How did F117 get it's designation?

[ReeferGuy]

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A 0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A 0=A0=A0=A0=A00237on1/19


Hi Group,


I've always wondered how he F117 got it's deignation number.

After all, we have the following:

F14, F15, F16, F18, the new F22.

How did it become 117.

I know that the USAF version was originally called the F110 Spectre.

But that was almost 50 years ago.

Same deal with the B2.

Who knows why?





=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A 0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0ReeferGuy
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A 0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0USMC-FDNY
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A 0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0Live.=A0.=A0.=A0And=A0Let=A0Live



=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A 0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A 0=A0=95

[Andreas Parsch]

ReeferGuy wrote:

>
> I've always wondered how he F117 got it's deignation number.
> After all, we have the following:
> F14, F15, F16, F18, the new F22.
> How did it become 117.


For a history on U.S. military aircraft designation, see e.g.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0012.shtml

As to why the F-117 doesn't fit into the scheme, see e.g.

http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/nonstandard-mds.html#_MDS_F117

>
> Same deal with the B2.


Hey, a tough one ;-) ... The B-2 was the simply next bomber after B-1.

Andreas

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ReeferGuy" > wrote in message
...

>
> I've always wondered how he F117 got it's deignation number.
>

Everybody does.


>
> After all, we have the following:
>
> F14, F15, F16, F18, the new F22.
>

Actually, we have F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, and the new F-22.


>
> How did it become 117.
>

There are several theories bouncing around the internet.


>
> I know that the USAF version was originally called the F110 Spectre.
>

The USAF version of the F4H Phantom II was originally called F-110 Spectre.
The aircraft was ordered as the F-110A but was redesignated F-4C before
delivery. A tri-service designation system was adopted in 1962, essentially
the three services adopted the USAF sysytem and most series began
renumbering at -1.


>
> Same deal with the B2.
>

The first new bomber after the new system was adopted was the Rockwell B-1
Lancer, the second was the Northrop B-2 Spirit. The next will be the B-3.

[John A. Weeks III]

In article et>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> > F14, F15, F16, F18, the new F22.
> >
>
> Actually, we have F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, and the new F-22.

Actually, all of the F- numbers are accounted for since the
great renumbering in 1962, except for F-13 and F-19. F-13
was skipped since Grumman didn't want the lucky number 13
for the Tomcat. We all know about the F-14, -15, and -16.
The F-17 the other airplane in the flyoff that lost to the
F-16. The Navy picked it up, and it evolved into the F-18.
The F-20 was the low-cost export airplane based on the F-5.
It failed to gain support, and died when the F-16 was
authorized to be given to 3rd world airforces. The F-21
was an Isrealie KFIR fighter that the US Navy used as an
aggressor prior to getting the F-16N. The F-22 is the
Raptor. The F-23 is the plane that lost to the F-22 in the
flyoff in the 90's.

The F-35 is another violation of the numbering scheme. It
should have been the XF-24 and XF-25 in the flyoff, but it
somehow got slotted into the X- experimental aircraft
numbering sequence as the X-32 and X-35. The X-35 won the
flyoff, and was given the program name of F-35.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John A. Weeks III" > wrote in message
...
>
> The F-35 is another violation of the numbering scheme. It
> should have been the XF-24 and XF-25 in the flyoff, but it
> somehow got slotted into the X- experimental aircraft
> numbering sequence as the X-32 and X-35. The X-35 won the
> flyoff, and was given the program name of F-35.
>

The X-32 and X-35 were properly numbered as they were technology
demonstrators, not prototypes. The winner was to have become the F-24 but a
senior defense department official screwed up.

[Andreas Parsch]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> The X-32 and X-35 were properly numbered as they were technology
> demonstrators, not prototypes.


They were technology demonstrators, which were expected to be
developed directly into fighter prototypes. Therefore, the X-32/35
could have been properly designated as XF-24/25. Assuming that #25
would have been the winner, the JSF _prototypes_ would have become the
YF-25.

[prefix X = Experimental, Y = Prototype; it used to be different (X =
prototype, Y = service test), but this was changed decades ago]

Andreas

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andreas Parsch" > wrote in message
...
>
> They were technology demonstrators, which were expected to be
> developed directly into fighter prototypes. Therefore, the X-32/35
> could have been properly designated as XF-24/25. Assuming that #25
> would have been the winner, the JSF _prototypes_ would have become the
> YF-25.
>

This technology demonstration was only going to produce one winner, which
would have become the F-24 program without the intervention of the
previously mentioned DoD official. The first few produced would have been
prototypes and designated YF-24.

[ReeferGuy]

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A 0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A 0=A0=A0=A0=A01151on1/19



Long before the B1 and B2 there was the B52, B58, and B70.

That is why I asked.

Same deal as the fighters.

Thank you.





=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A 0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0ReeferGuy
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A 0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0USMC-FDNY
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A 0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0Live.=A0.=A0.=A0And=A0Let=A0Live





=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A 0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=95

[Andreas Parsch]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> This technology demonstration was only going to produce one winner, which
> would have become the F-24 program without the intervention of the
> previously mentioned DoD official. The first few produced would have been
> prototypes and designated YF-24.

I know. My point was that the demonstrators could have used XF designations
(with numbers 24 and 25) without violating the rules and definitions of the
designation system. There is no rule saying that XF or YF can't be
allocated to competing designs of which only one (if any) will ever be put
in production.

The speculation is rather academic anyway, because the was a valid reason
why the JSF demonstrators used (a) X-designations and (b) non-sequential
numbers. From that point, the only logical designation for the forthcoming
prototypes was of course YF-24. BTW, so far only the plain F-35A/B/C
designators have been officially allocated, so there's no "YF-35"
designation yet.

Andreas

[Andreas Parsch]

ReeferGuy wrote:
>
> Long before the B1 and B2 there was the B52, B58, and B70.
> That is why I asked.
> Same deal as the fighters.

Up to 1962, the Air Force, Army and Navy each used their own aircraft
designation systems. In 1962, they had to adopt a common system (because
SecDef McNamara said so). This was essentially the same as the former USAF
system, but most of the numbering sequences were restarted at -1.

In most series, the initial numbers were used for redesignating existing
Navy and Army aircraft under the new system. In the F-series, all numbers
except one between F-1 and F-11 were former Navy planes. The first new
fighter designation after 1962 was F-12 (for the YF-12A prototypes). The
F-series numbers -13 (missing) and up have been listed elsewhere in this
thread. It's the same for bombers - the old series had reached B-70, but
was then restarted. However, there were no Navy bombers to redesignate, and
therefore B-1 remained open for allocation to the first new bomber design
after 1962.

And, BTW, please don't omit the dash ... it just doesn't look good ;-).

Hope this helps!

Andreas

[Cub Driver]

>Long before the B1 and B2 there was the B52, B58, and B70.
>
>That is why I asked.

Not long after fighters got north of 100, the USAF started over again.
Bombers followed not long after.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, Cub Driver
> wrote:

> >Long before the B1 and B2 there was the B52, B58, and B70.
> >
> >That is why I asked.
>
> Not long after fighters got north of 100, the USAF started over again.
> Bombers followed not long after.
>

In what is mostly a comedy what-if, I picture some hotshot P-38 driver
hearing an F[1]-22 is nearby, and laughing at the idea of dogfighting an
antique until "WTF was THAT?"

[1] Yes, I know, I know, it should have been P-22, and F-22 would have
been a recon bird at the time. Still...

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andreas Parsch" > wrote in message
...
>
> The speculation is rather academic anyway, because the was a valid reason
> why the JSF demonstrators used [snip] non-sequential
> numbers.
>

That valid reason being the assignment of the intervening numbers, X-33 and
X-34, to other projects.

[Andreas Parsch]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> The speculation is rather academic anyway, because the was a valid reason
>> why the JSF demonstrators used [snip] non-sequential
>> numbers.
>>
>
> That valid reason being the assignment of the intervening numbers, X-33
> and X-34, to other projects.

.... and that the X-32 slot, originally assigned to the JAST (Joint Advanced
Strike Technology) program, was taken over by the JSF program. Although
JSF's objectives were much different than JAST's (develop - in the long
term - an operational aircraft vs. "only" technology demonstration), JSF
was effectively a continuation of JAST by another name. Therefore keeping
the allocated vehicle designation was a logical decision, even if the JSF
demonstrator(s) wouldn't be _purely_ experimental machines. If JSF hadn't
had JAST as a precursor program, it's IMHO much more likely the aircraft
would have been designated F-24/25 from the beginning.

Andreas