Bogus aircraft designations:

It continues to bug me how the U.S. DoD plays around with the rules for numbering military aircraft. Here are some current (or future) aircraft with the designations I feel they should have:

Boeing F-18 Hornet and Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor: This "F/A" business is, I believe, illegal if you go strictly by the book. And now with "/" being a verboten symbol in many computer applications, they're asking for trouble. Considering that nearly all tactical fighters have had a ground-attack component, where are the F/A-14, F/A-15 and F/A-16? I'd probably be willing to accept "FA-18" and "FA-22" (without the slash) as long as the others are similarly redesignated. ("FB-111" does make a precedent.) But if you go by past procedure, AF-18 and AF-22 would be more correct. (And the Growler should be EF-18, not EA-18.)

Lockheed F-19 Nighthawk: I know there are reasons why the aircraft wound up as the F-117, but then why was F-19 skipped? I think it was actually reserved for this airplane, but they decided to use the 117 number they had been referring to the airplane as. Actually the airplane should probably be the A-11 instead!

Lockheed Martin F-24: The reasons for calling the JSF the F-35, just because the technology demonstrator had been the X-35, are just ridiculous. In retrospect, they should have referred to the demonstrators as the YF-24 and YF-25, just as their bigger predecessors had been YF-22 and YF-23.

Airbus or Boeing KC-42: There has been talk of making the unofficial KC-330 and KC-767 designations for the possible next Air Force tanker official as well. Give me a break!

Beech T-3 Jayhawk: Since the T-1 designation had already been used in the post-1962 system, reusing it should have been a no-no. The Slingsby Firefly that actually received the T-3 designation would have been the T-4 instead. Ironically, the T-4 and T-5 were skipped so the Texan II could be the T-6! Again, a violation, but I can accept skipped numbers more than repeated ones.

Of course, this isn't the first time the system has been violated. The U-2 is certainly not a "Utility" airplane, and the SR-71 shouldn't have been numbered in the B-for-Bomber sequence, but I could understand why these clandestine aircraft received those numbers. (Arguably the F-117 is in the same group.) And the C-10 designation was reused for the KC-10, but in that case (unlike the T-1) the aircraft originally slated to be the C-10 (the Jetstream) was never actually procured.

Comments, anyone?

 

Considering how many roles the Navy is putting on the Hornet, this example, designated the F/A/R/C/E-18, seems appropriate, don't you think? (No, I didn't build the model.)
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Good news! From the Air Force Times:

"Three years after the 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 an Air National Guard senior leadership conference in Baltimore, Md."