Why go from f22 to f35

[Old 62]

Can anyone explain why the designation has gone from f22 to f35 seeing as the x35 was a normal x plane in the series. I would have assumed that with the YF22 and then to f22 and from yf23 the next fighter would be f24. Am I talking rubbish or is there a genuine reason.

[TonyO]

These leaps seem to occur with no real rhyme or reason, but F-22 to F-35 is not the biggest leap. We have gone from B-2 to B-21...don't forget that Boeing's JSF was the X-32 which could have become the F-32 potentially. And you never know what might have been flying in the black world. F-117 didn't make sense until it emerged that some Warsaw Pact aircraft being tested by USAF had been given three-digit designations.

[POL]

Such designations are part of the Aerospace Vehicle Mission Design System (MDS) and since 1962 has applied to all US military aircraft.

The relevant bits of the MDS documentation are:

4.1.2. Standard aircraft MDS designators are comprised of the following: status prefix (optional), modified mission (optional), basic mission (required), design number (required), design series (required).
4.1.3. Non-standard aircraft MDS designators are comprised of the following: status prefix (optional), modified mission (optional), basic mission (required), vehicle type (required), design number (required), design series (required).

Contrary to popular belief there's nothing to say they should be sequential.

Perhaps after the F-22/23 battle the DOD decided they wanted a "third series" of fighter aircraft, so the new designations became F-3x?

Anyway there's some interesting points on WIkipedia that I've never considered

Exceptions

• The F-117 Nighthawk does not currently have any air-to-air capabilities which raised the question of why it was designated F-117 and not A-117. There has been conjecture and anecdotal reports concerning purported air-to-air capabilities targeted toward destroying Soviet AWACS craft.
• Although the mission letters of the AV-8 Harrier's designation are correct, the series number is not. The Ryan XV-8 ("Fleep") had already existed so the Harrier should have been named AV-12.
• The "FB-111" is incorrectly named as it was originally a fighter that was adapted to the bomber role. Thus it should have been designated BF-111.
• The Boeing 747 has three different designations in U.S. service - E-4, (V)C-25 and AL-1 - which violates the basic purpose of the system.
• The CC-130J Hercules referred to the stretched C-130J-30 Hercules. The -30 suffix was not supportable in the system, so a modified mission letter had to be added. Hence, the CC-130J is a cargo aircraft "modified" for the cargo role. This was later dropped.

[Vulcanone]

I suppose the USAF isn't likely to re use B-17 or B-18

[Vulture 01]

Shirley the CC 130 Hercules is the Canadian version?

[NorvilleRogers]

The X- series of aircraft seem to follow in order without gaps (up to around X-62 with the F-16 VISTA at the moment). The JSF demo aircraft were classed as the X-32 and X-35. The X-35 won and they seem to have just used the same name over, going from X-35 to F-35.

[POL]

Shirley the CC 130 Hercules is the Canadian version?

I chopped that bit out but it does go on to say it shouldn't be confused for the Canadian designation.

CC-130J in Canadian nomenclature means as much to the DOD's MDS system does as us calling them Hercules C4/C5. I.e. absolutely nothing.

[H.A.Bucken]

'Don't call me Shirley'; who said that?
"Scenic in the Mist", aka Roger!

ps., I often wondered why F-111s were thus and not A-111s- can't say as I ever saw one tooled up for air-to-air.
pps., We were all excited when the fictitious F-19 eventually appeared as the F-117. I got to wondering, the first US Navy Phantoms were F-110 then we had the F-111. Shortly afterwards came the F-14; could that have been F-112; F-15/F-113; F-16/F-114; F-17/F-115; F-18/F116; then "F-19"- F-117?
Apologies, my mind was working overtime.
Roger

[Seahornet1]

...the first US Navy Phantoms were F-110 ...
Roger

It's the other way round. F-4 was always the Navy designation; the USAF were originally going to use F-110 for their version, but common sense (pun intended! ) eventually prevailed.

[iainpeden]

XF4H-1 was the original designation for what became the Phantom II, redesignated F-4A in 1962; possibly on 18th September 1962 with McNammara’s Unification of Designations.

[Canberra TT.18]

'Don't call me Shirley'; who said that?
"Scenic in the Mist", aka Roger!

ps., I often wondered why F-111s were thus and not A-111s- can't say as I ever saw one tooled up for air-to-air.
pps., We were all excited when the fictitious F-19 eventually appeared as the F-117. I got to wondering, the first US Navy Phantoms were F-110 then we had the F-111. Shortly afterwards came the F-14; could that have been F-112; F-15/F-113; F-16/F-114; F-17/F-115; F-18/F116; then "F-19"- F-117?
Apologies, my mind was working overtime.
Roger

F-111B was the navy fighter version devolped around the AIM54 Phoenix. It was cancelled and replaced/succeeded by the F-14 Tomcat.

The system has lots of flaws after the C-141 and XC-142 (only 5 build) it stopped and C-1,2,3,4,5 etc up until now C-46. But the out of nowhere after years C-143 until C-147 appeared. Which all are not standard transport aircraft and more or less used for special operations.

[Canberra TT.18]

About the use of A for eg. The F-111 and F-117.
It seems the the USAF is always very keen on using the F(ighter) The A-10s and in the past the A-7s are operated by (Tactical) Fighter Squadrons...

[turmo]

When the X-35 was announced as the winner for JSF, a journalist asked the Under Secretary if it would become the F-35 in service. He said yes. And that was that, designation sequence over-ruled.

Similar to the EHI-01 gaffe, or the RS-71

[turmo]

It's the other way round. F-4 was always the Navy designation; the USAF were originally going to use F-110 for their version, but common sense (pun intended! ) eventually prevailed.

No so much common sense as the harmonisation of tri-service designations in September 1962. Both the USN and USAF had to change their documentation at that point, neither 'adopted' the other's designation.

[POL]

When the X-35 was announced as the winner for JSF, a journalist asked the Under Secretary if it would become the F-35 in service. He said yes. And that was that, designation sequence over-ruled.

Similar to the EHI-01 gaffe, or the RS-71

The EHI01 vs EH101 was a typographical error in some print marketing, the RS-71 was a mistake by the stenographer who transcribed LBJ's speech, in the written speech it says SR-71 three times but the transcription was incorrect and said RS-71 instead.

[capercaillie]

Exceptions

• The F-117 Nighthawk does not currently have any air-to-air capabilities which raised the question of why it was designated F-117 and not A-117. There has been conjecture and anecdotal reports concerning purported air-to-air capabilities targeted toward destroying Soviet AWACS craft.
• Although the mission letters of the AV-8 Harrier's designation are correct, the series number is not. The Ryan XV-8 ("Fleep") had already existed so the Harrier should have been named AV-12.
• The "FB-111" is incorrectly named as it was originally a fighter that was adapted to the bomber role. Thus it should have been designated BF-111.
• The Boeing 747 has three different designations in U.S. service - E-4, (V)C-25 and AL-1 - which violates the basic purpose of the system.
• The CC-130J Hercules referred to the stretched C-130J-30 Hercules. The -30 suffix was not supportable in the system, so a modified mission letter had to be added. Hence, the CC-130J is a cargo aircraft "modified" for the cargo role. This was later dropped.

In addition civil operated 747 versions that would have been called up in times of crises would become C-19.
If using the same logic, the Boeing 707 has used C-18, C-137, E-3, E-6, E-8 and the NATO operated T-49 using the same system.

I often wondered if the AV-8 was used with the long term thought of it being calling the A-8 which was never used but would have fitted the system perfectly as is mentioned above V-8 had already gone at the time.

[Canberra TT.18]

The V has always been a bit odd. As it says something about the capabilities (vertical) and not the main or first task like A B C E F P T etc.
Ofcourse the H is also about the capability, but could have been V...

[roger4]

The V's are definitely odd, as they include things like the Twin Otter, so presumably they cover STOL as well as VSTOL.

But while we are on the subject, why are the USAF Ospreys CV-22B and the US Marines ones MV-22B. Surely the Marine Corps role is transport of people and equipment and hence they should be the CV-22, and the USAF ones have special forces etc roles and should be the MV-22?

[Canberra TT.18]

O we can go on.
Never quite understood CV-22/MV-22 mix.
M for Marines

It looks like the M is now used by all kinds of naval aircraft. Also the MH-60S and R
The M used in CSAR/SOF role but now the H which used to be more dedicated SAR.
With the Army now using HH-60M in de Medevac role.
Looks like HH and MH are mixed up.

[2e1var]

I think them not using CV22 for Ospreys is because CV is a designation for ships or something, heard it on RIAT commentary a while back.

Why was the JSF competition done as X32/35 when the ATF was YF22/23 ?

Rich