Talk:1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system/Archive 1

Archive 1

KC-767

The article includes the KC-767 as an example of "Non-systematic or Aberrant designations", but the 767 tanker isn't a US military aircraft yet. "KC-767" is just a marketing name within Boeing, although the Japanese and Italian may call their version of the 767 tank by that name. If the Boeing proposal wins the KC-X program, I would think it would be assigned a normal 2 digit number. Interestingly enough, if the EADS/Airbus and Northrop Grumman proposal is accepted, its marketing name, KC-30, would be a "normal" number as the C-30 designation is not assigned, but a higher number C-32, has already been assigned. --rogerd 22:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The designation KC-767A was officially assigned by the U.S. DOD in 2002, when the now defunct leasing plan for Boeing 767 tankers was still in effect. "KC-767A" is listed in the DOD's official publication of approved aerospace vehicle designations, see http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/412015l_0504/p412015l.pdf . For a bit of background information on this allocation, see http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/nonstandard-mds.html#_MDS_KC767 . If the 767 wins the current competition, the USAF may or may not keep the KC-767A designator. If a new number is assigned, it's anyone's guess which one it will be, because C-series assignments have been a bit erratic lately (2-digit numbers up to C-41, then continued with C-143 and -144).Andreas Parsch 12:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for setting me straight. Based on this, it appears that the KC-767 name may indeed be what is used of Boeing wins the competition. I hope that Boeing wins, but it will be sad if the marketing people win out and that aberrant name is used. --rogerd 13:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The USAF has officially reserved the designation KC-45A for the winner of the KC-X competition, so things like KC-767A and KC-30A are effectively dead. Andreas Parsch 19:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you referencing Military Aviation Designations yahoo group where they refer to a USAF PowerPoint presentation? I think we should wait until something more substantial is published. I hope you are correct. This is interesting because C-45 was the designation for the military version of the WW2-era Beechcraft Model 18. --rogerd 20:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I received official confirmation of the KC-45A designation from DOD (as part of the reply to a FOIA request). I publish all my data on my website (http://www.designation-systems.net/), which seems to be accepted on Wikipedia as a reliable reference source regarding designations ;-).Andreas Parsch 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

One year later

Bill CJ this isn't the designation of an actual aircraft, as discussed above had the KC-767 been adopted it'd of been called the KC-45. Anynobody 02:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read it again, carefully. Especially the first lines in Andreas Parsch's first response. - BillCJ (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Only in the recent KC-X competition. The KC-767 designation was adopted as part of the 2002-03 lease/buy deal that was later canceled. See the current DoD designation document.[1] -Fnlayson (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

FB-111

The article also includes the FB-111 as an example of "Non-systematic or Aberrant designations", but, as far as I know, the FB-111 designation is not used in formal records, even though that's the generally used form in conversation. Every time I've seen references to this aircraft in a data system, the data system has used BF-111 (or, more precisely, " BF111 ", where the blanks are significant), not FB-111. --Pstemari (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"FB-111" is used in multiple aviation books I have. It was redesignated to F-111G later anyway. Have you looked at the DoD Model Designation report? -Fnlayson (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's FB-111A in the 2004 DOD MDS list, which is generally accepted as authoritative. - BillCJ (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Does V has two meanings? OV10 and VC140

I'm confused as it seems that V stands for V/STOL and also for Staff transport. Does it make a difference whether it is the first or second letter? --Peter Walt A. (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The article tries to explain this at the top of "The system" section. The letter before the dash is the vehicle type as in OV-10 (VTOL/STOL). The airplane vehicle type is assumed if a type letter is not listed. The tri-service system uses dash in all the designations, by the way. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

B-Class

Please add a picture so this article can be B-Class Flubeca 18:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What picture would be appropriate? I don't think there really is one, unless you want one of the document or some diagram. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, what about a pic of the aircraft that illustrates the designation changes? "The F4H whas reddesignated F-4" or sometning, maybe a designation painted on an aircraft. I remeber an old pic of the USAF's first F4H trials aircrat borrowed from the Navy, with F-110 on the nose. I don't know if there's anything else out there like that, but we might find something. - BillCJ (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• I was just thinking if one aircraft image gets added, folks will try to add one for most every aircraft. But your suggestion is distinct. Mention the old designations in the caption too. Good idea Bill. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• I had forgotten about this. Anyway we'll give that a try. I mentioned the USAF's F110 designation also. -fnlayson (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Tables

I've noticed that most of the designators are broken down in bulleted list form. I'm thinking that a table would be better, as it would more clearly define the stucture, and would allow for examples to be given for each item, rather than use the awkward parentheticals in the text as it currently stands. 70.247.169.197 (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The lists are fine, no need to switch. The lists have only 2 columns of date. The Skipped numbers table is a good example of needing a table. -fnlayson (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A-12

Why is the A-12 not specifically mentioned in the Non-systematic aircraft designations section? It was not a ground attack aircraft in any way. Is the fact that it was operated by the CIA and not the USAF anything to do with it? Jason404 (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A-12 was Lockheed's designation. It was used by the CIA, not DoD. So it does not fall under this system. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A-12 in the sense of the Blackbird spyplane was not only used by the CIA instead of the DoD, but the design designation A-12 actually belongs to Lockheed Skunkworks. Internally the Blackbird Series of aircraft were developed from design # 12 of Kelly's Project Archangle, so the Blackbird diesign was Archangle #12 or A-12. (You can read all of this in the book Skunkworks by Ben Rich and Leo Janos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.84.179 (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The A-12 in this system is the McDonnell Douglass/General Dynamics A-12 Avenger, the carrier based stealth bomber originally intended to replace the A-6 Intruder. The Lockheed A-12 was first flown in April 1962 while this system was introduced in mid September. Therefore the Lockheed A-12 would not fall under this designation system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussieaviationnut (talk • contribs) 12:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

next Air Force One

If the next Air Force One aircraft is the Boeing 747-8, would it likely be called the VC-25B, or would they use a new number? I think I have seen when they use a newer model of an civil aircraft type already in use, they usually just add a letter to the military designation. --rogerd (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

They have used C-19 and C-33 for some 747 versions in the past. If they think the 747-8 is different enough and if enough AF people in power want it, they'll ask for the next C- number. Or not?? -Fnlayson (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Politics often plays a role in whether or not a new designation number is chosen. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet]] is a notable example of a largely new aircraft using the older number. I'm still waiting to see if the VC-25s will be replaced any time soon, given the VH-71 fiasco. - BilCat (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Point well taken, I think they need a new helicopter more than a new airplane. --rogerd (talk) 04:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Could be changed as there are a number of different numbers assigned to Gulfstream variants. Although the same cannot be said of C-12 variants based on later versions of the King Air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussieaviationnut (talk • contribs) 12:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Listing of aircraft in and out of compliance with the system

We can see a list of aircraft designations that were skipped over, and many of us are familiar with some of the prominent aircraft, like F-14 Tomcat, F-15 Eagle, F-16 Falcon, and F/A-18 Hornet, but not the F-17. Yes, I can look it up and see that Northrop YF-17 fits here, and maybe such a listing is unencyclopedic. But here's an example of my idea:

C

1 • 2 (disambiguation) • 3...

F

1 (disambiguation) • 2 (disambiguation) ... 14 • 15 • 16 • YF-17 • F/A-18 • F-20 ...

Just a thought. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Gliders

I have changed the next available number for gliders to G-17 as the designation "TG-16A" has been used.

References

Foreign Aircraft that Conform to this System

Considering that designations used for foreign sales that do not conform to the system (e.g. KC-767) but are used in foreign sales, should aircraft that conform to this system but are only used in foreign services (E-7A Wedgetail of the Royal Australian Air Force, KC-30A MRTT also in Australian service be included? Aussieaviationnut (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is only for the US Tri-service designation system. E-7 and KC-30 are not US designations and are not relevant this article. The A330 MRTT/KC-30 tanker version initially selected by the USAF was designated KC-45 under this US designation system. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The 767 is unique in that it is actually an official designation under 3 separate designation systems:

• the USAF did officially assign the designation KC-767 to the aircraft intended to be procured under the Commercial Derivative Air Refueling Aircraft program of the early 2000s.
• Japan uses its own designation system which is similar though not identical to the US system, and assigns it own numbers. Some are sequential (F-1, F-2), while some are based on manufacturer numbers (T-400). In the case of the KC-767J, it likely would have been assigned that designation anyway (cf. E-767).
• Italy officially uses the Italian Armed Forces aircraft designation system under the NATO designation system, which is basically the US system. In Italy's case, it usually assigns the numbers based on the manufacturer number (UH-101 based on AW101 number), so it would have assigned KC-767A anyway too.
• Australia has been assigning its designations own designations lately, seemingly also based on the NATO system (though of course Australia isn't a NATO member). The E-7A and KC-30A are under this system.

Second, the US has officially assigned at least one foreign designation under its system, the T-50, a Korean aircraft not (at least yet) used by the US to avoid confusion with its own system.

So no, I wouldn't include the Australian designations here, as it is a different system, and the designations aren't officially assigned in the US system. - BilCat (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)