Talk:United States Department of Defense aerospace vehicle designation

Untitled

Quite a few random and nonsensical changes were made. Reverted to previous version. --Uhlek 05:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with uhlek, the previous version was not appropriate. Joshbaumgartner 06:05, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

How does the F/A 18 fit into this? Multiple missions? David.Monniaux 19:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge?

Folks, does anyone with a knowledge of the subject have a feeling about the proposal to merge this article with 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system. My feeling is not to do so as the other article seems to stand on its own, but I'm not an expert in the field. Kcordina 13:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Since there have been no comments, I have removed the merge tags and cross-linked the two articles so they coexist together. Kcordina 16:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The part where the article claims the designation F-117 is incorrect, claiming the Nighthawk has no air-to-air capability, is in fact incorrect. The F-117's configuration allows for it to carry two AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles, allowing it to combat enemy aircraft. Admittedly, this does prevent it from carrying any other ordinance, but it is possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.50.151.8 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC).

Be bold and update it, then. Actually, you can't, since I've just done it for you. :-P --Scott Wilson 23:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

G Suffix designation

The letter G in the service designation has, in the past also denoted Carrier aircraft. In Essence, an aircraft that carried another aircraft. The sole example is the GRB-36 FICON [1] which carried a RF-84 in the late 1950's. Its use was limited and was in service for only a couple of years.

Spacestevie 02:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Designation fashions

Does anyone know:

a) Why the switch was made from the old P (Pursuit) designations (e.g. P-47) to F (e.g. F-86). Was it just the usual passion for renaming things to show that management is doing something, or was there another reason?

b) At what point was that, i.e. what were the last P- and the first F-?

c) What's going to happen when current the F-numbers catch up to where the P-numbers left off?

Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

To answer:

a) Because the 'fighter' designation was more relevant than the old 'pursuit' terminology, in an age of jets and missiles;

b) The last 'P' designation assigned on paper, I believe, was to what became the Lockheed XF-90; the last actually on a flying aircraft was the Curtiss XP-87. As for the "first F", that's complicated, as a number of P- designations became F-, the earliest numerically is the Douglas F-24, which was redesignated from the A-24, the Army's version of the SBD Dauntless. The F-38, F-47, F-51 and F-61 all got new designators, as did all types from the P-/F-80 onwards; I'm not sure if any others (F-40??) were still around.

c) The series will simply reuse the numbers. It's very likely that 'F-51', should we ever get that far, will be skipped, but all other numbers will be reused, the same as the 'C for Cargo' sequence has. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States Department of Defense aerospace vehicle designation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111216024347/http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI16-401_IP.pdf to http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI16-401_IP.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041114082719/http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/412015l_0504/p412015l.pdf to http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/412015l_0504/p412015l.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041114082719/http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/412015l_0504/p412015l.pdf to http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/412015l_0504/p412015l.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to change article name to "Joint Regulation Designating and Naming Military Aerospace Vehicles (US DoD)"

The current page name is correct for now but may be outdated if the DoD adopts a new naming system. This designation system does have a name so I think we should use it.

The "United States military aircraft designation systems" page can remain as the parent article and will link this article as the current system. If a new system ever comes around, this article will be bumped to being a historical system with the other older systems on the parent article and a new article will be made for whatever that new replacement system is. Thoughts?Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 08:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

If it's currently correct, why change it? BilCat (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I feel that the current name is kinda correct but the name could be much more accurate/descriptive. It's like if there was an article named "iPhone Flagship Model" and it describes the iPhone 13. When the next flagship model comes out, "iPhone Flagship Model" won't be a very accurate description. Calling the article "iPhone 13" is more descriptive and future proofs it.

Also, it'd help distinguish it from the "United_States_military_aircraft_designation_systems" page. There have been merger proposals in the past which, IMO, points toward the ambiguity of the pages' purposes based on their names.Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 06:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)