"Errol Cavit" wrote in message ...
"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
snip

But as the dedicated air superiority fighters started having to double
as attack aircraft the now idiotic F/A designation is applied to
purpose-built multirole aircraft like the F/A 18 Hornet and F/A 22
Raptor while the multirole capable F-16 Falcon and F-15E Strike Eagle
remain under the F designation.
I think our designation system is in need of redefinition.

No, it needs for the system to be followed. There is an excuse for the
F/A-18, but not for F/A-22 (_reason_ yes, excuse no). AIUI the system
defines aircraft with F and A roles as F's

That's my point. A Fighter should be an F and stick to air superiority
only. Strike aircraft should be an A (Attack) and be tasked with
hitting ground targets. Any aircraft that performs dual roles should
fall under the MR designation denoting MultiRole. I think MR is much
better than F/A. It was just annoying when they started using that on
the Hornet but now it seems idiotic with the Raptor. The Raptor was
supposed to be THE air superiority fighter of the USAF with a simple
F-22 designation. Then when the program started slipping and proving
costly they switched the designation over to F/A-22 in an effort to
sell us a multirole aircraft to justify the costs. Soon, there will be
the even more idiotic FB-22 which is puzzling since they drop the
slash when a fighter is transformed into a bomber. Then, of course, is
the other designation problem of the F-117, which is actually a strike
aircraft and should be A-117. This stealth craft has NO fighter
capability at all. And you say we need to enforce the current
designations?

Why not use
an MR designation for MultiRole aircraft?

You mean like the M? e.g. MH-53E, MH-60R, MH-60S. Don't know if it can be
used as the 'primary' letter, and can't be bothered looking in the FAQ to
check.

Doubling of letters doesn't eliminate that combo. What about the
CH-53?

I suggest the following
changes:

snip suggested over-long designation system

Currently Q is drone. Some changes in this area would probably be useful
before too long.

There HAS to be as unmanned aircraft come in a complex variety of
forms: drone (towed or remote piloted), true RPVs, true UAVs, the
coming UCAVs, and those UAVs designed for global loitering. The Q
designation doesn't make a lot of sense here. The unmanned nature of
all these should produce another designation either in general not
just lump all of them into the UAV category. UAVs and UCAVs are
evolving into different types. Ordinary UAVs perform a mission,
usually recon and are controlled. What happens when the UAVs are given
autonomous capability to search where they want, loiter, and return to
an area of their choosing?
And what about Germany's UAV hunting trio Brevel, Mucke, Taifun? The
Germans, who will introduce this system by 2005/6 use the Brevel for
recon, Mucke then jams the target, while the armed Taifun kamikaze
dives onto it. All are current considered UAVs independently but form
a UCAV system as a trio. The Taifun then in reality isn't even a UCAV
since it is not intended to survive- it is a KV (KillVehicle).
Think about that.

Rob