements were very different.

 

[vulture]

Found this at Vectorsite.net

Vulture

 

[McColm]

Apart from the Royal Air Force was the F-117 or (F-117C) offered to any other country?

 

[vulture]

I believe that Israel made numerous requests for the aircraft (basically the F-117A variant); but those requests were denied - but who knows .

Vulture

 

[vulture]

Although completely two different aircraft designs - with different missions - but Tacit Blue from Northrop carried the designation YF-117D. Designations at Groom are a fluid concept and un-official. :-X

Vulture

 

[vulture]

It is on record that Northrop was asked by the USAF to take the designation F-19. Well here are two images of what might be the Northrop F-19 (Nightstalker I?) shown as a large model at a convention at around the time the designation was floating around yet being denied by the Air Force. The second image basically showing one of the USAF's acquired MiG-23s. On the right of the image is the F-4 Phantom II. On the left of the image is the wing tip of what might be the "F-19". On the ground it can just be made out - the curved shadow of the wing of the aircraft. It was a classified (was) air show of fighter aircraft by the USAF.


Vulture

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

First image is well known, and lacks any of the principles of stealth. Fail.

Second image looks fake to me. The shadow looks odd.

 

[vulture]

Not fake

 

[vulture]

its not a fake, Overscan

Vulture

 

[Stargazer]

However much I would LOVE to find evidence of the F-19's existence (which I remain convinced of, though I am one in a very small minority I guess), I think these two images are less than conclusive. The first one depicts a very interesting model, but it's an airshow display for a radar type called "URR". The model on their stand was meant to attract the visitor, not necessarily to display an accurate type. As the would-be F-19s from Testors and the likes were seen all over, perhaps that company thought it was a good idea to use a similar design for their display... At any rate the presence of this design on a stand doesn't mean it was a real design from any of the industry's major players... though it could also be the case of course!

As for the second picture, I'd need to see a high res version of the picture to perhaps believe the story. But this is just too small to be interpreted as a real airshow photograph. My personal experience of faking pictures for fun (on the "What If" forum mostly) tells me it's VERY easy to do a fake picture of this kind, especially in small size and with a poor resolution...

 

[frank]

It's kinda interesting that an Air Tractor, looks like an AT-602 or bigger, ("Big Yellow Bird" in the photo, behind the MiG-23) crop duster would be at a classified airshow of USAF fighter aircraft. ;D

It is on record that Northrop was asked by the USAF to take the designation F-19. Well here are two images of what might be the Northrop F-19 (Nightstalker I?) shown as a large model at a convention at around the time the designation was floating around yet being denied by the Air Force. The second image basically showing one of the USAF's acquired MiG-23s. On the right of the image is the F-4 Phantom II. On the left of the image is the wing tip of what might be the "F-19". On the ground it can just be made out - the curved shadow of the wing of the aircraft. It was a classified (was) air show of fighter aircraft by the USAF.


Vulture

 

[quellish]

its not a fake, Overscan

Vulture

It's possible that the MiG is a mockup for a movie, or privately owned.
Unfortunately, the MiG-23 in particular was so skittish that it never left the confines of the test range. Those photos definitely do *not* show any location on the test range. The A-7 in the background is interesting, but I do not even think this particular model of MiG was in use by the RED HATS or RED EAGLES programs, and my initial research does not show any MiGs wearing a '147' on them during those programs.

 

[vulture]

Its not fake - either Stargazer and or Overscan. I don't have the software on my computer to do such a thing. I recieved the images from elsewhere so don't ask or even expect me to validate for some one else. I just thought it iteresting thats all. And an ag-plane being there, I don't know - you'll have to ask the Air Force that question.

 

[robunos]

It's kinda interesting that an Air Tractor, looks like an AT-602 or bigger, ("Big Yellow Bird" in the photo, behind the MiG-23) crop duster would be at a classified airshow of USAF fighter aircraft.

As well as the DH Vampire or Venom in RNZAF markings..........

see below.......

cheers,
Robin.

 

[vulture]

Are you talking about these MiGs? The 4477th operated up to 9 MiG-23s in various sub-marks from several different sources, and 14 MiG-21s and Chinese F-7 Fishbeds.
The USAF has declassified the long disbanded unit at TTR known as the Red Eagles.

 

[quellish]

Are you talking about these MiGs? The 4477th operated up to 9 MiG-23s in various sub-marks from several different sources, and 14 MiG-21s and Chinese F-7 Fishbeds.
The USAF has declassified the long disbanded unit at TTR known as the Red Eagles.

Yes, those MiGs. There is another unit, RED HATS, that is very much still active.
As far as I can tell neither flew the particular variant of the MiG-23 in your photo.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Its not fake - either Stargazer and or Overscan. I don't have the software on my computer to do such a thing. I recieved the images from elsewhere so don't ask or even expect me to validate for some one else. I just thought it iteresting thats all. And an ag-plane being there, I don't know - you'll have to ask the Air Force that question.

I'm not saying *you* faked it. Its possible its a genuine picture which just has no relevance to the topic. Its not really evidence of anything. Unless you think the RED HATS or RED EAGLES flew captured RNZAF aircraft too...

 

[quellish]

Mystery solved. The unknown shadow is from a Douglas F5D Skylancer. These photos were taken in Oregon.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/3299514/Re_Airshow_in_Ontarir_The_V

 

[donnage99]

The second pic is definitely fake. The dimension of the shadow compared to the surrounding is wrong.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Mystery solved. The unknown shadow is from a Douglas F5D Skylancer. These photos were taken in Oregon.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/3299514/Re_Airshow_in_Ontarir_The_V

LOL so 'evidence' of the F-19 'Ghostrider' side by side with the RED HATS is just a line up at the highly top secret world of Canadian warbirds air shows... I believe in political terms this is what is called a "terminal credibility hit"...

 

[Orionblamblam]

Mystery solved. The unknown shadow is from a Douglas F5D Skylancer. These photos were taken in Oregon.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/3299514/Re_Airshow_in_Ontarir_The_V

That's what *they* want you to think. Wake up, sheeple! Everyone knows that the MiG-23 was secretly capable of transatmospheric flight,a nd that crop dusters are used to spray mind controlling nanites powered by Bozo Rays, before they fire up their hyperdrives to take them home to Zeta Reticuli! And the less said about the DH Vampire's ability to shapeshift and travel backwards through time, the better.

 

[Stargazer]

Yes, those MiGs. There is another unit, RED HATS, that is very much still active.
As far as I can tell neither flew the particular variant of the MiG-23 in your photo.

Do these MiGs correspond to some of the quoted YF-11* designations such as YF-112A or YF-116?
Were they first evaluated as such, then passed on to those squadrons?
Or are they different aircraft used in a totally different context?

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Hey, does that MiG-23 come with a quantum slipstream drive and interphasic cloaking device?

 

[quellish]

Do these MiGs correspond to some of the quoted YF-11* designations such as YF-112A or YF-116?
Were they first evaluated as such, then passed on to those squadrons?
Or are they different aircraft used in a totally different context?

Well, yes. RED HATS is the activity that does the technical exploitation of foreign aircraft. They do the test flying, avionics testing, etc. etc. RED EAGLES was the CONSTANT PEG program, which was a squadron that used the MiGs as aggressors. Units participating in RED FLAG would be brought over to learn to fight the MiGs. TOP GUN and the USAF Aggressor programs were both outgrowths of these programs.
Some of the aircraft were exploited by RED HATS first and then handed down to RED EAGLES, by the end of the program most of the RED EAGLES aircraft were acquired for that unit rather than hand me downs.
Steve Davies recently published an excellent book on the RED EAGLES unit.


RED HATS has always been an Edwards unit based at Groom Lake and Edwards North Base, while RED EAGLES was based at Tonopah. They were the tenant unit before the F-117 program joined them, and they are the source of the F-11* designations. RED EAGLES was shut down in 1988, while RED HATS continues under another name to this day (with newer toys).

 

[Stargazer]

Thanks a lot for this clarification! If RED EAGLES has been declassified, is there any chance we can see a list of the YF- designators used there somewhere?

 

[quellish]

Thanks a lot for this clarification! If RED EAGLES has been declassified, is there any chance we can see a list of the YF- designators used there somewhere?

Andreas has been in touch with the RED EAGLES guys, so his pages are of course up to date:
http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/coverdesignations.html

 

[quellish]

From my understanding....
1. The money allocated for maintaining them went elsewhere.
2. Pilots and crew are not being kept current in the type, so the readiness of the airframes does not matter much
3. Part of the "readiness" contract was to keep the TTR facilities running. That has been happening, and there is now another unit there.

Finally found the photo of the F-117s in storage at TTR.

 

[Steve Pace]

Size comparison of the F-117A and F-22A - roughly the same size but what a difference.

 

[Sundog]

Size comparison of the F-117A and F-22A - roughly the same size but what a difference.

Actually, you're assuming they're flying at the same altitude. I can't tell if they are. It seems to me that the F-22 is higher, as I don't think it would be flying directly behind the wingtip that close. If they are at the same alt, it really shows how big the F-117A is, which makes sense, for a bomber.

 

[Steve Pace]

If not at the same altitude it's pretty dog gone close.

 

[Ian33]

http://www.air-attack.com/MIL/f117/f117_f22holoman_20071030.jpg

Same height - very similar size.

 

[The Artist]

I'll put forth two 'ifs' here.

First. If you are willing to accept a reasonable accuracy in the Revell 1/72 F-22 and the Dragon 1/72 F-117.

Second. If you are willing to accept the chaotic look of my painting table.

Mike

Correction that is the Academy kit. Sometimes I type faster than I think.

 

[Steve Pace]

According to LM specs the F-117 is slightly larger (length 65' 11"/span 43' 4"): F-22 (length 62' 1"/span 44' 6"). Quite close indeed.

 

[Sundog]

What's funny about that picture is it reminds of the first people they asked to analyze the plane (F-117)without telling them what it was and they all thought it was a high speed aircraft because of the wing sweep. Which is kind of funny, because when you look at that pic, it really does look like it would be much faster then the F-22, when it's the complete opposite. I can only imagine the compression and expansion waves coming off of those facets if it did find a way to go supersonic.

 

[Just call me Ray]

Well just because it's not supersonic doesn't mean it's slow - it's much faster than most airliners, I can tell you that much. And airliners are much faster than just about anything else most people can ride on.

 

[Sundog]

Well just because it's not supersonic doesn't mean it's slow - it's much faster than most airliners, I can tell you that much. And airliners are much faster than just about anything else most people can ride on.

Well, the fastest subsonic airliner is the 747, which can attain M=.92, so the F-117 isn't going to be much faster.

 

[AeroFranz]

I think the distinction of fastest civilian aircraft belongs to the Citation X, soon to be eclipsed by the G650 IIRC. Of course us mere mortals seldom fly in these. M0.92 sounds a tad high for a 747.