How did F117 get it's designation?

"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.

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

"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.

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" 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.

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