Those mysterious F-110+ designations

Barnes' reference to MiG-25 is interesting. It was rumored at the time that what was returned to the USSR was not the same as what had landed at Hakodate.
 
I've always known HAVE BLUE as, well... HAVE BLUE.

However this presentation (on DARPA Agent Markup Language) from 2003 by a Dr Mark Greaves of DARPA (a former DAML Project Manager) notes it as 'HAVE BLUE (F-116)'...

Greaves later reused the content in this presentation made at a conference in 2013

Greaves was with DARPA from 2001-2005 (for non-Aviation projects it has to be said), previously was with Boeing Phantom Works (again, non-Aviation) and later worked for Paul Allen startup Vulcan Inc. He is currently 'Technical Director for Analytics in the National Security Directorate of the US's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory'.

We know of course that projects such as TACIT BLUE and Bird of Prey had YF designations, so I wonder is this a simple mistake or any Members have some fessing-up to do?...
 
Great find Mr London,


and if that's right and not misprint,in 1991,I read on US book,that the F-112 up to
F-116 was a series of unusual designs,and never allocated to a MiG or a Sukhoi as
famous,I forget the name of this book now,but I will remember it.
 
Mr London 24/7 said:
I've always known HAVE BLUE as, well... HAVE BLUE.

However this presentation (on DARPA Agent Markup Language) from 2003 by a Dr Mark Greaves of DARPA (a former DAML Project Manager) notes it as 'HAVE BLUE (F-116)'...

Greaves later reused the content in this presentation made at a conference in 2013

Greaves was with DARPA from 2001-2005 (for non-Aviation projects it has to be said), previously was with Boeing Phantom Works (again, non-Aviation) and later worked for Paul Allen startup Vulcan Inc. He is currently 'Technical Director for Analytics in the National Security Directorate of the US's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory'.

We know of course that projects such as TACIT BLUE and Bird of Prey had YF designations, so I wonder is this a simple mistake or any Members have some fessing-up to do?...
Click to expand...

You must note that he uses brackets for operational platform mentioned after tech demonstrator or predecessor - Tacit Blue (B-2), Amber (Predator). Logically it should have been Have Blue (F-117)...
 
flateric said:
You must note that he uses brackets for operational platform mentioned after tech demonstrator or predecessor - Tacit Blue (B-2), Amber (Predator). Logically it should have been Have Blue (F-117)...
Click to expand...

Yes indeed Grigory, but I think I wrote a very careful post, No?

Once I found the ref I simply couldn't leave it un-mentioned. It stands to some reason that all Tech Demo's flying from Groom bore a YF designator for the Pilots logbooks. So I'm interested of course in YF-116...
 
flateric said:
You must note that he uses brackets for operational platform mentioned after tech demonstrator or predecessor - Tacit Blue (B-2), Amber (Predator). Logically it should have been Have Blue (F-117)...
Click to expand...

I agree with you here, flateric, although how such a typo could go unnoticed and uncorrected is beyond me.
 
I would say it is definitely a typo, which is not surprising. I have seen many egregious typos in government documents and presentations.

The designations YF-112, YF-113H, YF-116A, and others, have appeared in work histories of Red Hats pilots, which is consistent with their use for foreign types. Designations like YF-117A and YF-118G have been linked to non-foreign experimental types and prototypes.

Only one Air Force pilot flew Have Blue and I heard that he never logged his hours. This is supposedly why, according to one source, it never had a YF designation. So far, no numerical designation has ever appeared in any declassified Have Blue documentation.
 
Whisperstream said:
I would say it is definitely a typo, which is not surprising. I have seen many egregious typos in government documents and presentations.

The designations YF-112, YF-113H, YF-116A, and others, have appeared in work histories of Red Hats pilots, which is consistent with their use for foreign types. Designations like YF-117A and YF-118G have been linked to non-foreign experimental types and prototypes.

Only one Air Force pilot flew Have Blue and I heard that he never logged his hours. This is supposedly why, according to one source, it never had a YF designation. So far, no numerical designation has ever appeared in any declassified Have Blue documentation.
Click to expand...
I agree. -SP
 
Some former USAF logging their service against YF-113/MiG-23:


http://airforce.togetherweserved.com/usaf/servlet/tws.webapp.WebApp?cmd=ShadowBoxProfile&type=PersonAircraftExt&ID=40412


Aircraft Listing for 4477th TES (includes YF-116/MiG-25):


http://airforce.togetherweserved.com/usaf/servlet/tws.webapp.WebApp?cmd=PublicUnitProfile&type=Unit&ID=23974
 
Mr London 24/7 said:
Some former USAF logging their service against YF-113/MiG-23:


http://airforce.togetherweserved.com/usaf/servlet/tws.webapp.WebApp?cmd=ShadowBoxProfile&type=PersonAircraftExt&ID=40412


Aircraft Listing for 4477th TES (includes YF-116/MiG-25):


http://airforce.togetherweserved.com/usaf/servlet/tws.webapp.WebApp?cmd=PublicUnitProfile&type=Unit&ID=23974
Click to expand...
Good stuff - Thank You! -SP
 
I question the accuracy of some of those listings. Just saying' based on my experience.
 
Whisperstream said:
I question the accuracy of some of those listings. Just saying' based on my experience.
Click to expand...

Certainly I would expect YF-116 to have been with 6513TS as opposed to 4477TES, and of course I wouldn't rule out some inaccuracy of the designations when compared to your research. However it's of interest that individuals link their service to this unit and furthers the topic still I think.
 
RM:What years did you work at the Test Site?
RJG:​In ’84, ’85, ’86, ’87, up to the late ’90s.... ​my basic seven years were at Area 10 (Mr London: TTR). I worked where I had to go into secure areas.
RM:​What were you doing in Area 10?
RJG:​Basically, we took care of anything that had to move. They would take the MiG 25 and the T-38 and the Stealth out there.
RM:​So they had a Soviet MiG 25?
RJG:​Yes, they had several. That’s what the 445 (Mr London: 4450th TG) did, was make parts for the MiG. They were from Russia so of course, they had Russian parts and they had to make parts out at the Test Site—you didn’t order a ball bearing from Russia. That’s what that wing did, strictly, was keep the Russian planes flying.
RM:​Were they using the Russian planes for training?
RJG:​How else are you going to keep the Russians from seeing your airplane if you don’t know what the MiG can do with it and the Stealth can do with a MiG? That’s how they got all their information. That was why everything was so secret.
RM:​So they were analyzing its performance and giving the guys training against a real MiG.
RJG:​Right, and to be sure the Stealth could not be recognized or seen.
RM:​Do you believe that it can’t be recognized?
RJG:​There’s no doubt about it.
Click to expand...

From pages 41-42, Nye County Oral history interview with former Test Site worker R.J Gillum (https://nyecountyhistory.com/gillum/gillum.doc).

Granted, Gillum may be misidentifying the type (from MiG-23), but again my interest is possible MiG-25.
 
Having now read through his entire interview, I don't believe that Gillum would know the difference between a MiG-25 and a MiG-23. More likely, the designation "MiG-25" stuck in his mind because of news coverage from the Belenko defection and got conflated over time with whatever he saw or heard at TTR. Much of his recollections have clearly been distorted or garbled over time, but a knowledgeable person can often infer what he really means based on the context. There are other statements he made during the course of his interview that seemed a bit nutty and/or extremist. In short, he said a few intriguing things, but I would never rely on his word as a sole source.
 
TTR is usually listed as Area 52, but it has a section called Area 10, which is not to be confused with the Area 10 at the northern end of Yucca Flat on the Nevada Test Site. TTR also has a Site 4, which Gillum refers to as "Area 4" in his interview.
 
Whisperstream said:
TTR is usually listed as Area 52, but it has a section called Area 10, which is not to be confused with the Area 10 at the northern end of Yucca Flat on the Nevada Test Site. TTR also has a Site 4, which Gillum refers to as "Area 4" in his interview.
Click to expand...
Interesting - thanks, Whisperstream whoever you are. -SP
 
Mr London 24/7 said:
to be able to go the places I've gone, see the people I've seen and fly the Aircraft, such as the MIG-21 and MIG-25, I've flown, well, it is phenomenal," General Keys said
Click to expand...


(http://www.maxwell.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123164467)


Mmmmmm really?....: unfortunately retired former ACC Commander Gen. Keys doesn't have any glaring entries (eg 6513th TS, 4477th TES etc) in his Bio (Unless some of his command positions gave him opportunities along the lines of Bobby Bond).


(http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/104866/general-ronald-e-keys.aspx)
Click to expand...
I believe that he flew MIG-25 in Russia .

"I grew up on a small farm in Kansas, and to be able to go the places I've gone, see the people I've seen and fly aircraft, such as the MIG-21 and MIG-25 I've flown, well, it is phenomenal," General Keys said. "I had the opportunity to walk around Moscow by myself after the wall came down, and had it not been for the Air Force, I would never have been able to do that, or, for that matter, have the friends I have today,"

 
I think that Ronald Keys, when he was a Major, was one of the founders of the Aggressor Squadron concept with General John Jumper while developing fighter pilot training programs at Nellis. His association with the Aggressors may have allowed him to fly the MiG-21's. As far as flying the MiG-25 I would think that this flight was after the collapse of the Soviet Union when the Russians were selling everything, including flights in some of their MiGs.
 
This thread is amazing, and packed with some ironies... my favorite one is the Phantom and Mig-21 becoming"designations siblings" - F-110A & F-110B - in 1969. "Make love, not war" - you are brothers, stop killing yourselves in Vietnam...
 
Slightly off-topic, must wonder if some of those 'aggressors' were augmented by US designs modified with fillets / slipper-tanks etc to give unexpected outlines and flight characteristics...

Hopefully, such doings were fully documented, to be de-classified in mid-century. But, given US nuclear weapon program managed to lose the arcane recipe for its FOGBANK aerogel filling...

( IIRC, part of the problem was that modern reagents were just too pure. Bit like the story of WW2 polyethylene, which would only polymerise correctly in presence of near-catalytic trace of oxygen. Or the Manhattan Project's issues with trace neutron absorbers in pile's carbon moderator ? Boron ? Said to have further hamstrung German efforts... )
 
Is there any confirm about those designations ?.

Area 51 (Images of Aviation)
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    950.6 KB · Views: 44
Over the years, those designations have appeared in a variety of official USAF biographical summaries and work histories posted online, as well as in posts by former Red Hats/Red Eagles pilots in online discussion forums. The three-digit MDS designations became so commonplace that it was jarring to see the two-digit YF-24 designation show up in an Air Force bio back in the early 2000's. Arguments that this was a typographical error appear to be unfounded but no additional information has emerged.
 
Do we have any idea yet, which of those designations would apply to the Flankers and Fulcrums they have out there?

After all, I think it was the most recent show on Discovery about Area 51, where they were saying near the end that they knew that aircraft we didn't know about were being flown out of there, but nothing had been revealed. They said it while they had video of a MiG-29 doing a demo above their heads when they were out there filming. I remember watching it, thinking, "Ummm, just look up."
 
Sadly, I have yet to connect any specific YF-11X designations for either the MiG-29 or Su-27 variants that have been tested in recent years.

Sundog said:
Do we have any idea yet, which of those designations would apply to the Flankers and Fulcrums they have out there?

After all, I think it was the most recent show on Discovery about Area 51, where they were saying near the end that they knew that aircraft we didn't know about were being flown out of there, but nothing had been revealed. They said it while they had video of a MiG-29 doing a demo above their heads when they were out there filming. I remember watching it, thinking, "Ummm, just look up."
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom