YF-113"G" mentioned in a document
C3
ceremony hand-out, from Eglin AFB. The ceremony took place this year.
In the BIO section of the incoming Colonel, some interesting points
are highlighted. It seems that the new Colonel was a Red Hat about
'91-'93. From '93-'96, he became the Commander of a Flight Test
Squadron charged with bringing a "classified" aircraft project from
design to flight test. In the list of aircraft flown, it states that
he was the "first" Air Force pilot to fly the YF-113"G".
C3
http://community-2.webtv.net/CFA3/GROOMLAKEAUDUBON/index.html
Wm. Burns
acquired in the 70's?
--
Wm. (Bill) Burns
London, Ont.
ICQ # 9682543
If you get a chance, visit my webpages located at:
http://webhome.idirect.com/~wmburns and
http://webhome.idirect.com/~wmburns/66thpage
If necessity is the mother of invention,
then war must be the mother of necessity.
"C3" <CF...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:309f10a.01072...@posting.google.com...
Ron
>ceremony hand-out, from Eglin AFB. The ceremony took place this year.
>In the BIO section of the incoming Colonel, some interesting points
>are highlighted. It seems that the new Colonel was a Red Hat about
>'91-'93. From '93-'96, he became the Commander of a Flight Test
>Squadron charged with bringing a "classified" aircraft project from
>design to flight test. In the list of aircraft flown, it states that
>he was the "first" Air Force pilot to fly the YF-113"G".
These acknowledgements are not accidental I think. It may not be some
experiment to see what the reaction is, but there are clearly letting the
designation be out there to seen and speculated on. These things dont just get
accidentally printed or accidentally on AF web pages with someones bio.
Ron Chambless
Pilot C-340 - Weather Modification
Edwards Aquifer Precipitation Enhancement Program
Blain Shinno
> Wasn't that the designation they gave to a MiG-23 the USAF clandestinely
> acquired in the 70's?
>
used for a stealthy strike demonstrator. There is not much known
besides this. I doubt it was ever built as a prototype for a new
fighter program. There wasn't exactly that much funding for the
military at the time and the F-117 was already operational. Nearing
operatational capability was the B-2. The F-22 was on the horizon. Why
fund another "silver bullet" program? The YF-113G was probably used to
demonstrate design techniques that would reduce radar cross section
below what was currently possible.
I'm surprised that they would acknowledge the program in a pilot's
bio. I doubt it's part of a plan to slowly bring the fighter out of
the black world like they did with the F-117. No more than a few
YF-113Gs were probably every built. The public is not going to be
seeing it flying around their local air force base. If the AF were
going to lift the veils on a tech demonstrator they would just do it
like Tacit Blue. I think we'll have to wait a while before we find out
what exactlly the YF-113G is.
Randy Haskin
> Actually according to avaiation week, the YF-113G was a designation
> used for a stealthy strike demonstrator.
While it's true that Aviation Week, in it's April 10, 2000 issue,
reported an anonymous source who claimed this, remember also that
AvLeak was the one who put together the pieces and "unveiled" the
YF-113G as the MiG-23 Flogger G in the first place only a week later
(see April 16, 2000).
Here's a quote of the important part:
"The U.S. Air Force's classified YF-113G aircraft was a MiG-23, not an
early effort to explore radar-evading technologies, as reported last
week. The existence of the aircraft was verified by one service
official, but a second had mistakenly identified it as a U.S. stealth
testbed that was abandoned by the early 1980s."
> I'm surprised that they would acknowledge the program in a pilot's
> bio. I doubt it's part of a plan to slowly bring the fighter out of
> the black world like they did with the F-117.
I'll agree that it's surprising that this type of thing would sneak
into a public bio, it's less staggering when you put it into the
perspective of it being a MiG instead of a classified technology
demonstrator. Generally it's not the most closely guarded secret that
the US actually *has* foreign aircraft...it's more closely held how
they got ahold of the airplane and from whom.
I'll bet that if you could read the classified Foreign Material
Exploitation report of that MiG, the same officer who had YF-113G on
his bio would be on the inside cover listed as one of the test
pilots...
C3
> These acknowledgements are not accidental I think. It may not be some
> experiment to see what the reaction is, but there are clearly letting the
> designation be out there to seen and speculated on. These things dont just get
> accidentally printed or accidentally on AF web pages with someones bio.
>
>
>
> Ron Chambless
> Pilot C-340 - Weather Modification
> Edwards Aquifer Precipitation Enhancement Program
Well, now my little sleuths out at Plant 42 claim that our Colonel
came from Edwards(Big Surprise). That same Bio was used a couple of
times, during other Change of Command out there. The YF-113"G" shows
up a couple of years ago, in his Bio, too.
BTW...Ron, Congrats on the upgrade to the 340.
Ron
>> Pilot C-340 - Weather Modification
>> Edwards Aquifer Precipitation Enhancement Program
>
>Well, now my little sleuths out at Plant 42 claim that our Colonel
>came from Edwards(Big Surprise). That same Bio was used a couple of
>times, during other Change of Command out there. The YF-113"G" shows
>up a couple of years ago, in his Bio, too.
>
>BTW...Ron, Congrats on the upgrade to the 340.
>
Thanks, It beats the seneca. Its nice to be able to open a door and walk into
an airplane.
A couple questions.
Did anyone get any pictures of that "larger F-117" yet? And did the AF ever
admit to the 117s going to the UK in mid 80s?
Ross "Roscoe" Dillon
I just Left Eglin...who was the Colonel in question and what unit was
he taking over?
Roscoe
USAF Flight Tester
(B-1, B-2, T-38, T-37, C-5, QF-106, F-16, F-15, F-5...)
Blain Shinno
> reported an anonymous source who claimed this, remember also that
> AvLeak was the one who put together the pieces and "unveiled" the
> YF-113G as the MiG-23 Flogger G in the first place only a week later
> (see April 16, 2000).
>
do remember several stories involving this aircraft in Av Week. I
thought they put out a number of different stories on this. I searched
the Av Week web site and came up with this:
"The U.S. Air Force's YF-113G aircraft has been identified as a 1970s
stealth testbed and as a MiG-23, but both of these are wrong,
according to an observer and some USAF documentation (AW&ST Apr. 10,
2000, p. 18; Apr. 17, 2000, p. 33). The YF-113G was a "classified
prototype" that was brought "from design to first flight" in a
"classified flight test squadron" in the 1993-96 time frame. The
statement that the YF-113G was a prototype that went from design to
first flight rules out the MiG-23 explanation, though the confusion is
understandable as USAF MiGs do go by other YF-112 and YF-113
designations, such as YF-113B and YF-113E. It's not clear which
company built the YF-113G, but it was probably not Lockheed. The
aircraft was manned."
I have seem other bios that included reference to the YF-113, but not
the G. It makes sense. The two that I have seen were F-15 pilots,
probably flying with the "Red Eagles." The "Red Eagles" trained
fighter pilots (some allied pilots were no doubt included) in
dissimilar acm training. The "Red Hats" were mainly test pilots who
were tasked with exploiting the technology of foreign fighters. But,
if the YF-113G is an American stealth technology demonstrator, why
include it in a pilots bio. Including it would not reveal any secrets.
But excluding it wouldn't be of any benefit. If it's not Lockheed then
this rules out a derivative of the F-117. Other choices include
Northrop-Grumman or MDC. The mystery continues.
Maury Markowitz
news:945d79ff.01073...@posting.google.com...
> Actually according to avaiation week, the YF-113G was a designation
> used for a stealthy strike demonstrator.
Maybe I'm just stupid, but if this is the case, what happened to the A
through F versions?
Maury
C.F.A.3
>what happened to the A through F versions?
First, let me clear up the "G" issue, as best I understand.
The "G" IS/WAS a U.S. Classified Aircraft. NOT a MiG. AvWeek, evidently
has a copy of the same BIO I have, and concluded what is pretty
obvious...the "G" was built between '93 -'96. They may have
misunderstood something at first, but they cleared it up, in later
issues.
Second:
The DoD used the "unused" YF110-YF114 (F-111 not withstanding) number
designation (w/model designation lettering) to give some U.S. ID to the
"foreign" aircraft it had acquired over the years, starting in the 60's.
There were occasions when we may have had two or more of the same Type,
so...a letter was added to distinguish the difference, for tracking
purposes. (Those pilots still want their hours logged.)
Putting it all together:
The "G" designation was probably used to bury the "classified U.S.
aircraft" in amongst the others. The "G" is a U.S. all it's own, having
nothing to do with the "others".
And lastly:
I am only making, what I hope are educated guesses...but they are
guesses non the less.
The GROOM LAKE AUDUBON SOCIETY
http://community.webtv.net/CFA3/GROOMLAKEAUDUBON
F15Jay
hilarious how far people try to read into something printed.
Maury Markowitz
news:26799-3B6...@storefull-156.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> The "G" IS/WAS a U.S. Classified Aircraft. NOT a MiG.
That remains undemonstrated.
> The DoD used the "unused" YF110-YF114 (F-111 not withstanding) number
> designation (w/model designation lettering) to give some U.S. ID to the
> "foreign" aircraft it had acquired over the years, starting in the 60's.
> There were occasions when we may have had two or more of the same Type,
> so...a letter was added to distinguish the difference, for tracking
> purposes. (Those pilots still want their hours logged.)
[snip]
> The "G" designation was probably used to bury the "classified U.S.
> aircraft" in amongst the others. The "G" is a U.S. all it's own, having
> nothing to do with the "others".
This doesn't follow. If these numbers were used to designate foreign
aircraft in US service, and they would get different letters based on
different versions, clearly the best explaination for the missing A though F
versions is that the plane in question was one of several versions of a
foreign aircraft.
If the lettering was to disguise the aircraft's name, you'll have to
explain why it's the "117A" and not "117E" for instance. Or why they would
put this aircraft into the list of an already-used number. This just doesn't
make any sense given all of the other data.
Maury
Paul J. Adam
<ms...@aol.com> writes
>Thanks, It beats the seneca. Its nice to be able to open a door and walk into
>an airplane.
Doors are for wimps. Slide back the canopy, climb in, strap on... bliss
:)
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
John Keeney
Maury Markowitz <maury@remove_this.sympatico.ca.invalid> wrote in message
news:a1V97.25717$sf2.5...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> If the lettering was to disguise the aircraft's name, you'll have to
> explain why it's the "117A" and not "117E" for instance. Or why they would
> put this aircraft into the list of an already-used number. This just
doesn't
> make any sense given all of the other data.
Well, you have to admit, Maury, that not making sense (ie, not an being
an intutively obvious trail to follow) is a reasonable technique to imploy
when you are trying to hide something.
Maury Markowitz
news:3b691...@news.iglou.com...
> Well, you have to admit, Maury, that not making sense (ie, not an being
> an intutively obvious trail to follow) is a reasonable technique to imploy
> when you are trying to hide something.
So why didn't they do it with the F-117A?
I'm not saying this couldn't be the case, but it's being offered up as if
it's it's obvious.
Maury
C.F.A.3
"The man in question is Col. "Hawk" Carlisle, 33FW/CC. Great guy. Its
hilarious how far people try to read into something printed."
I'll tell you what's hilarious... this ain't the guy. It ain't his BIO
I'm holding.
Carl Bergqvist
> The DoD used the "unused" YF110-YF114 (F-111 not withstanding) number
> designation (w/model designation lettering) to give some U.S. ID to the
> "foreign" aircraft it had acquired over the years, starting in the 60's.
> There were occasions when we may have had two or more of the same Type,
> so...a letter was added to distinguish the difference, for tracking
> purposes. (Those pilots still want their hours logged.)
Wasn't the Kfir called F-21 in US service as an aggressor?
/C
Andreas Parsch
Yes, but these aircraft were "legally" acquired. CFA3 talked about
Soviet aircraft _secretly_ acquired and tested by the U.S. Air Force.
Andreas
--
US Military Aviation Designation Systems
http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/
F-117A Webmaster
> I'm not saying this couldn't be the case, but it's being offered up as if
> it's it's obvious.
> Maury
Lots of things out at the test site are "ad hoc" kinda things. Hal
Farley (first F-117A pilot) is Bandit # 117 (Obviuosly for historical
reasons). That day he flew te first F-117A flight, he was "Bandit
20". (That was told to me by Mr. Farley himself, I think he said 20
and not 80. I have it written down somewhere)
It appears that the first Lockheed pilots picked up on what other
"test units" were using as callsigns....For example "Bandit 1", 2, 3,
etc. Then the REAL Bandit 1 overheard this on the radio, and wasn't
too happy about it. Therefore, the F-117A CTF got Bandit #'s 100 + to
work with.
The YF-whatever is the same thing. It's not that they're trying to
hide stuff from us, but you have to call the secret planes SOMETHING
on the various sheets. An ambiguous/generic "YF" designation among
the various aircraft allows it such that no one can ask "What's the
B-3 I hear on the radio? So they're testing a new bomber huh?" It's
part of keeping the programs quite.
Oh, BTW, YF-110 and YF-113 is on McClouds and Manclark's bio folks.
(Look it up on serchmil.com!!!) Those were MIGS assigned to the
4447th TES Red Eagles/ Red Hats. I don't know what was or who flew
the YF-113G though. (Which is a different A/C!) I recomend Curtis
Peebes Dark Eagles, it has a good chapter on the MIGS and the YF
stuff. (But it may have the G wrong.....not sure right no)
Kevin
F-117A Webmaster
www.f-117a.com
John Keeney
Carl Bergqvist <carl.be...@telia.com> wrote in message
news:gTia7.12$Ur4....@news.bahnhof.se...
Yes, used by the Navy or Marines, but not the Air Force.
Andreas Parsch
>
> Oh, BTW, YF-110 and YF-113 is on McClouds and Manclark's bio folks.
> (Look it up on serchmil.com!!!) Those were MIGS assigned to the
> 4447th TES Red Eagles/ Red Hats. I don't know what was or who flew
> the YF-113G though. (Which is a different A/C!) I recomend Curtis
> Peebes Dark Eagles, it has a good chapter on the MIGS and the YF
> stuff. (But it may have the G wrong.....not sure right no)
Peebles doesn't mention the YF-113G