What happened to the F-24 - F-31 ?

MartG · June 21, 2006, 03:38:55 AM

Just been looking into possible numbers for whiff US fighters - does anyone know of anything that falls into the gap between the YF-23 and the F-32 ( presumably if it had been chosen this is what the X-32 would have become ). Same for the gap between the F-32 and the F-35 ?

Is it like the F-19 - just a number that was never assigned to anything ( or anything yet revealed to the public )

Hobbes · June 21, 2006, 04:08:33 AM

Wasn't the F-35 number derived from the X-35 designation of the prototype? The X-planes were numbered in order, so X-35 was a logical choice.

MartG · June 21, 2006, 04:16:35 AM

So when the JSF competition went to the flying prototype stage, the X-32 should really have been the YF-24, and the X-35 the YF-25

Hmmm - so should my USN Hawk fighter be numbered F-24, or F-45 'cos its based on the T-45 Goshawk

Captain Canada · June 21, 2006, 05:09:32 AM

That's a tough call, Mart.....I'd probably go with F-45. But I purport to know nothing about USN designations.

It just sounds right being a T-45 deriviative.

Cheers !

anthonyp · June 21, 2006, 05:42:45 AM

I'd go A-45 or maybe F/A-45 for a USN Hawk fighter. It's not supersonic, and the USN doesn't like giving non-supersonic planes the F designation. The USAF on the other hand... They're a very confused service. The F-111 and F-117 have virtually no air-to-air capabilities, yet are designated fighters.

I've got plans for an A-45 for use as an export light naval figther.

Jennings · June 21, 2006, 05:59:39 AM

The entire US Mission Design Series (MDS) system of aircraft & missile nomenclature is, not to put too fine a point on it, fecked up beyond all recognition these days. There are actually rules governing how designations are supposed to be arrived at, but they are systematically and blatantly ignored nowadays. There have always been foul-ups in the system, but by and large, it worked.

Now we have official designations like KC-767, KC-330, etc. Done purely for commercial gain, made official by the USAF, and totally without merit. It's like everything else in the US military these days - utterly without regard to history or purpose. We just do it and worry about the consequences (if ever) later. Much like Iraq...

J

MartG · June 21, 2006, 06:02:28 AM

QuoteI've got plans for an A-45 for use as an export light naval figther.

Great minds and all that....

I'm planning RN and USN versions, based on the Italeri T-45 combined with the forward fuselage from the Matchbox Hawk 200. It'll be a few weeks before I get started on them though - got a clutch of Gnats to do first

anthonyp · June 21, 2006, 06:25:54 AM

I think Toad did pretty much what you described once upon a time. Turned out pretty good from what I can remember.

I was going to either build up the T-45 into an attack bird, or take a Hawk 100 front end and put it on the butt end of a T-45.

tigercat2 · June 21, 2006, 06:30:02 AM

For an excellent and accurate discussion on the above topic, go to

http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav...andard-mds.html

this is part of a very well done series by Andreas Parsch, and it will answer any quesiton you might have about teh US Military designation system.

It also covers really, really non-standard designations such as KC-767, as well as the "missing" designations like the F-19.

Wes W.

MartG · June 21, 2006, 06:46:14 AM

Quoteor take a Hawk 100 front end and put it on the butt end of a T-45.

That's planned too - are you reading my mind

In which case you'll know what aerobatic team one of my Hawks will belong to

Hobbes · June 21, 2006, 07:10:40 AM

QuoteThe entire US Mission Design Series (MDS) system of aircraft & missile nomenclature is, not to put too fine a point on it, fecked up beyond all recognition these days.

Just "these days"? As if it made any more sense in the past. Try making sense of F4D Skyray versus F4F Wildcat versus F4H/F-4 Phantom (with its variants, which thankfully do not include D or F), and others in the same vein.
The KC-767 designation makes a lot more sense to me than using an Air Force number instead of the Boeing number.

Then there's the Canadians, who assign their own number to keep things simple.
No, I prefer the British way, assigning a name instead. True, there are some collisions, but they're easily dealt with using Roman numerals.

Spey_Phantom · June 21, 2006, 09:33:19 AM

most concider the X-32A to be called F-32, i preffer the designation F/A-32, its got a much better sound to it.

as for the X-29, the designation F-29A would be fine, flying under the name Scorpion B)

PolluxDeltaSeven · June 21, 2006, 11:08:22 AM

QuoteNow we have official designations like KC-767, KC-330, etc. Done purely for commercial gain, made official by the USAF, and totally without merit. It's like everything else in the US military these days - utterly without regard to history or purpose. We just do it and worry about the consequences (if ever) later. Much like Iraq...

Yes, that's sadly true...

It's like the US101 Merlin!! What an ugly name for such an helicopter!!

But in a whif world (or in "Nellis AFB reality"

) why not imagining that the F-35 was designed like this because the USAF and US Navy wanted to hide the real name of classified Black Programs of fighters!!

We could have the YF-25 Sparrow, a single engine F-23 never enter in production but tested during the 1990's at Groom Lake... Or the F/A-24 Avenger II, a serial of 48 units of A-12 for USAF use, enter in service in the late 1990's in order to complete the F-117 force.
The F-26 Scimitar was some Su-27 tested in the 1990's while the F/A-27 could have been an operationnal strike variant of the famous Aurora!

Or later, when US forces will want new Agressors, we could have the F-28A Rafale and the F-29A/B Gripen !!

Well, some stuff like that

jcf · June 21, 2006, 11:33:05 AM

Quote
Just "these days"? As if it made any more sense in the past. Try making sense of F4D Skyray versus F4F Wildcat versus F4H/F-4 Phantom (with its variants, which thankfully do not include D or F), and others in the same vein. .

Actually the pre-1962 USN designations make perfect sense when you learn how to read them...and personally I find them much cooler than the rather boring USAAC/UAAAF/USAF sequential numbering.

Cheers, Jon

tigercat2 · June 21, 2006, 11:46:02 AM

You are right about the pre-1962 Navy designations, once you understand the 'system" it did make sense. BTW, it seems as if there were more "F4X" designations used than any others:

F4B, F4C, F4D, F4F, F4H, and F4U. Can anyone think of any more? Also what was the highest number designator used in the pre-1962 series? I believe it was the Curtiss F15C, but there may be one higher.

Wes W.