![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canadian ATC aircraft designation | abripl | Home Built | 2 | February 4th 05 05:35 PM |
Designation Book | David R Townend | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 4th 04 02:29 AM |
Aircraft Designation Book | David R Townend | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | October 16th 03 02:25 AM |
Aircraft Designation Book | David R Townend | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | October 16th 03 02:25 AM |
Aircraft Designation Book | David R Townend | Home Built | 0 | October 16th 03 02:25 AM |