It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Designations

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I have a question for anyone who can help me, there are many anomalous designations of US aircraft, they are far and wide, but my question is more specific. Why did the US start certain sequences again from Scratch?

I don't mean the simplification process of the early '60's, I'm perfectly au fait with that, but Why were the C-141 Starlifter and XC-142 followed by the C-5 Galaxy? Likewise How come the 1974 Rockwell bomber prototype was suddenly the B-1? why not continue with the numbers sequence already in use ?

Anyone?




posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I can't say for certain about the C-5, but the original design was the Model 500, so it's possible they just shortened it when they designated it.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Its just like transition from the aicraft names from WW2 to the modern times. Like P-51 Mustang instead of the F-51 Mustang. I think that was later on.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Not really, that is easily explainable because it marks the time when the USA changed from 'Pursuit' to 'Fighter'. So what was the explanation for this change?



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   
The only thing I can think of is what I already posted. It was the model 500, so they just shortened it. For the C-5 anyway.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Not really, that is easily explainable because it marks the time when the USA changed from 'Pursuit' to 'Fighter'. So what was the explanation for this change?


(shrugs) its the Air Forces choice to change the designation as they see fit. Kind of like the SSN 21 for the Seawolf as mean for 21st century submarine instead of naming the designation after the last improved Los Angeles class submarine. Why name C-130, why not C-13 or something like that?. They just giving them names.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Deltaboy, you are missing the entire point. They don't just randomly allocate designations, everything happens for a reason. Why do you think there is an unbroken sequence from the P-1 through to the F-111, maybe P-13 was missed for superstitious reasons but every other number was allocated in sequence. Now the fighter sequence changed when the system was simplified in 1962 and manufacturers letters were dropped from naval designations and a common system was adopted for all services, therefore (for example) the F4H-1 and F-110 simply became the F-4 Phantom, the F-22 is the latest in that sequence. Thinking about it, maybe the transport sequence changed at the same time? as the C-5 was from around the mid 60's, and there was no obvious need to redesignate the C-130 and C-141 as they were only in USAF service at the time so there was no conflict. Maybe they just decided to start again from C-1 in 1962?

Hmm, thinking further, the B-70 was started in the late fifties so could it be that, even though it only flew in 1974, the B-1 was actually the first new US bomber to be launched after the system changed in 1962?

Zaphod, I don't think that can be the answer as the C-5 is a DoD designation while the model 500 is a Lockheed designation, its possible, but I think the one I just came up with might be the answer, Unless anyone knows better?



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   
www.designation-systems.net...

Here you can read this. This explains why they change the designations.


The current designation system for U.S. military aircraft was introduced by the Department of Defense in 1962. It was based on the system used by the U.S. Air Force between 1948 and 1962, and replaced the older systems used by the U.S Navy (and Marine Corps) and the U.S. Army. Existing aircraft which used designations not compliant with the new system (all Navy and Marine Corps, many Army, and a few Air Force aircraft) were redesignated effectively on 18 September 1962 (see source [1] and article on Aircraft Redesignations in 1962). The designation system has since been slightly revised and extended, and the latest version is defined by Air Force Instruction (AFI) 16-401(I) (formerly Air Force Joint Instruction 16-401) Designating and Naming Military Aerospace Vehicles (PDF file, 480 kB), dated 14 March 2005. AFI 16-401(I) not only covers aircraft designations, but also the designations of unmanned vehicles (missiles etc.) and some of the bureaucratic red tape to be followed for actually assigning a name or a designation to a military aerospace vehicle.

According to the rules, all aircraft operated by the U.S. military services (Air Force, Navy, Marines, Army) are to receive an official designation as defined in AFI 16-401(I). In practice, however, all services operate a few off-the-shelf aircraft under the manufacturers' designations. The U.S. Coast Guard also allocates military designations to most of its aircraft, and the NASA uses the X-for-Experimental designation series extensively for its own research aircraft.




[edit on 5-12-2005 by deltaboy]



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
already covered in my last post, nothing new there.

[edit on 5-12-2005 by waynos]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
I have a question for anyone who can help me, there are many anomalous designations of US aircraft, they are far and wide, but my question is more specific. Why did the US start certain sequences again from Scratch?


Good Question! Let me take a crack at it. By the 1960's the US fighters were into the Century Series (F-100 through F-111). Some time around the Viet Nam Era, the CIA and USAF started a intelligence operation code named Red Hat, which involves testing forign (mostly Russian) aircraft. To hide these aircraft, they were given US designations YF-112 through YF-116 (there may be more that we don't know about)! To hide the program, the USAF decided that all designation YF-112 and higher would be used for Classified Aircraft Programs. To accomidate these classified programs, the US Air Force decided to Restart the Designations at F-1 and B-1.

So today F-1 through F-111 are allowed for regular programs, while all designation above F-112 are reserved for Black Projects. Hope that helps!

Tim



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   
The existance of the F-117 certainly seems to give a ring of truth to that idea Tim. I don't know though, its a puzzle alright.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   
The F-111 was actually going to be designated 'F-19' and i think the Nighthawk may have been too. F-117 is a bit of a mouthfull but im not so bothered much anyway.

Isnt the F-117 Nighthawk a bomber? If it is then why is it designated as a Fighter?. It could have been used to confuse spies becouse the plane came out at the end of the cold war. Could have been designated as an Attacker maybe. Suppose its all ok the way it is.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I don't know where you got that from Browno,

The F-111 designation simply followed on from the F-110 Phantom and was the last known 'in sequence' designation in the original system.

Even if it was designated in the new system the last new fighter produced before it was the YF-12 so it would have taken the 'F-14' designation that the Tomcat got, not that this was ever an option.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Browno
Isnt the F-117 Nighthawk a bomber? If it is then why is it designated as a Fighter?. It could have been used to confuse spies becouse the plane came out at the end of the cold war. Could have been designated as an Attacker maybe. Suppose its all ok the way it is.


If memory serves me, I believe that the aircraft previous to the F-117 were actually captured Soviet aircraft of the notorious Red Hats squadron, and that certain MiGs and Sukhois had designations like YF-114, YF-115, etc. F-117 was chosen for OPSEC reasons, to hide the true nature of the program. Had the program been developed in an unclassified forum, I suppose the aircraft would have had an "attack" designation, something like A-19 or sumfin'......



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
If memory serves me, I believe that the aircraft previous to the F-117 were actually captured Soviet aircraft of the notorious Red Hats squadron, and that certain MiGs and Sukhois had designations like YF-114, YF-115, etc.


Right! YF-112 through YF-116 are captured Soviet/Russian aircraft. They are flown by the Red Hat squadron based as Groom Lake.

Tim



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 07:33 AM
link   
No idea... An exellent question... I have always wondered about that...

F-14 --> F-15 --> F-16 --> Y/F-17 --> F/A-18 --> F-19 (logical)

Then It countinues F-22 --> F-35... So odd... (everything but logical)

[edit on 8-12-2005 by Figher Master FIN]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Well FIN, of course the F-19 seems to have been missed and then there's the F-20 Tigershark and the F-21 Lion (IAI Kfir C2), followed of course by the F/A-22 and YF-23 (the last to be issued in sequence, so far). For the F-35 it seems obvious that it is nothing more than the X-35 designation 'productionised'. I do wonder why they did this though when they could (and should? have called the service fighter (an almost all-new aircraft by comparison with the X-35 by the way) by the designation F-24. That is one thing my curiosity would love to know.

Of course, for the conspiracy theorists, that leaves F-24 to F-34 free to use on lord knows what



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos

Of course, for the conspiracy theorists, that leaves F-24 to F-34 free to use on lord knows what


Speaking of the F-24, I have seen a refrence to an F-24 in a book of mine.
The book is called Smart Weapons: Top Secret History of Remote Controlled Airborne Weapons In the book, it sais that the F-24 looks similar to the cancelled Navy A-12 Avenger II. Here's a link to the book with a picture of the cover.

Smart Weapons

While it is not conclusive proof, it does raise some good arguments. If the book is right, the F-24 might already be flying.

Tim



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
I have a question for anyone who can help me, there are many anomalous designations of US aircraft, they are far and wide, but my question is more specific. Why did the US start certain sequences again from Scratch?

I don't mean the simplification process of the early '60's, I'm perfectly au fait with that, but Why were the C-141 Starlifter and XC-142 followed by the C-5 Galaxy? Likewise How come the 1974 Rockwell bomber prototype was suddenly the B-1? why not continue with the numbers sequence already in use ?

Anyone?


Why did they start over, I'm not sure. However the C's didn't go from XC-142 to C-5. You missed the US Navy's C-2 Grey Hound. You can see the C-2 HERE.

Tim

[edit on 14-12-2005 by ghost]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Ah yes, I forgot about the C-2 completely, thank you
Looking at the timing (first flight 1964) this also seems to back up my theory that ALL designations were started from '-1' again when the US introduced a standard system in 1962.

Previously (before the question of this thread had even occurred to me) I had merely assumed that it was called the C-2 because it was a transport derivative of the E-2. I see that might not now be the case.

edit - do you think that there is any possibility that the 'F-24', if it is indeed a real plane, might turn out to be the 'real F-19'?

[edit on 14-12-2005 by waynos]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join