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.

 

USAF drops the A from F/A-22

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Three years after the U.S. Air Force added an “A” to highlight the F/A-22 Raptor’s ability to drop bombs, the service is dropping the extra letter from the stealthy jet’s designator.

The plane, which is expected to officially enter service in the coming weeks, will henceforth be called the F-22A — with the trailing letter indicating a first variant, not an extra role.

Gen. Michael Moseley, Air Force chief of staff, who is said to have been unhappy with the F/A-22 moniker, announced the renaming in a Dec. 12 speech to a U.S. Air National Guard senior leadership conference in Baltimore, Md.


Link


Good, I always thought the A was a dumb idea for the Raptor. But I do think that they should add it to the JSF (F/A-35).




posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I don't see why they would take it off....the Raptor was primarily designed to be an air superiority fighter, and that it is. However, it was also designed to have the capablility to attack ground targets (hence the F/A designation). Sometimes the air force just doesn't make sense.... does the F-117 deserve to have an "F" in front?



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackThorn311
I don't see why they would take it off....the Raptor was primarily designed to be an air superiority fighter, and that it is. However, it was also designed to have the capablility to attack ground targets (hence the F/A designation). Sometimes the air force just doesn't make sense.... does the F-117 deserve to have an "F" in front?


Good point Black. Never really understood why it was the F-117 instead of the B-117. I am not even sure the plane has any fighter or interceptor responsibilities. Good to see the F-22 is getting up and running. I am anxious for this airframe to get a couple of service years under its belt.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Tactical Bombers are frequently called Fighters. The F-111 had almost zero A2A capability, but it was called a fighter. IIRC it was capable of carrying only heat seeking missiles for self defense. Basically a "point and shoot" defense to scare off enemy fighters, more than an actual threat.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Plus we cannot forget, that the F-117 designation wasn't really official, due to a misprint, the Pilot's manual's for the aircraft had F-117 printed on the front of it so the name stuck.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Plus we cannot forget, that the F-117 designation wasn't really official, due to a misprint, the Pilot's manual's for the aircraft had F-117 printed on the front of it so the name stuck.

Shattered OUT...


As I understand it, it was named the F-117 so the USAF could persuade it's best jet jockeys to fly the aircraft.

After all, no self respecting maverick fighter pilot would want to fly a bomber, right?

I think you may be reffering to the SR-71. It was originally the RS-71, but it was introduced by the President as the SR, and so to keep from contridicting him, they kept it.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Symantics aside the Raptor will have a signifigant ground attack capacity with the SDB and as more information is made public about the abilities of the AESA Radar to conduct electronic attack perhaps EAF-22A would be a more appropriate designation.

The 'A" desigantion was tacked on by LM and the fighter guys in an effort to show it was not a one dimentional cold war relic



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   
About the F-117.....I'm pretty sure that the USAF designates it with an "F" because its weapons load "falls under that of a fighter/attack aircraft."
It can supposedly carry any ordinance a fighter can, but the one weapon that the USAF claims to use on it is the AIM-9X Sidewinder.....so technically it's a fighter too.
People I've talked to say flying the F-117 is more like driving a 737 for Southwest....not very pilot oriented.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Finally! I always thought adding an A to an Air Superiority Fighter was a dumb idea. I mean they have the F-15 Strike Eagle and it doesn’t have an A in it.

Also, the SR was not mispronounced by the President, here is what really happened.


The Air Force reconnaissance version was originally called the R-12 (see the opening fly page in Paul Crickmoore's book SR-71, Secret Missions Revealed, which contains a copy of the original R-12 labeled plan view drawing of the vehicle). However, during the 1964 presidential campaign, Senator Barry Goldwater continuously criticized President Lyndon B. Johnson and his administration for falling behing the Soviet Union in the research and development of new weapon systems. Johnson decided to counter this criticism with the public release of the highly classified A-12 program and later the existence of the reconnaissance version.

The USAF had planned to redesignate the R-12 aircraft as the RS-71 (Reconnaissance-Strike) as the succsessor to the RS-70 Valkyrie, which had two test Valkyrie's flying at Edwards AFB, California. However, then USAF Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay preferred the SR designation and wanted the RS-70 to be named SR-70. Before the Blackbird was to be announced by Lyndon B. Johnson on February 29, 1964, LeMay lobbied to modify Johnson's speech to also read SR-71 instead of RS-71. The media transcript given to the press at the time still had the earlier RS-71 designation in places, creating the myth that the president had misread the plane's designation.



[edit on 13-12-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   
One of the original missions of the F-117 was to target Soviet AWACS aircraft hence the designation F. The idea was to blow holes through the Warsaw Pact's radar coverage to allow a first strike to disrupt a Soviet ground attack. Kind of like in the beginning of Clancy's Red Storm Rising.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   
except it has 0 A2A capability so that kills that idea.


the F-111 was supposed to be a navy fighter till it got dropped and went to be a bomber instead - the F-14 replaced it



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
except it has 0 A2A capability so that kills that idea.


The air to air capability of the F-117 was dropped when it was realized that the radar signature of the availible missiles would negate the stealth advantage. It was then decided to use it to attack ground radar sites instead.



Originally posted by Harlequin
the F-111 was supposed to be a navy fighter till it got dropped and went to be a bomber instead - the F-14 replaced it


Actually the F-111 was to be a common aircraft between the Air Force and the Navy until it wasa realized that it was too heavy to land on a carrier. A side point is that Sec. of Def. McNamera ordered the tooling for the SR-71 destroyed so that it wouldn't compete for funding with the F-111



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   
yes it was `heavy` but it DID land on a carrier (at least once)



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
yes it was `heavy` but it DID land on a carrier (at least once)


Do you have a link to that information? I would really like to see that. I have heard of the C-130 landing on the Forrestal I didn't know that an F-111 had.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Yeah, it was pretty silly to call an air-superiority fighter "A"... ncie psot...





posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
The air to air capability of the F-117 was dropped when it was realized that the radar signature of the availible missiles would negate the stealth advantage. It was then decided to use it to attack ground radar sites instead.


And you source for this Astonishing claim would be?


I have 7 different books on the F-117, and all of them say that it was concieved as a pure attack aircraft. The F-117 was never even tested with an air to air weapon system. It has never had a radar, and it's inferred systems consist of FLIR (forward looking IR) and DLIR (downward Looking IR). FLIR and DLIR are both ground attack sensors. the Inferred system for air to air combat is called InferRed Search And Tarck (IRSAT). The F-117 has never had an IRSAT system in it.

Second, any weapon hanging on the outside would negate the stealth of the F-117. That is why it has an internal weapons bay. The same is still true today. Why do you think the F-22 has weapons bays?

Tim



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Do you have a link to that information? I would really like to see that. I have heard of the C-130 landing on the Forrestal I didn't know that an F-111 had.






www.usscoralsea.net...


The Navy conducted a feasibility study to deploy the Air Force F-111 aboard aircraft carriers as the next generation fighter/interceptor. A special version of the Aardvark was designed for the Navy and designated the F-111B. Carrier suitability trials were conducted aboard the USS Coral Sea during the summer of 1968 (between war cruises). However, the big planes proved to be too unwieldly for carrier operations. These (failed) trials led to the F-14 Tomcat program going forward.




So , during 1968 , the F-111B landed and took off several times from the USS CORAL SEA.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Thanks for the video, Harlequin. I think the F-111B was doomed from the start though, i don't think it would have made for a suitable fighter, unlike the F-14


Didn't the Navy put the P-51 through carrier suitability tests too?



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Thanks for the information. I didn't know that it had actually progressed as far as deck trials before the F-111B was discontinued. I am trying to find the book I have that made the reference to the F-117 being used to shoot down Soviet AWACS aircraft. As soon as I find it, I will post it.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Do you have a link to that information? I would really like to see that. I have heard of the C-130 landing on the Forrestal I didn't know that an F-111 had.

You are right, A C-130 Hercules did land on the USS Forestal once without the use of a tailhook!, I was going to start a new thread about it until i read your quote. The weight of the C-130 and the loads of wheels it had must have slowed it down. This event took place in the early 1960s.
Interesting find!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

ALSO: Try n find images of it , It looks totally unbelieveable , No wonder the C-130 has lasted so long in service, Just shows how good it is!.

AND back to the Raptor.

F-22A?, I wonder what the F-22B,C,D,E, and so on variants will be like?

They may come to making a Naval ATF at the end!. Well they best had do N,E,Way(Anyway). It should be possible to build a F-22N 'Sea Raptor' becouse the size of it is about the same as the Russian SU-27 type fighters that are navalised too, Its weight may be reduced too.

I hope they will eventually make export Raptors, Australia would be the first foreign customer since they have been the first to ask for it.

I also admire the Australians for making thier F-111s last longer instead of throwing them away just becouse they are a bit old.

The F-111 is a beauty too and they are still effective combat aircraft.

[edit on 14-12-2005 by Browno]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join