| Warthog Territory Forums http://www.warthogterritory.net/forum/ |
|
| F-117 curious about this…. http://www.warthogterritory.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2996 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | wayne2010 [ 11 Apr 2003, 20:31 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Can anyone explain to me why the number 117 (F-117) was used? I mean from what I remember the number 111 (F-111) should have been the last number use and then we restarted the number game again back in ‘60s and of all thing we did not use F-19. And I know that number could have been the Aurora or something. Thank anyone who can help. Wayne |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 11 Apr 2003, 20:45 ] |
| Post subject: | |
it was a bit of clever dis-information, they just continued the old numbers. the USAF F-4 WAS going to be called the F-110 Spectre I believe the Ardvark was then the F-111 the F-14 Tomcat would be the F-112 nobody wanted an F-113 (bad luck of course) the F-15 would be the F-114 the YF-16 LWF would have been F-115 the YF-17/18 LWF would have been the F-116 and then the "F-19" would be the F-117 BTW these are not MY ideas, they're from a Stealth book by Doug Richardson "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel ! <img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0> |
|
| Author: | wayne2010 [ 11 Apr 2003, 22:06 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thank you I guess I will have to just leave it at “dis-information” but I feel this list would be in error because it leaves out the F-5 and YF-12 both were before the F-14 and F-15. |
|
| Author: | chadrewsky [ 11 Apr 2003, 23:49 ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Goldwaters/Nichols Reform Act redesignated US Military aircraft ID numbers before the F-14........The USAF atleast had sense to their system, explain the F-8U Crusader, and the F-4H-1 Phantom..........The Phantom was a later aircraft, yet numbered lower............whereas the century series designations of the USAF fighters followed a numeric order. Thankfully its a simple system now, with the exception of the jump to the F-35, from the YF-23. If your not having fun, your not doing it right! |
|
| Author: | FSPilot [ 12 Apr 2003, 01:03 ] |
| Post subject: | |
And it's called an F-117 (F for fighter designation) so it would slip under the radar (pun intended) of the Soviets when they were inspecting our disarmament. We could count it as a fighter and not a bomber. I assume it's the same story for the F-111. |
|
| Author: | ThePatriot [ 12 Apr 2003, 02:00 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I miss the Raven, The Eldorado Rocked libya before Stealth was in the arena. |
|
| Author: | poke [ 12 Apr 2003, 08:07 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I was wondering about this just yesterday. I fly the newest trainer in the Air Force, the T-1. How did it get the "1" designator? You'd think that number would have been taken already by an XT or a Y. (Do I have those identifiers right? I'm trying to refer to the prototype a/c that Boeing and the like build to pitch to the military.) "See that green switch? Flip it down." |
|
| Author: | wayne2010 [ 12 Apr 2003, 10:18 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> The Phantom was a later aircraft, yet numbered lower............whereas the century series designations of the USAF fighters followed a numeric order. Thankfully its a simple system now, with the exception of the jump to the F-35, from the YF-23 <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> I remember that the Phantom which started out as the F-110 for the Air Force and was F4H-1 for the Navy, which had the plane first. So I guess the Navy got first chose on picking out the designation. And then the rest of the Navy older planes were placed in the first set of numbers 1 through 13. I have a book, which must still be packed somewhere because I can not find it, with all of the old and new designations for the Navy planes. So as for the jump form YF-23 to F-35 I can only thing of two reasons one is the “clever dis-information” as stated by boomer or that a designation number is giving to every paper air plane that comes along. <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle> <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle> |
|
| Author: | M&M [ 12 Apr 2003, 11:45 ] |
| Post subject: | |
The "F-35" started out life as the X-35.....originally the plans, according to Lockheed was for the aircraft to be called the F-24. Quite frankly I am not so sure that it still wont become that. Oh, btw before ya'll start throwing rocks at that statement I have this from a LM employee in the public relations dept......<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle> "face it....perhaps your only purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others!" |
|
| Author: | ThePatriot [ 12 Apr 2003, 13:31 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Heres the Dutch JSF, I think its refered to as the XXX-35 <img src="http://forums.frugalsworld.com/~donkeyshots//DonkyshotsFrugals/JSF.jpg" border=0> |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 12 Apr 2003, 17:03 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I remember that M&M, and despite my best efforts my simmers insist on calling it the F-35 and I have been forced to relinquish !! LOL "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel ! <img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0> |
|
| Author: | chadrewsky [ 12 Apr 2003, 17:31 ] |
| Post subject: | |
While we are on the subject, whats the groups consesus on the F-20 Tigershark? Would it have been better than the F-16? If we go by the current numerical assignment for an aircraft designation, thw F-20 should have been the F-19..........However Northup thought that the F-20 designation was more esteticaly pleasing, and that the new designation would help bolster export sales and make the jet more marketable. Was there an F-21? For the JSF I do like the F-24 designation better than the F-35. Any clue what the F-24 or F-35 will be called? If your not having fun, your not doing it right! |
|
| Author: | mudd2air [ 12 Apr 2003, 18:03 ] |
| Post subject: | |
My opinion on the F-20 (F-5G as it was called first) was that it was a fine aircraft but system wise wouldnt stand up to what the F-16 turned out to be. The proof is in the foreign sales. They all wanted the F-16, they (GD) even offered a J-79 of the F-16 but no one was interested if it didnt have the newer class of engine. "Life is tough....its even tougher when your stupid" |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 13 Apr 2003, 01:07 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I heard the F-20 had a higher instantaneous G capability than F-16, but that F-16 had a higher sustained G capability. Chad the F-21 was the Kfir that the Marines used for dissimilar training. basically a Mirage 5 with canards http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/kfir.htm <img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/kfir_p1.jpg" border=0> "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel ! <img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0> |
|
| Author: | Horrido [ 13 Apr 2003, 03:44 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Interesting on the F-117 designation, since I've heard another story, still. That it was basically a number used for high-speed taxi tests, or some-sort. I've seen the YF-110 and YF-113 designations used for "aquired" MiG-21s and MiG-23s tested at Groom Lake. The F-111 was McNamara's abortion and was, originally, designed as a fleet defense fighter to fire the AIM-54 Phoenix missile, a concept which eventually evolved into the much more successful and capable F-14. The F-19 designation was offered to the Tigershark, but Northrop pushed for F-20 because it sounded better. As a result, the "F-19" designation was just skipped. The F-17 Cobra was the lightweight fighter competitor to the F-16, looking like a little F-18 Hornet, which, using illicite government and PAC-funded steroids, has morphed into the Super Hornet monstrosity (yes, the Super Hornet is the latest, and hopefully last, of a long-line begun by a failed light-fighter design). Here's the F-21 Kfir we leased from the Israelies. http://www.arcair5.com/Gal1/301-400/gal ... gal361.htm http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2 ... de_f21.htm A sucking chest wound is life's way of telling you to slow down... |
|
| Author: | joedog [ 13 Apr 2003, 16:09 ] |
| Post subject: | |
" I've seen the YF-110 and YF-113 designations used for "aquired" MiG-21s and MiG-23s tested at Groom Lake." That's interesting when you consider that and the disinformation angle together. Does anyone remember a crash, say mid 80s in Cal. I think? The press was very proud of its self when the quoted "unnamed Air Force sources" that the reason the crash site was locked down was that the AC was a Mig-23 the AF had aquired. The press was proud. The AF wouldn't talk about it and we were left with the impression that the mystery was solved. Case closed. One small problem. Years later the AF admitted the AC involved wasn't a Mig. It was in fact an F-117 (still black at the time). Disinformation can work wonders sometimes... All the way... Edited by - joedog on Apr 13 2003 3:11 PM |
|
| Author: | chadrewsky [ 13 Apr 2003, 19:08 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Chad the F-21 was the Kfir that the Marines used for dissimilar training. basically a Mirage 5 with canards Your right Boomer...............I screwed up on that one. The F-16 was procurred by foreign countries for many reasons, however..........It was not because it was clearly superior to the F-20. The F-20 would have been a better fit, but its all about numbers.........and more export sales meant a better price per unit for the USAF. If your not having fun, your not doing it right! |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 13 Apr 2003, 21:50 ] |
| Post subject: | |
this doesnt apply to anything , but it seems as good a place as any to throw it in LOL. Back in the mid 80s we had 2 Mil-24 Hind gunships fly right over the house at about 200ft. I dont really think that they would have been over at the Fort for training, probly just hopscotching to the airfield for fuel on the way back to the Groom Lake facilities. BTW I like the Kfir, as a strike aircraft it's similar to what we were doing with the F-16XL SCAMP. "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel ! <img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0> |
|
| Author: | tedg [ 14 Apr 2003, 09:47 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> The USAF atleast had sense to their system, explain the F-8U Crusader, and the F-4H-1 Phantom <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> Ok, the old U.S. Navy designation system in less than a page... The old U.S> Navy designation system actually did make a lot of sense. The way it was set up you could tell the mission of the aircraft, the manufacturer, how many aircraft of that type they had made, and the version of the aircraft. Using the Phantom for example..F4H-1 you have a (F)ighter, (4)th type, (H) Mcdonnel, and the (1)st version. The F8U was a (F)ighter, (8)th type, (U) Vought. Link to a message on Google Groups that explains more (mainly becasue I'm feeling lazy, and don't want to type more) [url="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=old+US+Navy+aircraft+designation+system&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=4oa6kl%24fsl%40newsbf02.news.aol.com&rnum=1"]Click here[/url] Ted Boring the world, one post at a time. |
|
| Author: | Horrido [ 15 Apr 2003, 01:28 ] |
| Post subject: | |
My mom saw an F-117 fly through the canyon Colfax, WA sits in, presumably on its way up to Fairchild, early one morning. This was in 1986, before it was officially released. lol A sucking chest wound is life's way of telling you to slow down... |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 15 Apr 2003, 01:51 ] |
| Post subject: | |
lol cool "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel ! <img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0> |
|
| Author: | chadrewsky [ 15 Apr 2003, 13:16 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Didn't the F-117 enter USAF service in about 1981 or so? If your not having fun, your not doing it right! |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 15 Apr 2003, 19:45 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I thought it was 86? "US Army Snipers- One shot, one kill" |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 15 Apr 2003, 21:37 ] |
| Post subject: | |
F-117 ordered in Nov78, trials aircraft flew in June 81, deliveries in Aug 82, IOC Oct 83, first official photo Nov 88. "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel ! <img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0> |
|
| Author: | Shabah [ 26 Apr 2003, 11:56 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yes, the F-20 designation was deliberately skipped. Yes, the F-117A recieved it's designation from the numbering system at the test location from which it was flying. (As did the pilots). Yes, the -117 really should have been the A-11 or A-12. The program was originally the ATA- Advanced Tactical Aircraft. The follow on was the ATB-Advanced Tactical Bomber..... the B-2. F-117A Webmaster www.f-117a.com |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|