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

[jcf]

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

The service designation will be VH-71.

They've skipped the H-69 designator and say it will never be used because of the "special connotation".  :ar:

BTW a USAF A-12 would still be an A-12, remember that since 1962 its been a "unified" numbering system and as the, evidently disliked, F/A designator has been dropped for the F-22...I kinda doubt that it would be revived by the USAF boys.

Cheers, Jon

[Jennings]

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.

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.

The old Navy system, while a little klunky, made perfectly logical sense.  The current joint system, evolved from the old USAAF/USAF system is a total mess.  It exists for a reason.  When the AF starts assigning assinine things as official like "KC-767" then why even bother having a system at all.  Just call it what the feck ever you feel like (which is what they're doing) based on who gives you the biggest kickback.  True, there have been slip-ups with the system in the past, but overall it works quite well.  

KC-767 makes *NO* sense whatsoever.  That would imply that it's a tanker version of the C-767, which it isn't, because there's no such thing.  If the USAF buys the proposed 767-400ER-based system to replace the E-3, E-8 (which should have been called an EC-137D, by the way), and RC-135 families, it will be designated the E-10.  Thus, the tanker should be a KE-10, not a KC-767.  Or else the recce platform should be the E-767B.  See what I mean?  FUBAR.

A good friend of mine used to work for AF Systems Command, and he is the reason the Saudi tankers are called KE-3s and not KC-137s.  Some dolt at AFSC was insistent that the tanker was based on a passenger airplane and not on the E-3 airframe, and thus should go in the C-137 series.  Patently untrue, says Jack.  It's an E-3 airframe turned into a tanker, and other than the basic shape and some basic systems, shares virtually nothing in common with a C-137.  He had to fight long and hard to have them correctly name it the KE-3.  But in the end he won, and the airplane was correctly designated.  

Those days are over.

J (this is a big pet peeve of mine)

[Hatchet]

F4B, F4C, F4D, F4F, F4H, and F4U.

F4B: Fighter, #4, Boeing
F4C: Fighter, #4, Curtiss (IIRC)
F4D: Fighter, #4, Douglas
F4F: Fighter, #4, Grumman
F4H: Fighter, #4, McDonnell
F4U: Fighter, #4, Vought

Nice and easy The problem is in the version designators. -1 is what would today be the A model, then there's -2, -3 and so on. But there's also -1P, for recce, -1N for night fighter and -1M for missile carrying. I'm pretty sure there's more than those. Of course, if the Navy had continued with this designation system, the N and M suffixes would probably be unused now, since most planes have radar and missiles today. So, we coulda had the Grumman F14F-3P Tomcat today (TARPS capable F-14D), or the F5H-2 Hornet. How they designated trainers, I don't know, possibly a T suffix.

[garys]

Going back to the original thought, the missing F numbers. I believe the reason for the jump to F-35 is politics (surprise!). In making a speech somewhere some very high level politician referred to the X-35 as the F-35 and in order to avoid embarrasement the DoD made it official.

Budget considerations are why we have an F/-18E/F instead of an F/A-24A/B.  The Super Hornet is a completely different a/c not a small improvement on the F/A-18C/D.  But this is really nothing new, remember the F8U-3 and F9F-9.

I concur that the old Navy system made perfect sense, with few exceptions.  I do believe the XF15C was the highest number in any category.

I think an attack Hawk would be AT-45, an advanced trainer with attack capability like the AT-38.  Might be easier to get funding, LOL.

My 2 cents,
Gary

[anthonyp]

I based the A-45 designation on the T-37/A-37 planes.  The A-37 is changed a bit structurally from the T-37.  I see an A-45 changed much the same way from a T-45.

[jcf]

Trainers used an "N".

Cheers, Jon

[Hatchet]

Trainers used an "N".

Cheers, Jon

Oh, sorry. I thought the N was for nightfighter, i.e. radar (but not neccesarily missile) equipped.

[elmayerle]

N as the first letter denoted a purpose-built trainer, such as the N3N-1 "Yellow Peril" training biplane of WW II.  Used after the dash number, such as F6F-5N, it does indeed connote a night fighter.

[Hatchet]

N as the first letter denoted a purpose-built trainer, such as the N3N-1 "Yellow Peril" training biplane of WW II.  Used after the dash number, such as F6F-5N, it does indeed connote a night fighter.

Ah, ok. Thanks Evan.

What would the F/A-18B be then? F5H-1T?

[NARSES2]

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

Got to agree with you John. Once I'd read it in my copy of the Putnams US Navy book it became logical

Chris

[elmayerle]

N as the first letter denoted a purpose-built trainer, such as the N3N-1 "Yellow Peril" training biplane of WW II.  Used after the dash number, such as F6F-5N, it does indeed connote a night fighter.

Ah, ok. Thanks Evan.

What would the F/A-18B be then? F5H-1T?

Most likely, at least at first.  As new operational uses of it developed, I'm sure more variations would be designated.

[Hobbes]

The old system may be consistent, but it's user-hostile.  

[elmayerle]

Oh, and for what it's worth, the F-20 was originally carried as the F-5G by Northrop; the numbering change was, I believe, a marketing tactic.

[waynos]

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)

Thats an uncanny coincidence! When I posted my X-29 fighter on here 6 months ago I said it was the BAe Scorpion F.1, the UK variant of the US F-29A Tigerbat (see what I did there also?)

[waynos]

Also, according to an online biography for Col Joe Lanni (google the name) there IS  a YF-24 but nobody knows what it is yet. He is listed as having flown it.

I figured that, after everyone went nuts looking for the F-19 after the F-20 numeral was used they just decided to change the 'X-35' designation of the JSF to 'F-35' because it looks logical in a superficial sort of way and hides the existance of the YF-24. Had they called the F-35 the F-25, like they should have, everyone would have been hunting the missing plane.

Logical, or bollox?