How were Have Blue and Tacit Blue codenames chosen?

Demonpenta2 wrote:

Subject: How were Have Blue and Tacit Blue codenames chosen?
From: Cub Driver
Date: 9/27/2003 6:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

Arbitrary. I believe they were thrown up by a computer.

As fas as I know (could be wrong, of course!), the nicknames are _not_
chosen by a computer. And if you think about it, it's not _that_
difficult for a human to come up with a perfectly harmless word - like
"Blue" ;-).


It finally dawned on someone that code names tend to be self-breaking
(Overlord!).

Well, OK. Then, how do they pick exercise/operational codenames?

You might be interested in this article:

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/P...5/sieminsk.htm


Andreas

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 18:08:26 GMT, "Bill Silvey"
wrote:


Ed, I've got a question about fighter pilot callnames, nicknames or whatever
you want to call them...I used to work with a Navy pilot at the datacenter I
was employed at a few years back, and he and I had a lot of time to kill on
our shift as it was from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM (not a lot happening on the east
coast in terms of electronic finance at those hours).

AT ANY RATE...one evening I asked him, jokingly, "So, did you have some
ultra-cool fighter pilot name like "Shark" or "Killer" or "Maverick" or
"Iceman"." and he just sort of frosted a bit and said, "No, my 'handle' was
Sparks."

Later that evening (morning) as the shift ended I was packing up* and bade
him goodbye, I'll see you tomorrow** "sparks". Anyway, he frosted again and
shook his head and said "Don't call me that. You don't get to." He never
mentioned it again, didn't act any different than the friendly guy he was
the next day, etc.

Quite often a call-sign is "earned" based on an embarrassing
situation. If so, some folks might tolerate it among those who know
the story but not wear it so proudly outside of the community. My best
guess might be that "Sparks" might have had a tail drag incident
somewhere or maybe an oversight leading to taxi, take-off or landing
with some component dragging and creating a pyrotechnic display.

We had a guy in Spain in the F-4 that made a significant switch error
during a night, low-level, nuclear (simulated) delivery during an ORI.
It resulted in dropping the nuke "shape" about eight miles short of
the target. From that day forward he was "Short Round" to everyone.

The worst one I ever heard was recently from an F-16 pilot. His name
tag declared him to be "OBOC". The explanation, when pried out of him,
was that during a cross-country excursion with a number of buddies,
he'd gotten quite lucky with a beautiful young lady, but he had to cut
the evening much shorter than it could have been, because he "Only
Brought One Condom"!!!

There's a female Viper pilot I know named "Shooter"--not because of
her marksmanship or aerial gunnery skills, but as a result of a
drinking misadventure.

"John A. Weeks III" wrote in message
...
In article , Cub Driver
wrote:

And how do they name planes?

It seems to be a collaborative effort between the manufacturer and the
air force. Then, after the uniformly awful names are applied, the
pilots and crews name it something else entirely.

It used to be something that the manufacturer did. For example,
North American used the "thunder" series names (Thunderbolt,
Thunderchief, etc); Lockheed used astronomy names (Constellation);
Boeing used terms from the atmosphere (Flying Fortress, Super
Fortress, Strato Fortress, etc).
-john-

Republic Aviation would be really surprised to find out about the "thunder"
series being used by North American.

Tex Houston

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:31:07 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:

Hands down winner, "Fighting Falcon" replaced by "Viper."

I'm of the opinion that if they'd just left the redundant "Fighting" off
the name it would've had a chance.

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 12:55:12 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"
wrote:

In article , Cub Driver
wrote:

And how do they name planes?

It seems to be a collaborative effort between the manufacturer and the
air force. Then, after the uniformly awful names are applied, the
pilots and crews name it something else entirely.

It used to be something that the manufacturer did. For example,
North American used the "thunder" series names (Thunderbolt,
Thunderchief, etc)

You mean Republic, right?

North American built the Mustang and Twin Mustang. They built a series of Navy
fighters all bearing the name Fury and there was the Sabre and Super Sabre.
I don't think that the XF-107 was ever Christened with a name.

Lockheed originally named there XP-38 the "Atlanta". It was the Brits who
bestowed the name "Lightning". Likewise, the Brits named the P-51"Mustang", as
NAA called it the "Apache".

Grumman built fighters in FAA service received the names "Martlet" and "Gannet",
utterly awful to American ears. They eventually adopted Grumman's names of
Wildcat and Hellcat. Grumman also produced three different aircraft based upon
the same airframe, "Tracker", "Tracer" and "Trader". These being the S2F-1, WF-1
and the TF-1. Later these were re-designated S-2, E-1 and C-1.

The common thread to Boeing bombers was the word "Fortress", not really anything
related to the atmosphere.

As far as I can determine, Only Grumman has adhered to tradition over the long
haul. Republic had the Thunderbolt II (A-10), LVT had the Corsair II (A-7),
McDonnell had the Phantom II (F-4 series) and most recently Lockheed-Martin
offered the Lightning II (F-22). Both the A-10 and F-22 have alternate names
(Warthog, etc) now, and the Phantom and A-7 are essentially history.

My regards,

Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.netaces.org
http://www.hitechcreations.com

"Yeff" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:31:07 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:

Hands down winner, "Fighting Falcon" replaced by "Viper."

I'm of the opinion that if they'd just left the redundant "Fighting" off
the name it would've had a chance.

-Jeff B.


They tried but the maker of Falcon business jets already had the inside
track and protested loudly.

Tex

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:21:59 -0600, Tex Houston wrote:


"Yeff" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:31:07 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:

Hands down winner, "Fighting Falcon" replaced by "Viper."

I'm of the opinion that if they'd just left the redundant "Fighting" off
the name it would've had a chance.

-Jeff B.


They tried but the maker of Falcon business jets already had the inside
track and protested loudly.

I can just see a bunch of businessmen all wearing suits, standing on a
flightline and staring at an F-16...

"Is that what we ordered?"

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

"Tex Houston" wrote in message
...

"Yeff" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:31:07 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:

Hands down winner, "Fighting Falcon" replaced by "Viper."

I'm of the opinion that if they'd just left the redundant "Fighting" off
the name it would've had a chance.

They tried but the maker of Falcon business jets already had the inside
track and protested loudly.

Dassault builds more than Biz-jets.

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:05:16 +0200, Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
I like the original 1918 British system. Surely the paper-pusher who
determined that henceforth fighters would have names that were
"Zoological, Vegetable, or Mineral" and must alliterate with the
name of the manufacturer, had a mischievous streak...

Hmmm...

The Hawker-Siddeley Haricot, the BAE Banana :-)


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

Tex Houston wrote:

"Yeff" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:31:07 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:

Hands down winner, "Fighting Falcon" replaced by "Viper."

I'm of the opinion that if they'd just left the redundant "Fighting" off
the name it would've had a chance.

They tried but the maker of Falcon business jets already had the inside
track and protested loudly.

Is Dat ssault? :^)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)