(robert arndt) wrote in message . com...
"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.

You can physically hang a bomb any almost any fighter if you want to.
Remember the F-15 was "not a pound for air-to-ground"? Then some time
later came the F-15E.


I think MR is much
better than F/A.

Try reading what I wrote. This is not a problem with the designation
system, it's a problem with people doing non-sensical things based on
(but outside) the system. Redefining the system won't help much with
the issue of political fiddling.

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.

There is also the tendency to not give new series letters, so we have
CC-130J rather than something sensible like C-130K, and significant
changes to the F-16 being shown by block numbers. Don't get me started
on the F-35.


And you say we need to enforce the current
designations?

I didn't say that. I say the issues would be far fewer if you enforced
the current _system_. Listing examples were people have done things
outside the system isn't an argument for changing the system.


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?

The cargo-only versions of the H-53, as opposed to the Mine warfare +
cargo versions? What about them?
You would call the current CH-53E's MRH-53E? The current MH-53E's
would be MRH-53F or something?


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?

What's wrong with using Q as vehicle type = unmanned? If you make it
much more specific, you risk modifications to software or control
methods changing the primary designation for what is the same physical
vehicle. Perhaps a different letter if it is capable of fully
autonomous operation? Makes far more sense than
your TRUAV-1 for the Predator (currently it's RQ-1, you could argue
that the armed ones should be AQ-1 or ARQ-1).

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).

Can the Taifun be recovered if it isn't 'fired'? If so, RQ-xxA,
EQ-xxB, and AQ-xxC. Or treat the Taifun as a guided missile and
designate accordingly. Why is this worse than your suggestion?


Think about that.


Think about how aircraft designs can develop, and all the
possibilities that have to be taken into account. Using 3 or 4 letter
acronyms parts of designations just doesn't make sense. That's why
code letters are used in the most current systems, not the
buzz-acronym of the moment.

Errol Cavit | "Pressures are put on governments to
satisfy their public's demand for immediate action. The intervention
in
Somalia was undoubtedly media led. It was disastrous. There is a
connection
between those two statements." Hudson & Stanier, 'War and the Media'
1997