Talk:List of U.S. DoD aircraft designations

Source?

Is there any source of this list, to confirm that C-30 or FB-22 were ever used by DoD? SojerPL (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• How about AV-16 - is it ship or AV-8 upgrade, but was it designated by DoD? SojerPL (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Old P and F series

This edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_U.S._DoD_aircraft_designations&oldid=874674164 shifted the F and old P series into mix of the old F and Navy F. It was changed at the top and but not bottom. It will really take some time to get that sorted out. It would be be nice to have the P series back as it shows how that series of numbers blended in partially to the new designations system which is why the century series used such high numbers. A75 (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

On a related note, the War department became the department of defense in 1949. A75 (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, the Pursuit series which was replaced by the Fighter series in 1948 returned. I think someone deleted this not realizing the Fighter series started in 1948 not 1962 and was carried forward, but I am not sure. At some point the old bomber series might be worth adding. I think for anyone editing this page, its worth brushing up on the changes in designation systems that took place in 20th century. A75 (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The other F

The old photographic recon was Prefix F- 1930–1947

• F-1
• F-2
• F-3
• F-4 (P-38)
• F-5
• F-6
• F-7
• F-8
• F-9
• F-10
• F-11
• F-12
• F-13
• F-14
• F-15

I just want to put this here in case they get worked in, as its bit confusing that the switchover to F for fighter started in late 1940s not in 1962. A75 (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Rework

Since it has been decided to keep this article, I will soon begin a rework of the table to fix its many issues. Here is a list of some of the proposed changes:

• Only list designations used by the DoD - This would mean removing all aircraft that were retired before September 18, 1947 and add all aircraft that were used after, including pre-1962 Navy designations. Since the US Navy used an entirely different system from the USAF, US Army, and Tri-Service, and because there were far too many mission letters to make inclusion in the main table feasible, I think it would be best to split those designations off into a separate table underneath the main one.

Please leave the historical P and C series, part of the point of this is to show how the older series integrated into the new assignments. A75 (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Differentiate between skipped designations and those between non-sequential designations - For example, F-24 through F-34 were not skipped, the F-35 was just assigned out of sequence. Since there is no evidence as of yet to suggest that the designations in this range will be skipped, we should have a way to differentiate. Perhaps non-sequential designations should be put in italics while skipped designations should be struck through and/or greyed out.
• Create a proper table legend - The table legend is currently in the lede text, which makes it hard to read and easy to miss. I am not sure how the best way to do this would be, but maybe a small table or bullet list would do.
• Other cleanup - The table could also use some not-so-minor cleanup, such as populating the empty cells and alphabetizing the columns (or establish some other way to order them).

I will work on the reworked list in my sandbox and open up my finalized version for discussion before publishing it. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The consensus was to keep this article, both times. If your planning to heavily alter under the guise of improvements, I can't say that seems to be in line with many years of consensus about the overall form of this article. A75 (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The dramatic changes to old articles including splitting off List of United States Tri-Service aircraft designations have created noticeable errors. For example that list does not include the B-52 and other high numbered bomber series. The fact that they used higher numbers being grandfathered in from the previous system does not change the the Depart of Defense used those designations for those aircraft. Your dramatic changes to decades old articles [1] such as here, is somewhat questionable given the errors and readability errors I see being introduced. If this is the kind of effort you have planned for this article, I am not sure that is right the path. A75 (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I had a look at your sandbox article, and I think it might bet better make it a separate article, and we can move this to something more in line with its content. Removing the historical series and F misses the usefulness of comparing how for example the P series shifted into being the F series, then finally was restarted (and the same goes for the B and C series). This article has survived two afd and been stable for 18 years, I don't think its a good article for a dramatic changes. I would prefer if you make a separate article and we can move this to different title if you have an issue with the description and format. A75 (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that you are assuming good faith when you said "If your planning to heavily alter under the guise of improvements". The B-52 is a grandfathered designation under the 1924 United States Army Air Service aircraft designation system, it was not designated under the Tri-Service system which the Tri-Service list is meant to document. I already plan on keeping the grandfathered designations in the table, but if you are adamant on including it and other grandfathered designations in the main Tri-Service list, then perhaps it can be done in some way. I also would not be opposed to (in fact, I would strongly support) a move that removed any reference to the US DoD from the title if we are to keep non-DoD designations such as the pre-1947 P-series.

You claim that there was a weak consensus for my proposed splitting of List of military aircraft of the United States, though I am not sure how a consensus of five to one in favor is weak. That said, I do not see any consensus regarding the overall form of this article, as no actual discussion has taken place on this talk page before now, but if you could point me to any discussions elsewhere that established the consensus you talk of, that would be great. The fact that the article has been "stable for 18 years" despite the condition that it is in and with next to no discussion only furthers my belief that it has been largely neglected and needs to be reworked. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes I think you get it, I want to see the historical designations alongside the newer ones to capture how the numbers were grandfathered into the new systems, especially the confusing shift between the P, F, and tri-service F designations that occurred during that period. Thanks for assuming the best, I did not mean to imply a bad attempt of course its exciting to have new improvements and overall it looks like positive and accurate. I crossed that out to avoid confusion, and apologize for saying it like that. I am trying to say that the improvements result in heavy changes to the article. In fact, I think you are not far off from a good improvements but as I said, the consensus has been against radical change like deletion. For me, as as long as the P, old C, and maybe the B series listed for historical comparison, that addresses my main concern. Overall though I would just prefer to leave this article alone, though I can see you your desire to improve it. I do think its important to recognize that the current DoD does use the old designations in the current system as is the case with the B-52. Good luck with your projects. A75 (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Have a look now. Consider the first row as a model for how the rest will look. I've added select pre-1962 sequences and color coded them by branch. The Army and Navy designation columns will only include previous designations of aircraft that were redesignated under the Tri-Service system. Designations retired before the founding of the DoD will also be included, but they will have a mark denoting them as never having been used by the DoD. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

OK that is really good, you really get me and the new table looks good. Its nice to see you have enough knowledge of these systems to work on a table like this, as it can really take time. One of the issues that comes up, that at any given point in time the designations systems are not that relevant such as for a list of aircraft in a battle. What can be really useful is understanding how the different aircraft in a era are named. For example, to understand how we are getting an aircraft named the B-52J serving alongside B-1 in the 2020s, and especially confusing items such as the P-38, which had recon versions in the old F series, but were in service long enough to be renamed F-38. Thanks for taking the time to consider my concerns and incorporate them into the article. A75 (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't mention it. After all, Wikipedia would not be what it is without collaboration. I actually have a lot of experience with tables. My sandbox has several lists of US commemorative coins with highly complex tables, though I never got around to finishing them because they started to suffer from scope creep. I might have another go at those soon, as the current lists are several years out of date. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

A75 I've almost completed the table (braking my edit size record in the process). I now just habe to finish color coding the non-Tri-Service designations. Feel free to offer any more suggestions you may have. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I see that and it looks impressive! Its nice to see some of older series included and it present compact and information packed collection, without the endless scrolling of lists. Its nice to see many of the oddities, and I think the addition of for example the XS series made a lot of sense. Having spent a lot of time looking at so many of these aircraft, its nice to see many of the important nuances included, and it presents a compact alternative searching lists on several different pages. I think that you have successfully extended the original concept of the page, with getting to out of scope by trying to include every single series. Switching to alphabetical order does make a lot of sense also. I have tried to check for some classic mistakes and nuances, but of course thanks to the collaborative nature we have the time and other editors will be able to also cross check or have inputs. The effort you put into this page is really appreciated, and I am glad it was not deleted. A75 (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I'll go ahead and change this list over to the new table as soon as I'm done (and hopefully it doesn't crash my PC when I do it). Let me know if you have any suggestions or notice any problems. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

A75 The reworked table is up now. Somehow I was able to copy it over from my sandbox without killing my PC. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the bombing series, I always wanted to see that one but never got around to it. I think its is good balance of inclusion versus scope, and we could always make another article down the line that has a different scope, as you say this is quite large but really is very compact visually. In comparison, this same list of designations would take visiting several different pages and a lot of scrolling. Nice job! A75 (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)