Those mysterious F-110+ designations

Fascinating stuff. Thanks a lot Mr London 24/7!
 
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: 62
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...
 
Whisperstream said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the necroposting, but FWIW, the "Foxbat" was called the "MiG-23" in the Western press from 1967 (Domodedovo unveiling) to the early 1970s when "MiG-25" began to be used. Some confusion might be justified.

1733605498088.jpeg

1733605534157.jpeg
 
Stargazer said:
Interestingly, a new "Nevada Aerospace Hall of Fame" website is in preparation and due next Christmas. The subtitle for the site is "Recognizing the Aerospace Legacy of the State of Nevada."
Click to expand...

Since there doesn't seem to have been an update on this site...

And a few interesting documents in PDF format:
Although the site has existed for several years and appears to be maintained, I strongly advise anyone with an interest in these files to properly download them and save them, just in case they should disappear from the web some day.
 
Last edited:
tacitblue1973 said:
"Throw a Nickel on the Grass"
Click to expand...
Side note: Lt. Col. Joe B. Jordan is the Air Force pilot in this video who clandestinely went to Israel to fly the the MiG-21, making him the first US pilot to fly the MiG-21.
 
I'm sharing here a few selected excerpts from the thread Current mystery aircraft / urban legends. Of course, the thread in question contains a lot of crazy and unsubstantiated theories about rumored aircraft and unexplained sightings, but there is also some valuable information that has been lost to the regular "serious" sections because it was filed under the "Speculation" header. Here is a series of such excerpts:

A reminder of how the YF-11* series of designations came to be:
Whisperstream said:
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-114C.
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.
Click to expand...
Note that no "YF-111_" designators werer ever allocated, presumably to avoid confusion with the General Dynamics fighter.


The "YF-273" and "X-220" designators:
Dynoman said:
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).
Click to expand...
Dynoman said:
Q-Nimbus, looking closer to at the Bio,
"In a previous command role, he served as a squadron commander and director of a combined test force conducting high-priority next generation air dominance flight tests of unique experimental aircraft."
His previous command role was:
"June 2014 – July 2016, Squadron Commander, Assignment data masked"
Which was likely the Classified Flight Test Squadron, or something similar to the 413th FTS. Therefore, I would translate that to mean that the NGAD aircraft test aircraft was designated YF-220 or X-273.
Click to expand...
Dew said:
"X-273 was the DARPA X-plane technology risk reduction / experimentation precursor, where as YF-220 was an NGAD full build ala YF-22/23" from user 'Smythers' on DLR
Click to expand...
Ninja said:
According to some quick research both designations were removed from his bio and are now referred to as "a prototype, and a demonstrator aircraft".
Click to expand...
Note that it has been assumed that YF-220 was the prototype and X-273 the demonstrator aircraft (because of the order in the original publication), but it could very well be the other way around, and as a matter of fact, it makes more sense to have a prototype as an "X" and a demonstrator as a "Y".

The YF-24 prototype:
quellish said:
A "YF-24" was mentioned in someone's USAF bio. [NOTE: that was Joseph A. “Broadway Joe” Lanni]
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.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with this, if only because the documents pertaining to the MRF-24F and MRF-24X configurations describe them as "1998 technology" and "2003 technology", respectively, which does not quite fit the timeframe, since Lanni said he had flown the F-24 in 1997. Just as a reminder of those two designs (iterations of Boeing Model 1798), here is a comparative view, which shows that the "X" was basically a tailless "F". One can imagine that other iterations may have existed.

1742289919909.png
Ian33 said:
Boomer135 just gave out that he has refuelled the YF-24 as 'one of three demonstrators' he has refuelled over area 51. The kicker is that it had retractable canards. The other being a mini B2'esque flying wing. Here is the link to the entire thread.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1015080/pg1
Click to expand...
Dynoman said:
I have read that the "Fire Eagle' was associated with the YF-24 designation and then I've read elsewhere that the 'Fire Eagle' was a tailless F-15. The patch below has also been linked to the Fire Eagle. I have also heard a rumor that the aircraft crashed and that a USAF test pilot flying the aircraft ejected with severe injuries, but recovered.
Click to expand...

USAF confirms existence of pre-NGAD secret X-plane:
serg.gonzp said:
Kendall Reveals Secret X-Plane Program Paved the Way for NGAD
An "X-plane" program flew in the mid-2010s ahead of the NGAD fighter program, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall revealed.
www.airandspaceforces.com
Click to expand...

Source of the YF-45D designator:
Ninja said:
YF-45D: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...0QFnoECBsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3alRzeOWj_vG3K6gNDaRpv

Col. Dan Javorsek's bio: https://www.afotec.af.mil/Portals/69/Det 6 CC_Javorsek (Animal) Bio_June 2022 Pushed 28 April 23_1.pdf
It doesnt mention the 2 aircraft anymore, but here is the screenshot from when it did.

Click to expand...

A not-often-discussed secret V/STOL program from the 1980s:
aliensporebomb said:
The twin quiet VS/TOL prototypes I saw in outstate Minnesota 1989 also have not come to light. I have read two other individuals had sightings of these crafts (one near the Pine Barrens in New Jersey around the same approximate time) and one other I'd have to look in my notes to see specifics.
This is the craft(s) that Jim Goodsall said were being tested in the "Midwest and Michigan" and that I was very fortunate to see them. Well, he was right about that since that was 34 years ago and were likely prototypes and I've never seen anything like them since.
Click to expand...

Number of secret prototypes at Groom Lake:
quellish said:
I have in front of me a different bio, from a different person. While with the flight test squadron at Groom Lake between 1999 and 2001 he worked on more than 70 classified prototypes.
70+. In 2 years.
Click to expand...
Q-nimbus said:
70 different prototypes is simply impossible if these are all airframes. There simply isn’t enough hangar space, not even with Groom Lake and Tonopah combined.
Click to expand...
greenmartian2017 said:
Whisperstream, could you hazard a guess as to quantifying the "extraordinary number" of black projects flown at Groom Lake and TTR?
Click to expand...
Whisperstream said:
I couldn't begin to offer any sort of precise number. Years ago someone suggested that there had been "at least seven and as many as 11" black projects flown since the 1980s that had yet to be declassified. That estimate was based on bad data. If anything, it now seems like a low number. These programs remain largely hidden but they cast shadows. Hints can be found in military budgets, financial disclosures from major aerospace contractors, satellite imagery of test sites, movement of commuter shuttles between the test ranges, and the menagerie of spooky program logos and insignia.
Click to expand...
These elements of discussion led me to consider a hypothesis that has surprisingly NOT been made: that "more than 70" should actually have read "more than seven". If it was a typo (however unfortunate), then it is completely consistent with "at least seven and as many as 11." Certainly, even if all manufacturers had contributed prototypes for secret evaluation, and even if a few FME aircraft were tossed in the mix, there is absolutely no way over 70 different secret aircraft could have been operated from the same airbase at the same time.
 
There are about 25 hangars at Groom Lake with approximately 60 support buildings. I would assume that not all of the hangars are occupied with a project aircraft. The Red Hats have a hangar, there is Dyson's Dock hangar, and some may being used for maintenance or fabrication. In years past the base operated only a hand full of known projects at any given time, typically 5-10 over a 10 year period. (See Area 51 Timeline https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/area-51-timeline.42612/#post-639009

This would equate to one or two major flight test programs a year. A number of drone type programs could also be flown, which would not necessarily require the same scale of support.

With the escalating cost of programs today I would imagine that the number of projects being supported are on the lower side of the scale, i.e. 5 or 6 programs every 10 years. The limited facility space is why CONSTANT PEG developed the TTR facility and why the F-117A moved out of Groom Lake for TTR. There just wasn't enough hangar and facility space to keep multiple classified programs there, especially multiple operational aircraft.

Its estimated that approximately 1,500 people work at Area 51 compared to Edwards AFB 412th Test Wing of 2,000. Edwards operates approximately 90 aircraft with 30 different aircraft designs (some are TPS aircraft, others are chase and support aircraft) and about six known aircraft involved in experimental flight test programs per year.

If Area 51 has similar stat's then they are probably conducting about 5 major flight test programs a year. These could be YF-220, X-273, RQ-180?, and a couple of others. Other test programs could include systems level testing of existing aircraft (i.e. stealth applications, electronic warfare systems, aircraft weapons systems, etc.) and flown against the DYCOM radars and other RCS and air defense radars.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom