If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why no F/24 -34?
Why has the AF chosen to jump fighter designations from 22 to 35?
Thanks |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Michael wrote:
Why has the AF chosen to jump fighter designations from 22 to 35? http://www.designation-systems.net/u....html#_MDS_F35 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael" wrote in message om... Why has the AF chosen to jump fighter designations from 22 to 35? The USAF didn't make that choice. An undersecretary of defense who was clueless about the designation system screwed up. The X-32 and X-35 were not prototypes, they were technology demonstrators. Whichever one of them won the JSF contract, the resulting aircraft was to be designated the F-24. (F-24 was next in line, the F-23 was the Northrop bid that lost to the F-22.) When the winner of the JSF competition was announced the undersecretary was asked what the new aircraft would be designated. He screwed up, saying it would be the F-35 because the X-35 had won the competition. Rather than make him look stupid the JSF officially became the F-35. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: The USAF didn't make that choice. An undersecretary of defense who was clueless about the designation system screwed up. For another example, look at the world-famous RS-71. Oops, Lyndon Johnson called it the "SR-71." Change the name... -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote in message om... For another example, look at the world-famous RS-71. Oops, Lyndon Johnson called it the "SR-71." Change the name... Of course, RS-71 wouldn't have fit any better into the designation system. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Chad Irby" wrote in message om... For another example, look at the world-famous RS-71. Oops, Lyndon Johnson called it the "SR-71." Change the name... It wasn't LBJ's fault - see http://www.designation-systems.net/u...html#_MDS_SR71 Of course, RS-71 wouldn't have fit any better into the designation system. Technically, it would. The "RS" prefix was explicitly allowed as a "special" designation in the regulation of 1962. Andreas |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Andreas Parsch
wrote: Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "Chad Irby" wrote in message om... For another example, look at the world-famous RS-71. Oops, Lyndon Johnson called it the "SR-71." Change the name... It wasn't LBJ's fault - see http://www.designation-systems.net/u...html#_MDS_SR71 Of course, RS-71 wouldn't have fit any better into the designation system. Technically, it would. The "RS" prefix was explicitly allowed as a "special" designation in the regulation of 1962. And it was to have been preceded by the RS-70, a version of the B-70 that didn't get bought/built. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Of course, RS-71 wouldn't have fit any better into the designation system. Why not, at least R stands for recce stuff. Qman |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Qman" wrote in message ... Why not, at least R stands for recce stuff. Yes, but S stands for antisubmarine, and the -71 is out of the bomber series. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Andreas Parsch" wrote in message ... Technically, it would. The "RS" prefix was explicitly allowed as a "special" designation in the regulation of 1962. Well, that's the point. If it had fit the designation system a "special" designation wouldn't have been needed. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|