I've always been curious about this...

[TomcatFanatic123]

I've often wondered how military aircraft got their number designations (i.e. F-14, F-16, etc.) Anybody know?

Edited June 24, 2005 by TomcatFanatic123

[Joe Hegedus]

Normally, it's sequential. I say "normally" because lately it seems that people shoot their mouths off without checking facts-that's how we got the "F-35". The next number in sequence should have been used, which was 24 (although one can make an argument that the 24 should have gone to the FA-18E/F and the X-35 should have become the F-25 but that is beyond the scope of this discussion).

When the designation systems were standardized in the early '60s, the numbers started at F-1 (the FJ Fury redesignated) and went from there.

The designations that I recall were:

F-1 (FJ Fury)

F-2 (Banshee, I think)

F-3 (F3H Demon)

F-4 (F4H/F-4 Phantom II)

F-5 (Tiger II)

F-6 (F4D-1 Skyray)

F-7 ( I think this one was the F2Y Sea Dart)

F-8 (Crusader)

F-9 (Cougar)

F-10 (Skyknight)

F-11 (Tiger)

F-12 (Blackbird)

F-13 (not used AFAIK)

F-14 (Tomcat)

F-15 (Eagle)

F-16 (Falcon)

F-17 (Cobra)

FA-18 (Hornet)

F-19 (Not used AFAIK for 'real')

F-20 (Tigershark)

F-21 (Kfir)

FA-22 (Raptor)

F-23

Skip to F-35 (JSF)

Joe

[jrallman]

I guess they figure no one would want to fly on a plane with a designation of 13

[A6BSTARM]

From the Designations Systems website

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.

The purpose of this article is to present an overview of the aircraft designation system together with notes explaining the details and some exceptions. The missile designation system is covered in the article on Current Designations of U.S. Unmanned Military Aerospace Vehicles, and the actual process of allocating a designation is explained on the page about Allocation of Official Aerospace Vehicle MDS Designations.

The link to the USAF Instruction about desingation systems is http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/afi16-401(i).pdf

This website is real useful to try and help decipher when people start to talk about the various projects that switched over in 1962 from there previous designations. IE F4D to F6A, F-110 to F-4C, A2F-1Q to EA-6A.

It also lists missiles systems and what they converted from such as the AIM-9B and what it was previous refered to as AAM-N-7

[jrallman]

very informative, but still curious about the f-35 and for that mnatter, the f-117

[modelsntoys]

and the F-100, F-101, F-104, F-105, F-106.....etc. These are before 1960?

[trevortex88]

IIRC, F-117 was so designated just to confuse people.

Trev

[Fury]

The thing I find odd is that went through all that trouble lining up that designation system and now they have just added many ad-hoc designations lately. Example, the F/A-18 should be the the AF-18 and as pointed out above the conversion of the X-35 designation into the F-35.

The F-117 was designated to confuse any "foreign intelligence types." After the realignment of the designation systems, the numbers higher than F-111, which was as hagh as they got before the realignment, were used for captured Soviet and Warsaw Pact aircraft for testing purposes. The U-2 was given a "utility" designation for the same reasons. It should have been R-** or something similar.

To explain the century series designations, they were designated before the realignment took place, so they were able to retain their designations.

I think the Navy and the Marines should have stuck to the old system;

F12F for the Tomcat, F5H-2B for the Hornet and the A2H-4N for the Super Harrier!

Take Care,

Thomas

[jrallman]

Sure, I get that you misname a plane to mislead your adversary, but the f-117 isn't exactly a secret anymore! of course, its also not a fighter. b-3? well, no, it was around before the b-2. b-1.5? yeah that doesn't work. hell, lets just keep it as the f-117 and forget all these silly rules.

[phantom]

I think we should just call it Nancy.

[Murph]

Sure, I get that you misname a plane to mislead your adversary, but the f-117 isn't exactly a secret anymore! of course, its also not a fighter. b-3? well, no, it was around before the b-2. b-1.5? yeah that doesn't work. hell, lets just keep it as the f-117 and forget all these silly rules.

Frankly nobody is exactly sure how the F-117 designation came about. Some Stinkbug pilots that I know say it was because Lockheed used that designation in its original manuals, while others say it was used to blend in with the other aircraft flying on the Nellis ranges that used F-11_ designations.

Regards,

Murph

[A6BSTARM]

very informative, but still curious about the f-35 and for that mnatter, the f-117

On another page the authors of this website list that the F-35 was screwup by the guys for the Office of the Sec Def. There is even a transcript where in appears that they come up with the designation on the fly.

Q: Mr. Aldridge?

Aldridge: Yes, right here.

Q: What's going to be the nomenclature for these airplanes? What's the designation?

Aldridge: Very good question. It's going to be called -- the Lockheed version was the X-35 --

MR.: Mike knows. Mike knows the answer.

Mike, the answer is?

Hough: F-35.

Aldridge: F-35. Thank you, I knew -- X-35 was the Lockheed --

Q: How did you decide on that? Where does that come from, the F-35?

Hough: It's a list of the different variants, different companies, different --

Aldridge: The Boeing version was X-32.

Okay.

:huh: :huh:

As per the norm the 5-sided wind tunnel screws up its own program :blink: :wacko: :(

On the same note the desingation systems guys also have a page covering how some of the numbers in the century series may have been used by testing done on captured Soviet aircraft and to hide the F-117 it was added to that numbering system. Like I said in an earlier post the designation website is kind of informative and has been really helpful to me keeping track of not only aircraft, but electronics, missiles, and special shapes.

[Joe Hegedus]

The thing I find odd is that went through all that trouble lining up that designation system and now they have just added many ad-hoc designations lately. Example, the F/A-18 should be the the AF-18 and as pointed out above the conversion of the X-35 designation into the F-35.

Actually, if the Navy kept it's designation system the Tomcat would probaby have been the F13F as the F-111B was to be built by Grumman, methinks, and would have been the F12F.

As for the Hornet being an AF, I believe the original idea was to have 2 separate variants-the F-18 and the A-18. With advances in data processing and miniturization, rather than giving a fighter a secondary role as an attack platform (which is what the designation AF-18 would mean), it actually performs as either an F or an A depending on what mode is selected on the mission computer, rather than an F with a secondary role. Hence the dual designation. At least that's how it was explained to me.

Joe

[Just call me Ray]

The thing I find odd is that went through all that trouble lining up that designation system and now they have just added many ad-hoc designations lately. Example, the F/A-18 should be the the AF-18 and as pointed out above the conversion of the X-35 designation into the F-35.

Actually, if the Navy kept it's designation system the Tomcat would probaby have been the F13F as the F-111B was to be built by Grumman, methinks, and would have been the F12F.

As for the Hornet being an AF, I believe the original idea was to have 2 separate variants-the F-18 and the A-18. With advances in data processing and miniturization, rather than giving a fighter a secondary role as an attack platform (which is what the designation AF-18 would mean), it actually performs as either an F or an A depending on what mode is selected on the mission computer, rather than an F with a secondary role. Hence the dual designation. At least that's how it was explained to me.

Joe

Then that would imply:

AF: fighter with secondary attack role

FA: dual use fighter/attack or strike

[StevenJ]

and the F-100, F-101, F-104, F-105, F-106.....etc. These are before 1960?

My understanding is that Sec Def McNamara didn't realize the USN F-4 and USAF F-110 were the same plane and he got embarassed when he was talking about them to a group like they were two different designs and that's why the change to commonality in designations between the services. Some aircraft will keep their old designations (F-100, etc) while others had to change (F-110 to the F-4 and AD-4 to the A-4, etc.)

[f14peter]

I believe the original idea was to have 2 separate variants-the F-18 and the A-18.

One of the original plans was indeed for there to be two versions of the Hornet . . . the F-18A/B built by MDD for the US Navy and the F-18L by Northrup for export without all the heavy gear for use on the boat . . . the L was to have lighter landing gear and tailhook, no cat launch bar, and no carrier-specific avionics (Very similar to the YF-17 Cobra I suspect).

I believe what happened was that the Navalized A/B was ready long before the L would have been so the first batch of customers (Canada, Australia Spain) opted for the carrier ready version since it was available (Possibly with a lower per-unit cost due to the large production run for the US Navy/Marines even though the L was supposed to be cheaper . . . it's that old economy-of-scale thing again) and that killed the L. Probably some political/corporate manuevering went on as well.