The term "Fighter"

Well, in the US, Harriers are designated AV-8 - so attack, not fighter.
In the UK, they are Harrier GR.x (x being the mark number), for ground
attack and recce - so, still not fighters. The Sea harrier is designated
FA.2, since it's got a realistic air combat role.

I think that if the USAF had adopted the harrier, it would have an F
designation, or at the very least F/A. The USAF simply doesn't like to
recognize the concept of an attack aircraft.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Well, in the US, Harriers are designated AV-8 - so attack, not fighter.
In the UK, they are Harrier GR.x (x being the mark number), for ground
attack and recce - so, still not fighters. The Sea harrier is designated
FA.2, since it's got a realistic air combat role.

I think that if the USAF had adopted the harrier, it would have an F
designation, or at the very least F/A. The USAF simply doesn't like to
recognize the concept of an attack aircraft.

all the best -- Dan Ford


With the system used "U.S. Joint Aircraft Designation System of 1962",
faults aside, how does the USAF have this choice?

Regards,

Tex Houston

With the system used "U.S. Joint Aircraft Designation System of 1962",
faults aside, how does the USAF have this choice?

By not adopting the aircraft, or by redesigning and redesignating it.

Has the USAF adopted an attack aircraft since the A-10 was rammed down
its throat?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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