Dumbest question ever

i cant get to any search place right now for somereason so ill post here. why did we skip from f-18 to f-22. or am i not seeing somthing thanks

We don't know why F-19 was skipped...i think...

F-20 was a northrop project, a big engined F-5 with upgraded avionics. Never sold to anyone.

F-21 was the designation given to a crop of Israeli Kfir purchased by the U.S. Navy for dissimilar type combat training.

This may prove useful to you?
"Missing" USAF/DOD Aircraft Designations (including new designations allocated after August 2003)




seekerof

F 19 is the famous F 117 today check this link
USAF Museum

i didnt know we had to go in numerical order with the plane designations...

This is NOT a dumb question! In fact, many people ask the same thing. Peope have been coming up with theories on this for years. The Truth of the matter is that the Pentagon misdesignates many planes for reasons we don't fully know:

SR-71: This is not Technically a valid designation, Unless you have a version of the Blackbird design for Search and Rescue. It should be the R-71 or something beginning with "R"

U-2: U stands for Utility. The U-2 is a spyplane. R-2 could work.

TR-1: Like SR, TR is not valid. R-1 could work. (Technically The TR-1 and the U-2 are the same basic aircraft.) You are not supposed to use two different designations for one plane. they should pick R-1 or R-2 for the U-2/TR-1 series of aircraft.

A-12: They used this one wrong Twice! The first A-12 was a Blackbird Spyplane, and should have Been R-?. The Second A-12 (A-12 Avenger II) was really a Bomber for strategic missions, and should have been B-12!

F-117: The Nighhawk was designated wrong for TWO reasons. First, it's mission makes it an Attack Aircraft! This means it should be the A-?, NOT F-? Second, it's out of sequince , the "A's aren't up that high. In all honesty the Nighthawk should have been the A-11 based on when it came out!

As you see, there have been many aircraft that were wrongly designated! Why they designate these planes wrong is one of the biggest mysteries of the US Military.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

Originally posted by ghost
This is NOT a dumb question! In fact, many people ask the same thing. Peope have been coming up with theories on this for years. The Truth of the matter is that the Pentagon misdesignates many planes for reasons we don't fully know:

SR-71: This is not Technically a valid designation, Unless you have a version of the Blackbird design for Search and Rescue. It should be the R-71 or something beginning with "R"

U-2: U stands for Utility. The U-2 is a spyplane. R-2 could work.

TR-1: Like SR, TR is not valid. R-1 could work. (Technically The TR-1 and the U-2 are the same basic aircraft.) You are not supposed to use two different designations for one plane. they should pick R-1 or R-2 for the U-2/TR-1 series of aircraft.

A-12: They used this one wrong Twice! The first A-12 was a Blackbird Spyplane, and should have Been R-?. The Second A-12 (A-12 Avenger II) was really a Bomber for strategic missions, and should have been B-12!

F-117: The Nighhawk was designated wrong for TWO reasons. First, it's mission makes it an Attack Aircraft! This means it should be the A-?, NOT F-? Second, it's out of sequince , the "A's aren't up that high. In all honesty the Nighthawk should have been the A-11 based on when it came out!

As you see, there have been many aircraft that were wrongly designated! Why they designate these planes wrong is one of the biggest mysteries of the US Military.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

Well the SR-71 was suppose to be the RS-71 but the whoever was president at the time of its unvailing called it the SR-71 and the name stuck. Anf the F-117 should be a A-(something) but at the time being a fighter pilot was better than being a bomber pilot so they called an F-117 so they could get the best fighter pilots to come and test it.

Originally posted by ghost
SR-71: This is not Technically a valid designation, Unless you have a version of the Blackbird design for Search and Rescue. It should be the R-71 or something beginning with "R"

The SR stands for Strategic Reconnaisance, meaning that the SR-71 could operate over the entire theatre and many points of interest within the same mission.

TR stands for Tactical Reconnaisance, the aircraft has a limited time over target, and is limited in the targets it can surveille in a mission. The U-2 was designated as a utility aircraft in order to throw off Soviet intelligence officers.

The A-12 was not a military aircraft, and therefor it really has no place in the military designation.

During the cold war, the role of light bombers was redesignated to taht of multirole aircraft, primarily smaller faster fighters. This is why many ended up with the F designation. The main thing that differentiates the A designation from a F designation bomber is the ability to roam over target and select targets at will - the A series is a ground support aircraft, the F isnt and is designated differently.

Re the SR-71, you are both right. It was supposed to be the RS-71 (I'm not certain what this was supposed to denote) but when it was unveiled as the SR-71 the pentagon, rather than publically correct the President, 'invented' the meaning of SR -71 as being 'Strategic Recconaissance'.

The U-2 was top secret, naturally, and this designation (meaning Utility, as Ghost said) was deliberately chosen to be ambiguous. Why the SR-71 was not therefore the U-3 I have no idea.

Now, confession and question time. First the confession, all the talk of the 'Lockheed A-12' ( ie the proto-Blackbird) I have seen on here for many months baffles me. As I understand it this aircraft was the A-11, just built for research and development purposes. The developed versions were going to be the F-12A and RS-71 and we got the YF-12A prototypes and the SR-71A as detailed earlier. As far as I know there never was an 'A-12' version of this aircraft. The question simply being if anyone has a valid source to fill a hole in my knowledge.

The Grumman A-12 was not a strategic bomber either tim, it was a strike aircraft ibntended to replace the A-6

Originally posted by waynos
The Grumman A-12 was not a strategic bomber either tim, it was a strike aircraft ibntended to replace the A-6

Yes it was an A-6 replacement, but there is more to it then that! It was also a bomber. Second, the A-12 wasn't Grumman, it was General Dynamics and McDonald Douglas!

Read the book: The $5 Billion Misunderstanding: The Collapse of the Navy's A-12 Stealth Bomber. Also Read Tom Clancy's Book: Carrier. Both of these books say that it was a strategic bomber.

The Fallowing is a Quote from Clany's book:

While the exact origin of the A-12 remains something of a mystery, most people though it was an A-6 replacement. This is not completely true. The A-12 was born as a result of the Intermeadiate Nuclear Forces Treaty, which eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons, and limited several others. In reality both sides wanted to maintain the biggest nuclear force possible, and began looking for loop holes in the treaty. US planners quickly noticed that the Treaty did not include sea-based aircraft with nuclear capibility. This meant that in the short term A-6's could be adapted to fill this role. In the long run, the Planners knew that what they really needed was a long range aircraft that could search for and attack hardened targets deep in Soviet terratory. It would use a new generation of smart weapons, and the advance stealth technology developed for the B-2 program. Although not truly a black program, the A-12 was adleast charcol gary.

Now do you Believe me that the A-12 Avenger was a bomber? As it was pointed out earilier in this thread, they have on several occasions misdesgnated aircraft for security reasons. As someone pointed out earlier, the same is true of the U-2 spy plane. It should have been R-?, but the CIA used U-2 to hide the plane's real missions. Why is it so hard to believe that the government lied about the plane's real mission for political reasons?

The only real Difference between a bomber and an attack aircraft, is the target. Bombers go after STRATEGIC tagets, Attack aircraft go after Tactical Targets!
No offense, but you should take some time to read the two books I listed earlier in my post. There are a lot of myths and lies floating around out there, and it takes a lot of digging to get to the truth.

By the way, here is a link to the book: The $5 Billion Misunderstanding

It is very good reading, I have a copy of this book in my personal collection! I highly recommend it for anyone who wants a sneak peak at how black programs work. It is a REAL eye opener! I promise that this book will answer any and all questions you still have about my statments reguarding the A-12 Avenger!

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

Now do you Believe me that the A-12 Avenger was a bomber?

No.


Just kidding

It appears to be a question of definition. Maybe a case of American English Vs ' British English. By your definition of a strategic bomber, or at least the one you used, the Tornado GR.4 would qualify as a 'strategic bomber' as it is the RAF's deep penetration bomber and would in time of conflict be charged with just these missions. The common terminology over here is that a Strategic Bomber however, as a class of aircraft is actually a very large long range bomber like the B-52, B-1 and B-2 with all the (for want of a better phrase) 'fighter sized bombers' being classified as attack or strike aircraft with the difference being only that 'strike' denotes nuclear weapons while attack signifies conventional ones (this demarkation applying equally to strike missions and attack missions by the same plane confusingly).

So I accept your source (and will seek out the book, thanks) and it seems to be just down to service classification. So while it might have been a USN 'strategic bomber' it would have been an RAF 'Long range strike aircraft' (Ha! If only!)

Originally posted by waynos

Now do you Believe me that the A-12 Avenger was a bomber?

No.


Just kidding

It appears to be a question of definition. Maybe a case of American English Vs ' British English. By your definition of a strategic bomber, or at least the one you used, the Tornado GR.4 would qualify as a 'strategic bomber' as it is the RAF's deep penetration bomber and would in time of conflict be charged with just these missions. The common terminology over here is that a Strategic Bomber however, as a class of aircraft is actually a very large long range bomber like the B-52, B-1 and B-2 with all the (for want of a better phrase) 'fighter sized bombers' being classified as attack or strike aircraft with the difference being only that 'strike' denotes nuclear weapons while attack signifies conventional ones (this demarkation applying equally to strike missions and attack missions by the same plane confusingly).

Hey thanks, I just learned something from you too! Until now, I didn't understand how the British system works. Let me Just list it clearly for any other members who might try to fallow our thread:

US System of designtion:

Attack: conventional aircraft for close air support (EX: A-10 Warthog)

Strike: Convetional armed aircraft for various targets (EX: F-117A Nighhawk, F/A-18 Hornet, A-7 Corsair II)

Bomber: Anything and everything that is Nuclear Capable! Used Against Strategic targets. (EX: B-2 Spirit, A-12 Avenger II, FB-111A Aardvark(SAC version of the F-111), (Note: The A-5 Vigilanty was planned for this mission, but was switched to Reconnassance before it bacame operational))

I hope that clears up how the US designates it's aircraft! I know it can be confusing. The best way to remember it is: Nuclear Capable= Bomber

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

[edit on 12-5-2005 by ghost]

Ghost/Wayno,

With the US designation system it is important to realise it is a set of general rules that has become more codified over time.

However, there are exceptions to almost every rule and it is important not to get too hung up on this.

With the swing-role capability of most combat aircraft today if they were to be rigid then specific aircraft could change designation mid-mission!!!

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Ghost/Wayno,



With the swing-role capability of most combat aircraft today if they were to be rigid then specific aircraft could change designation mid-mission!!!

Cheers

BHR

"Multi"- role in the true sense of the word!

Daedulus,

I guess someone like Waynos can answer what the difference is between Swing-Role and Multi-Role.

My understanding is that Swing-Role is where the aircraft can change role mid-flight and multi-role is where is can be configured to several roles in seperate missions.

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Ghost/Wayno,

With the US designation system it is important to realise it is a set of general rules that has become more codified over time.

However, there are exceptions to almost every rule and it is important not to get too hung up on this.

With the swing-role capability of most combat aircraft today if they were to be rigid then specific aircraft could change designation mid-mission!!!

Cheers

BHR

I though that is why they have duel designations like: F/A-18 Hornet. The "F" tells you it's a Fighter, and the "A" tells you it is also an Attack Aircraft.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

Never one to duck a name check, I will say what I ubnderstand is the difference between multi role and swing role.

At its most basic level a multi role aircraft is a sort of 'jack of all trades, which is pretty good in all its designated roles but only excels in one (or even none)

The RAF definition of 'swing role' in relation to the Typhoon, by contrast, is that it has the ability to switch from 100% A2A to 100% A2G, or any other mission, at the press of a button. While this is obviously oversimplifed somewhat it isn't by much. For instance a squadron of Typhoon's undertaking an attack mission would be capable of providing its own air defence cover with a few A2A configured squadron memebers acting as escort, on the successful completion of the raid the whole squadron could then be switched to A2A bias by internally reconfiguring the avionics and radar as required. By contrast a current multi role aircraft on an attack mission might well have the capability to try and look after itself if detected but it wouldn't be going out of its way to look for other aircraft to take on as it is still just a bomber that has dropped its bombs even if it is quite agile.

Perhaps a better illustration is that an F/A-18A squadron carrying out a raid might have half its aircraft configured for the strike mission while the rest are tasked with providing top cover, these definitions would remain unchanged until the aircraft had landed again . However in a swing role type (F/A-18E?)all the aircraft would be configured for optimum attack capability and once the raid has been carried out they are all pure fighters with no compromise again just by the touch of a button


[edit on 17-5-2005 by waynos]

I think the A-12 designation was OK. It was not suposed to be the bomber, it had too small payload and range for a bomber. A simply means the aircraft was primarily designed for attack/strike roles (of course F-117 belongs also here).
BTW what do you think what designation will recieve X-45/X-47 when they enter the service?

Originally posted by longbow
I think the A-12 designation was OK. It was not suposed to be the bomber, it had too small payload and range for a bomber. A simply means the aircraft was primarily designed for attack/strike roles (of course F-117 belongs also here).

If the A-12 Avenger II wasn't supposed to be a bomber, why was it referred to in several sources (includuing the book I quoted from earilier in the thread) as the Navy's A-12 Stealth Bomber?

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

Originally posted by longbow
I think the A-12 designation was OK. It was not suposed to be the bomber, it had too small payload and range for a bomber. A simply means the aircraft was primarily designed for attack/strike roles (of course F-117 belongs also here).

If the A-12 Avenger II wasn't supposed to be a bomber, why was it referred to in several sources (includuing the book I quoted from earilier in the thread) as the Navy's A-12 Stealth Bomber?

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance