Is there a F-13 ?
Nils Mathisrud +47 6684 2647
Has there ever been a F-13 fighter aircraft? There seems to be a hole
in the designation series for fighter aircraft starting with the F-1
(ex. FJ Fury) up to the F-23 (YF-23). The only reference to F-13 I have
seen is the Boeing F-13A photo-recce version of the B-29, but this is
not the aircraft I am searching for.
#########################################################################
Nils Mathisrud
email: et...@etn.ericsson.se
John Pike
>
>
> Has there ever been a F-13 fighter aircraft?
A single Thomas-Morse XP-13 Viper was delivered to the Army in 1929.
On 18 September 1962 DOD consolidated the Navy and Air Force aircraft
designation systems, which had gotten as high as the F-111 (the USAF
F-110 retained the Navy F-4 designation). No F-113 was projected, and
the sequence F-12 and F-14 skipped over F-13.
XP-19 was used to designate a Curtiss design specification, which was
never built. The F-19 designation also remains unassigned, leading to
speculation that the F-117 was called F-19.
(See Jones, "US Fighters" Aero)
So someone make me an offer:
Century Built Possible
Series Sequence
F-110 F-4
F-111 F-111
F-112 F-12
F-113 --- ---
F-114 F-14 ??
F-115 F-15 ??
F-116 F-16 ??
F-117 F-117 YF-17A ??
Ben Rich doesn't say anything in his book about where "F-117" came
from, and I don't immediately see anything else in my files on this
question -- any suggestions??
Yet another example of the crying need for a Confucian "Rectification
of Names" !!!
B W Moll
Where in your sequence does the Northrup YF17, that lost the flyoff to
the YF16 in 1974 fit?
Regards-
Brent
---
disclaimer: The views represented here are my own. Any similarity
between my views and the views of my employer is purely coincidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Brent W. Moll Internet o...@ornl.gov
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge TN Phone: 615-574-6335 (USA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stainless Steel Rat
>>>>> <etonm@etn_victoriaericsson.no> writes:
Nils> Has there ever been a F-13 fighter aircraft? There seems to be a
Nils> hole in the designation series for fighter aircraft starting with
Nils> the F-1 (ex. FJ Fury) up to the F-23 (YF-23).
I belive it was skipped as ``13'' is unlucky.
There's another hole at F-19, which was skipped to give F-20 to the
Tigershark.
--
Rat <rat...@ccs.neu.edu> | Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | which, if exposed due to rupture, should
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
Kevin Behn
>
> Century Built Possible
> Series Sequence
>
> F-110 F-4
> F-111 F-111
> F-112 F-12
> F-113 --- ---
> F-114 F-14 ??
> F-115 F-15 ??
> F-116 F-16 ??
> F-117 F-117 YF-17A ??
>
> Ben Rich doesn't say anything in his book about where "F-117" came
> from, and I don't immediately see anything else in my files on this
> question -- any suggestions??
i don't think that the YF-17 was the F-117, because i thought that the
YF-17 was the competition for either the F-16 of the F/A-18, i forget
which, but it was one of them. i think.
-Kevin M. Behn
kmb...@ucdavis.edu
Stainless Steel Rat
Kevin> i don't think that the YF-17 was the F-117, because i thought
Kevin> that the YF-17 was the competition for either the F-16 of the
Kevin> F/A-18, i forget which, but it was one of them. i think.
YF-17 was a competitor against the YF-16, and the basic layout was used
for the YF/A-18 redesign. F-117 is a complete misnomer and has no
relationship to anything in the current standard designation conventions.
B W Moll
>
>i don't think that the YF-17 was the F-117, because i thought that the
>YF-17 was the competition for either the F-16 of the F/A-18, i forget
>which, but it was one of them. i think.
Rick DeNatale
wrote:
> etonm@etn_victoriaericsson.no (Nils Mathisrud +47 6684 2647) wrote:
> >
> >
> > Has there ever been a F-13 fighter aircraft?
>
> A single Thomas-Morse XP-13 Viper was delivered to the Army in 1929.
>
> On 18 September 1962 DOD consolidated the Navy and Air Force aircraft
> designation systems, which had gotten as high as the F-111 (the USAF
> F-110 retained the Navy F-4 designation). No F-113 was projected, and
> the sequence F-12 and F-14 skipped over F-13.
>
> XP-19 was used to designate a Curtiss design specification, which was
> never built. The F-19 designation also remains unassigned, leading to
> speculation that the F-117 was called F-19.
>
> (See Jones, "US Fighters" Aero)
>
>
> So someone make me an offer:
>
> Century Built Possible
> Series Sequence
>
> F-110 F-4
> F-111 F-111
> F-112 F-12
> F-113 --- ---
> F-114 F-14 ??
> F-115 F-15 ??
> F-116 F-16 ??
> F-117 F-117 YF-17A ??
>
You got the date of changeover to the common USAF/USN fighter naming
system right, but the coorespondance between old numbers and new ones
wrong. Many of the early F-n series were Navy fighters which were renamed,
usually as closely as possible to their original Navy numbers which were
of the form:
F numberFromManufacturer LetterDesignatingManufactuer variantNumber
So the F4U1 was a Vought Corsair, and an F4H-1 was a McDonnell-Douglas
Phantom II
The real table should look like this:
New Series Original Number Comments
F1 FJ Fury North American Naval fighter
F2 F2H Banshee Almost none in service at time of change
F3 F3H Demon Another McDonell Fighter, out of service
shortly after change
F4 F4H-1 The Phantom, the first Air Force Phantom was
to be designated F110.
F5 NONE
F6 F4D Skyray Naval/Marine figher short career as F6
F7 ConvairF2Y Sea Dart Inexplicably the F7 designation was
given
six years after the project had been
abandoned.
F8 Vought F8U Corsair II
F9 Grumman F9F Panther/Cougar
F10 Douglas F3D
F11 F111F Tiger "Blue Angels" plane in mid-1960s
F12 YF-12A The Blackbird
F13 NOT USED (Triskedecaphobia?)
F14 The Tomcat
F15 The Eagle
F16 The Falcon
F17 Northrop loser to YF-16 in lightweight fighter competition
F18 Hornet - Phoenix risen from the YF-17
F19 ???? - Maybe the F-117 maybe not ????
F20 Tigershark
F21 Designation for the IAI Kfir leased from the manufacturer to
the Marine Corps and Navy. Used for Top-gun training
F22 Lockheed ATF candidate
F23 Northrop ATF candidate
In the earlier Pursuit series the P-73, P-74, and XF-109 designations were
also unassigned.
Source: Fighters of the United States Air Force, by Robert F. Dorr and
David Donald, The Military Press
--
Rick DeNatale
Still trying to come up with a really cool Signature
David Tanner
[snip!]
> So someone make me an offer:
>
> Century Built Possible
> Series Sequence
>
> F-110 F-4
> F-111 F-111
> F-112 F-12
> F-113 --- ---
> F-114 F-14 ??
> F-115 F-15 ??
> F-116 F-16 ??
> F-117 F-117 YF-17A ??
>
If the USAF continued "its" series beyond F-111, they wouldn't have
given a number to the F-14, a Navy only plane. So I'd try
Century Built Possible
Series '62 Sequence
F-110 F-4
F-111 F-111
F-112 F-12
F-113 --- ---
F-114 F-15
F-115 F-16
F-116 F-17
F-117 F-117 F-19
The only fly in this ointment is that there is no place for the F-5,
which should have gotten a Centry-series number. Maybe F-113?
David Tanner
John Pike
>
> In article c...@clarknet.clark.net, John Pike <john...@clark.net> () writes:
> >So someone make me an offer:
> >
> >Century Built Possible
> >Series Sequence
> >
> >F-110 F-4
> >F-111 F-111
> >F-112 F-12
> >F-113 --- ---
> >F-114 F-14 ??
> >F-115 F-15 ??
> >F-116 F-16 ??
> >F-117 F-117 YF-17A ??
> >
> Where in your sequence does the Northrup YF17, that lost the flyoff to
> the YF16 in 1974 fit?
Well, this is precisely the problem. The Northrop YF-17, which evolved
into the F-18, should be "F-117" by logical extension of the Century
Series. On the other hand, the Century Series stopped with F-111, so
how do we logically get the Lockheed stealth F-117?? Or did they just
make it up?/
John Pike
.........
> You got ... the coorespondance between old numbers and new ones
> wrong.
Where, I didn't think I gave any Navy numbers, apart from F-4.
> Many of the early F-n series were Navy fighters which were renamed,
> usually as closely as possible to their original Navy numbers which were
> of the form:
Right.
> The real table should look like this:
Right, but it doesn't explain F-117.
> F19 ???? - Maybe the F-117 maybe not ????
So what is the story here?? Was it originally going to be F-19, and
then when that was "compromised" they made up F-117, or what??
Rick DeNatale
wrote:
> dena...@nando.net (Rick DeNatale) wrote:
> .........
> > You got ... the coorespondance between old numbers and new ones
> > wrong.
>
> Where, I didn't think I gave any Navy numbers, apart from F-4.
Your thesis seemed to be that the new series was more or less the Air
Force century series - 100. When in fact it came from McNamara's desire to
consolidate Air Force and Navy aircraft procurement. Of the planes then in
service and renumbered, only the Phantom was being used by both services.
>
>
> Right, but it doesn't explain F-117.
>
> > F19 ???? - Maybe the F-117 maybe not ????
>
> So what is the story here?? Was it originally going to be F-19, and
> then when that was "compromised" they made up F-117, or what??
Depends on whose story you want to beleive. One story is that F-19 was
never used because Northrop preferred the F-20 designation for the
Tigershark.
Another is that the F-117 was indeed the F-19, but that in order to make
repeated denials of the existance of an F-19 "true" the F-117 designation
was used.
So why F-117, what happened to F-112 through F-116. Well one theory that
has been posited is that these were used for a variety of MiGs and Sukhois
that had be somehow acquired by the Air Force and used for evaluation and
dissimilar combat training. This "MiG Squadron" operated within the Nellis
area, and might have shared the Tonopah Test Range with the F-117s.
Good theory, but if anyone really knows they neither confirm nor deny.
And another good question is why the F-117 which is basically an
air-ground beast carries an F designation at all?
B W Moll
One would believe that politics had a role in that, inasmuch as funding for
a stealth figher (F) would have greater appeal than funding for a stealth
air-ground (A) aircraft would not be understood by those whose hand holds
the federal checkbook.
Geoff Miller
Stainless Steel Rat <rat...@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> There's another hole at F-19, which was skipped to give F-20 to the
> Tigershark.
Why wasn't *F-19* simply assigned to the Tigershark, if that was the
next number in the sequence? Did Northrop request F-20 for aesthetic
reasons, since it was a multiple of ten or something?
Geoff
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems
geo...@purplehaze.EBay.Sun.COM + + + + + + + + Milpitas, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
uid no access
Read somewhere--I think it was the Squadron/Signal F-117 In Action book--in an
interview with a former Nighthawk pilot that the plan was to originally call it
F-19, but when it was still in development, pilots at Dreamland (yes, the guy
did refer to it, twice, and called it Dreamland) were logging flight time in the
aircraft that they couldn't say what they REALLY were in their logbooks as "117
Time," for no good reason. Well, of course, the early Nighthawks were being
logged in flight-test as "117 Time," and Lockheed was going around trying to
find something to print on the cover of the early version of the POH. They
heard someone refer to their flight hours in the bird as "117 Time," and it
seems that they assumed that the official designation had become "F-117" and
that Lockheed wasn't informed through a typical DOD screw-up. So, the first
batch of manuals was printed for the "Lockheed F-117A." Now, USAF could still
have changed it to F-19, like it was going to be, but some high muckety-muck
decreed, "No, we're not spending X million dollars to change it on the manuals,
we'll just have to call it the F-117A." At least, that's what the guy said he
was told when he joined the program and asked the inevitable question, "Why is
this the F-117 instead of something lower?" That was interview also had the
first confirmation that the pilots were calling the planes Nighthawks, and a
few other tidbits--like, in response to the interviewer asking if the F-117 is
a supersonic aircraft, the ex-pilot replied something along the lines of, "It
is capable of exceeding Mach 1." (With an implied "just" or "in a dive," I
expect.) Also, he commented on the reason for the "Wobbly Goblin" name possibly
being due to a wind tunnel test where they stalled the model. Something about,
"When it does depart, it departs in a really weird mode... which might be where
that name came from."
The more I think about it, the more I'm certain it was the Squadron/Signal book.
I'd say buy it even if you're not planning on building a model--this is the only
interview with an F-117 pilot before restrictions on what they could tell the
interviewers were tightened, so it's amazing all that you can learn and/or piece
together from that book.
RM
Who has rambled too long and is starting to see things that look like "Douglas
F4D Skyrays with Packard grilles for inlets"...
Stainless Steel Rat
Geoff> Why wasn't *F-19* simply assigned to the Tigershark, if that was
Geoff> the next number in the sequence? Did Northrop request F-20 for
Geoff> aesthetic reasons, since it was a multiple of ten or something?
They asked for it for their add copy: ``Northrop F-20: first of a new
series of fighters....'' The F-5G would have been redesignated F-19 had
Northrop not specifically asked for the F-20, and the DoD went along
with it, probably because it fit in with the whole idea of
disinformation (if that's the F-20, where the hell is the F-19!).
--
Rat <rat...@ccs.neu.edu> | Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | children under 10 should avoid prolonged
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | exposure to Happy Fun Ball.
Stainless Steel Rat
>> > F19 ???? - Maybe the F-117 maybe not ????
>>
>> So what is the story here?? Was it originally going to be F-19, and
>> then when that was "compromised" they made up F-117, or what??
Rick> Depends on whose story you want to beleive. One story is that F-19
Rick> was never used because Northrop preferred the F-20 designation for
Rick> the Tigershark.
Which is, in fact, the case. It made for good add copy.
Rick> Another is that the F-117 was indeed the F-19, but that in order
Rick> to make repeated denials of the existance of an F-19 "true" the
Rick> F-117 designation was used.
The F-117 would never have been F-19 because it's not a fighter, it's an
attacker and would have had an ``A'' designation. The F-117 was a
misnomer that stuck.
Stainless Steel Rat
>>> F19 ???? - Maybe the F-117 maybe not ????
>>
>> So what is the story here?? Was it originally going to be F-19, and
>> then when that was "compromised" they made up F-117, or what??
uid> Read somewhere--I think it was the Squadron/Signal F-117 In Action
uid> book--in an interview with a former Nighthawk pilot that the plan
uid> was to originally call it F-19, [...]
``F'' was because it was easier to appropriate money for a ``stealth
fighter'' than for a ``stealth attacker'' from Congress. The 117 was the
budget number or something like that. F-19 was wholely the province of
the F-5G except that Northrop asked for F-20 for their add copy.
--
Rat <rat...@ccs.neu.edu> | Happy Fun Ball has been shipped to our
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | troops in Saudi Arabia and is also being
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | dropped by our warplanes on Iraq.
Ken Fischer
: Ben Rich doesn't say anything in his book about where "F-117" came
: from, and I don't immediately see anything else in my files on this
: question -- any suggestions??
One of the dozen books on the F-117 and Lockheed says
that because the F-117 flew nights only, pilots would say
they flew 11-7 (meaning the hours, not the plane) and that
name was carried forward.
The nickname "Cockroach" was given for the same reason,
because they only come out at night.
Kenneth Edmund Fischer kfis...@iglou.com Internet Gateway Louisville KY
uid no access
>John Pike (john...@clark.net) wrote:
>
>: Ben Rich doesn't say anything in his book about where "F-117" came
>: from, and I don't immediately see anything else in my files on this
>: question -- any suggestions??
>
> One of the dozen books on the F-117 and Lockheed says
>that because the F-117 flew nights only, pilots would say
>they flew 11-7 (meaning the hours, not the plane) and that
>name was carried forward.
Hmm, that sounds a lot like what the guy in the F-117 book I wrote about earlier
said, explains the "117 Time" reference...
RM
Kevin Behn
> air-ground beast carries an F designation at all?
i've always wondered that myself.
-Kevin M. Behn
kmb...@ucdavis.edu
Kevin Behn
their friends and families that they were doing system tests on A-7's.
so why wouldn't they just put A-7 in their log books?
-Kevin M. Behn
kmb...@ucdavis.edu
Kevin Behn
> Rick> Depends on whose story you want to beleive. One story is that F-19
> Rick> was never used because Northrop preferred the F-20 designation for
> Rick> the Tigershark.
>
> Which is, in fact, the case. It made for good add copy.
so, the Northrop company (not to diss them, because Jack Northrop is my
idol) asked the U.S. Government to designate their plane the F-20 so that
the company could turn around and have a good add campaign to sell the
plane to the U.S. Government. I'll never get politics. :)
-Kevin M. Behn
kmb...@ucdavis.edu
e8425654
the F-19 simulation. The aircraft in that game looks more like a
small B-2.
Joe Holzer
Rick DeNatale
> idol) asked the U.S. Government to designate their plane the F-20 so that
> the company could turn around and have a good add campaign to sell the
> plane to the U.S. Government. I'll never get politics. :)
>
Wasn't the F-20 intended for export sales. My references indicate that it
was originally designed for sale to Taiwan. Although it could have been a
contender for a Navy aggressor contract, Northrop didn't enter the
competition because it wouldn't have produced enough orders to justify
beginning production.
So the ad's were primarily targetted at the foreign market, and the
Government's interest would have been in improving our balance of trade.
A twist on "act locally, think globally"
Stainless Steel Rat
Rick> Wasn't the F-20 intended for export sales. My references indicate
Rick> that it was originally designed for sale to Taiwan. Although it
Rick> could have been a contender for a Navy aggressor contract,
Rick> Northrop didn't enter the competition because it wouldn't have
Rick> produced enough orders to justify beginning production.
This is correct; the Tigershark was never intended to be a domestic
fighter. Then the DoD decided that the 'shark's avionics were too
advanced for export (they were better than the F-16's and F/A-18's
avionics) and Northrop lost out big-time. And then the DoD had the nerve
to slate the F-16, with uprated electronics equivalent to the
Tigershark's, for export, crushing Northrop yet again.
--
Salacious Crumb
> >
> >> F19 ???? - Maybe the F-117 maybe not ????
> >
> >So what is the story here?? Was it originally going to be F-19, and
> >then when that was "compromised" they made up F-117, or what??
>
> Read somewhere--I think it was the Squadron/Signal F-117 In Action book--in an
> interview with a former Nighthawk pilot that the plan was to originally call it
> F-19, but when it was still in development, pilots at Dreamland (yes, the guy
> did refer to it, twice, and called it Dreamland) were logging flight time in the
> aircraft that they couldn't say what they REALLY were in their logbooks as "117
> Time," for no good reason. Well, of course, the early Nighthawks were being
> logged in flight-test as "117 Time," and Lockheed was going around trying to
> find something to print on the cover of the early version of the POH. They
Hi,
That may be one story but the official reasoning behind the F-117
designation is that it is a continuation of the alternative, 'original'
designation for the F-15/F-14/F-16. I probably haven't got this exactly
right but after the F-111 designation, the designations for future
aircraft was changed and lower numbers were used for the new aircraft as
they came into service. If the old designations had continued from F-111
onwards, the designations would
have ended at F-116 (for the F-18 Hornet) and the next plane to come
into service would have been called the F-117 (and lo and behold, the next
plane to enter operational service was the Stealth).
(** The pilots of the Stealth probably put '117 time' in their logbooks
because that was the plane's official designation ** ).
I don't recall which plane had which designation but it was probably along the
chronological lines of
F-111 (kept its designation)
F-112 (F-15 Eagle)
F-113 (F-14 Tomcat)
F-114 (F-16 Fighting Falcon)
F-115 (F-17) (This might have been the rival to the F-16 for the
contract, I can't quite remember - I DO know that one of
the planes that lost a manufacturer flyoff still managed
to get an official designation).
F-116 (F-18 Hornet)
F-117 (Stealth Fighter)
The change back to old designations probably only occurs when a bomber
aircraft is introduced into service (the Stealth being great at dropping 1
or 2 bombs (maximum!!) but is probably useless in a dogfight). One
exception to this designation is the Phantom which gained the designation
F-4, (seeing as the Phantom is an ancient bird I'm not sure about the
early (1960's) change of designations numbering). Anyone out there
elaborate on the whole designations business.
Robin
uid no access
This is an idea that was bandied around a bit, but only works if you ignore
certain aircraft, like the F-5, F-8, F-9, and F-11, to only count the ones
I recall. The USAF was originally going to call the F-4 the F-110, BTW.
FYI, the F-5 is essentially an armed single-seat T-38, used in the US Military
for dissimilar combat training, the F-8 was the fighter that the A-7 was derived
from (I remember reading a letter to the editor in Aviation Leak about a report
that the Navy was considering putting a pointy nose and afterburner on the then-
new A-7D Plus, to make it capable of being a strikebomber to escort pure-strike
A-7s. The writer suggested calling it the "F-8 Minus."), the F-9 was (I think)
the Grumman Panther, and the F-11 was flown by the Blue Angels for a few years.
So, you add them, and the other aircraft in the F series in that aren't as
famous as even those, and you get:
F-110 USAF F-4 Phantom
F-111 Ugly as hell ;-)
F-112 F-5 Freedom Fighter
F-113 F-6
F-114 F-7
F-115 F-8 Whateveritwascalled
F-116 F-9 Panther
F-117 F-10
F-118 F-11 (Cougar?)
F-119 F-12 Blackbird (Interceptor version of the SR-71)
F-120 F-14 Tomcat (F-13 was skipped)
F-121 F-15 Eagle
F-122 F-16 Falcon
F-123 F-17 LWF--McDonnell-Douglas's design, lost USAF contract to F-16, became
F-124 F-18 Hornet
F-125 "F-19" F-117 Nighthawk
F-126 F-20 Tigershark
F-127 F-21 KFIR
F-128 F-22 "Lightning II"
F-129 F-23 Whatevertheyweregonnacallit
So, F-117 wouldn't work that way. You have certain other aircraft in the way,
and the old F-10 (I don't remember much about it) would be the F-117.
Sorry!
RM
Ken Fischer
: i heard somewhere that the pilots testing the F-117 at dreamland had to
: their friends and families that they were doing system tests on A-7's.
It wasn't just testing, from about 1983 til 1988,
routine night training missions were flown from the 58 new
hangers built at the tonopaugh test site.
The pilots reported for briefing at dusk, and by
the time they took off it was usually 11:00 PM. With
debriefing, etc., some did not finish until 7:00 AM, so\
they flew 11-7, called the 117 (one-one-seven) shift.
Robert B. Smith
i don't think that the YF-17 was the F-117, because i thought that the
YF-17 was the competition for either the F-16 of the F/A-18, i forget
which, but it was one of them. i think.
The YF-17 was in the fly-off against the F-16 and lost. It was
re-worked to Navy specifications and became the F-18.
Andrew Toppan
: i don't think that the YF-17 was the F-117, because i thought that the
: YF-17 was the competition for either the F-16 of the F/A-18, i forget
: which, but it was one of them. i think.
THe YF-17 was the competition for the YF-16, it evolved into the FA-18
program. F-117, as has been discussed before, is essentially a random
designation, it doesn't make any real sense where it is.
Andrew
--
Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu --- http://www.wpi.edu/~elmer/
Railroads, Ships and Aircraft Homepage, Tom Clancy FAQ Archive
Andrew Toppan
: F5 NONE
Then what are the F-5 Tigers that were used for agressor training?
: F16 The Falcon
Nit- Fighting Falcon
: F20 Tigershark
Nit--the US military never owned any.
Nit--all the designations should have a hyphen between the letter and
the number. F4 was a WWII fighter, F-4 was the Phanton. There is a
difference!
Andrew Toppan
: So what is the story here?? Was it originally going to be F-19, and
: then when that was "compromised" they made up F-117, or what??
I did something really shocking--I checked the FAQ for the group;
it gives the following:
****************
Subject: C.1. Why is the "stealth fighter" called F-117 instead of F-19?
Nobody really knows for sure. It's been suggested, and sounds plausible
(but there's no real evidence), that it was called F-19 to start with, but
the number was changed as a security measure after the open press started
using that designation in the early 1980s (the aircraft first flew in 1981,
but wasn't revealed to the public until 1988). Why they picked F-117 as
the new number is a mystery; there are three main theories, any of them
fairly plausible.
The first theory has it that the "stealth fighter" (actually it's a bomber;
see below) was flying from the same bases as the small fleet of captured
Russian aircraft that the USAF flies; these are believed to use the
nonexistent designations "F-112", "F-113" and so on as a cover, and the
F-117 just happened to be the next number in sequence.
The second theory claims that the aircraft was using the call sign "117"
(possibly for reasons connected with the above, or possibly just an
arbitrarily assigned number) on some of its early test flights, and the
number just happened to stick (presumably for lack of any other
designation); when Lockheed got around to printing pilot's manuals for the
aircraft, they were labelled "F-117", and from then on it became official.
The third theory is that there isn't any reason; the Pentagon just picked a
number at random.
The mythical "F-19" may have been part of a "leak identification" project;
it's common practice in many "black" projects to create several false
stories and track down leaks by watching to see which one gets out.
There's also the separate question of why it was given an F-series
(fighter) designation at all, when it's clearly a light bomber with
essentially zero air-to-air capability; it should have an A-series (attack)
or B-series (bomber) number. Again, the Pentagon isn't telling, but a
favourite theory here on the Net is that the USAF, being dominated by
former fighter pilots, couldn't bear the idea of its most glamorous plane
having anything but a fighter designation...
The F-117 has been popularly known as "Nighthawk" for some time; the Air
Force made the name official on 24 June 1994.
****************
Jennings Heilig
If the government were logical, we never would have called the SR-71 the
SR-71, because technically that makes it a Search & Reconnaissance-71.
There never has been an official designator for "strategic" in an
aircraft MDS. Of course I won't even get into the MDS mess they came up
with on the C-135 series! What a fiasco!
Nobody wanted to fly in an F-13 (can ya blame 'em?), and the F-117
designator came from the bogus type identification they used to use for
the Have Blue prototypes (among other things), and it just stuck.
Believe me, the Air Force (or the Navy for that matter) has no sense of
"standardization" when it
comes to assigning aircraft MDS (Mission Design Series) designations.
Otherwise we'd never even consider things like an A-16 Fighting Falcon or
the aforementioned SR-71.
Stainless Steel Rat
Jennings> Y'all are giving the gummint waaaaay too much credit for being
Jennings> logical. If the government were logical, we never would have
Jennings> called the SR-71 the SR-71, because technically that makes it a
Jennings> Search & Reconnaissance-71.
Check your history. It's designation was RS-71, but LBJ got it backwards
and called it the SR-71. So rather than embarrass the president, they
changed the designation.
Oh, and BTW, it was ``Reconnaisance/Strike'' for RS.
[...]
Jennings> Nobody wanted to fly in an F-13 (can ya blame 'em?),
As has been repeatedly stated, ``13'' was skipped, deliberately.
Jennings> and the F-117 designator came from the bogus type identification
Jennings> they used to use for the Have Blue prototypes (among other
Jennings> things), and it just stuck.
117 was a budget number for the F-117 project, and ``F'' made it easier to
allocate funds than ``A''. Have Blue has nothing to do with the F-117's
misdesignation.
Jennings> Believe me, the Air Force (or the Navy for that matter) has no
Jennings> sense of "standardization" when it comes to assigning aircraft
Jennings> MDS (Mission Design Series) designations.
You've obviously never actually read any of the histories you claim to know
so much about.
Jennings> Otherwise we'd never even consider things like an A-16 Fighting
Jennings> Falcon or the aforementioned SR-71.
``A-16'' is a nickname, not an official designation; SR-71 I've already
dealt with.
Ken Fischer
: >>>>> "Jennings" == Jennings Heilig <jhe...@gate.net> writes:
: Jennings> Search & Reconnaissance-71.
: Check your history. It's designation was RS-71, but LBJ got it backwards
: and called it the SR-71. So rather than embarrass the president, they
: changed the designation.
: Oh, and BTW, it was ``Reconnaisance/Strike'' for RS.
Strategic Reconnaisance describes the mission better,
so maybe LBJ knew what he was talking about.
Stainless Steel Rat
>>> Oh, and BTW, it was ``Reconnaisance/Strike'' for RS.
Ken> Strategic Reconnaisance describes the mission better,
Ken> so maybe LBJ knew what he was talking about.
Actually, no. The SR-71 can (at least theoretically) be armed with tactical
nukes and launch from altitude. That's a strike mission, thus Recon/Strike.
``Strategic Reconnaisance'' was the Air Force's scrambling to cover up
LBJ's slip.
--
Rat <rat...@ccs.neu.edu> | Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | unknown glowing substance which fell to
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | Earth, presumably from outer space.
steve hix
:>>>>> "Jennings" == Jennings Heilig <jhe...@gate.net> writes:
:
:Jennings> Y'all are giving the gummint waaaaay too much credit for being
:Jennings> logical. If the government were logical, we never would have
:Jennings> called the SR-71 the SR-71, because technically that makes it a
:Jennings> Search & Reconnaissance-71.
:
:Check your history. It's designation was RS-71, but LBJ got it backwards
:and called it the SR-71. So rather than embarrass the president, they
:changed the designation.
:
:Oh, and BTW, it was ``Reconnaisance/Strike'' for RS.
Late in the development cycle of the B-70, when it became apparent that
it wasn't going to see production as a strategic bomber, there was at least
one proposal made to the Air Force for an "RS-70" variant of the aircract,
taking a role very similar to what the SR-71 ended up doing, except for
somewhat greater emphasis on weapons carried onboard.
That would have happened sometime during the early '60s, so the "RS-71"
designation makes, maybe, more sense that a new designation dropped
from the blue seems to.
steve hix
Naw, he screwed up and nobody had the...um...sand to correct him.
The RS-70 (late try to resurrect the dying B-70 program) mission was
to be recon/strike: high-speed recon following missile/bomber attack,
with ability to hit missed high-priority targets as needed. Most use
was expected to be recon-only, which the SR-71 managed quite well
on its own, thank you very much.
Mike Freeman
>
>>>>>> "Ken" == Ken Fischer <kfis...@iglou.iglou.com> writes:
>
>>>> Oh, and BTW, it was ``Reconnaisance/Strike'' for RS.
>
>Ken> Strategic Reconnaisance describes the mission better,
>Ken> so maybe LBJ knew what he was talking about.
>
>Actually, no. The SR-71 can (at least theoretically) be armed with tactical
>nukes and launch from altitude. That's a strike mission, thus Recon/Strike.
>``Strategic Reconnaisance'' was the Air Force's scrambling to cover up
>LBJ's slip.
>
Actually, no, the SR can not be fitted with any external weapons. The D-21's (I assume that that's where these tactical nukes would be fitted) were carried by CIA A-12's. The YF-12's had a missile bay that could carry two missiles, but the SR was made for recon. The Recon/Strike designation means that it goes in after a strike and does a BDA.
Jennings Heilig
was never deisgned to carry a weapon, so why call it "strike" in the
first place? I know all about LBJ's little fox-paw, but it still didn't
make any sense to start with. Trust me, I can tell you from personal
experience, the military has no common sense when it comes to things like
this. The person in the program office just comes up with something that
sounds good, and that's what they go with.
Jennings
steve hix
:My original point still holds though...the Lockheed product in question
:first place?
The SR-71 (or RS-71, if preferred) was not the first aircraft in the series.
The proposed RS-70, to be derived from the B-70, would have had real
strike capability...they just figured on using a massive ICBM and SLBM
strike to peform air defense suppression for it. Sort of.
:I know all about LBJ's little fox-paw, but it still didn't
:make any sense to start with. Trust me, I can tell you from personal
:experience, the military has no common sense when it comes to things like
:this. The person in the program office just comes up with something that
:sounds good, and that's what they go with.
:
:On Mon, 27 Mar 1995, Ken Fischer wrote:
:
:> Stainless Steel Rat (rat...@ccs.neu.edu) wrote:
:> : >>>>> "Jennings" == Jennings Heilig <jhe...@gate.net> writes:
:>
:> : Jennings> Search & Reconnaissance-71.
:>
:> : Check your history. It's designation was RS-71, but LBJ got it backwards
:> : and called it the SR-71. So rather than embarrass the president, they
:> : changed the designation.
:>
:> : Oh, and BTW, it was ``Reconnaisance/Strike'' for RS.
:>
:> Strategic Reconnaisance describes the mission better,
:> so maybe LBJ knew what he was talking about.
The RS-70 lead in makes as much, if not more sense. It wasn't like the only
time that LBJ got an aircraft designation scrambled, either. I suspect that he
wasn't paying close attention to something that he really didn't much care
about.
Ed Suarez
--
The SR 71 was derived from the USAF/CIA A-12 project. The A-12 was
designed as a high altitude mach 3+ interceptor. It was originally armed
with a predecessor to the Phoenix missle. When the SR(RS)-71 was
developed, it was given the capability to drop small Atomic bombs. The
bombs were attached to a pylon between the two vertical tails (hence the
strike designation).
TALK TO YOU LATER,
__________ED__________
*****************************
*ED SUAREZ *
*ROWAN COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY*
*EMAIL: *
*SUA...@ELVIS.ROWAN.EDU *
*SUA...@SATURN.ROWAN.EDU *
*****************************
steve hix
:steve hix (fid...@Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
:
:: The SR-71 (or RS-71, if preferred) was not the first aircraft in the series.
:: The proposed RS-70, to be derived from the B-70, would have had real
:: strike capability...they just figured on using a massive ICBM and SLBM
:: strike to peform air defense suppression for it. Sort of.
:
:
:The SR 71 was derived from the USAF/CIA A-12 project. The A-12 was
:designed as a high altitude mach 3+ interceptor.
Oxcart (the A-12) was a CIA project from the beginning...and weapons on
it sound a bit curious.
You may be confusing the unarmed A-12 (called A-11 by LBJ when he broke
the news about it publicly...I clearly remember the photo attached to the
announcement in the L.A. Times; straight side shot, no view of planform) with
the later YF-12 derivative. Perhaps the M-12 intended to fly the D-21
drone.
:It was originally armed
:with a predecessor to the Phoenix missle. When the SR(RS)-71 was
:developed, it was given the capability to drop small Atomic bombs. The
:bombs were attached to a pylon between the two vertical tails (hence the
:strike designation).
Sounds a *lot* like the YF-12A, rather than the A-12.
Pointers to documentation?
jon price
writes:
>
>steve hix (fid...@Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
>: In article 100...@seminole.gate.net, Jennings Heilig
<jhe...@gate.net> writes:
>: :My original point still holds though...the Lockheed product in
question
>: :was never deisgned to carry a weapon, so why call it "strike" in the
>: :first place?
>
>: The SR-71 (or RS-71, if preferred) was not the first aircraft in the
series.
>: The proposed RS-70, to be derived from the B-70, would have had real
>: strike capability...they just figured on using a massive ICBM and
SLBM
>: strike to peform air defense suppression for it. Sort of.
>
>--
>The SR 71 was derived from the USAF/CIA A-12 project. The A-12 was
>designed as a high altitude mach 3+ interceptor. It was originally
armed
>with a predecessor to the Phoenix missle. When the SR(RS)-71 was
>developed, it was given the capability to drop small Atomic bombs. The
>bombs were attached to a pylon between the two vertical tails (hence
the
>strike designation).
>
>TALK TO YOU LATER,
>__________ED__________
>*****************************
>*ED SUAREZ *
>*ROWAN COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY*
>*EMAIL: *
>*SUA...@ELVIS.ROWAN.EDU *
>*SUA...@SATURN.ROWAN.EDU *
>*****************************
>
I would be very interested in knowing your references for the above Ed.
I believe that you are most likely confusing the a-12 with its
derivative, the YF-12A. The YF's were armed with the predecessor of the
AIM-54 Phoenix missle system. The only thing that I have seen about the
SR's having a bombing capability was a design study done by the Skunk
Works, but I don't believe that it ever made it past the drawing board.
Later,
PJ
Albert Dobyns
ES> Subject: Re: Is there a F-13 ?
ES> Date: 12 Apr 1995 18:15:24 GMT
ES> Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
[........skipping over a lot of text.......]
ES> The SR 71 was derived from the USAF/CIA A-12 project. The A-12 was
ES> designed as a high altitude mach 3+ interceptor. It was originally armed
ES> with a predecessor to the Phoenix missle. When the SR(RS)-71 was
ES> developed, it was given the capability to drop small Atomic bombs. The
ES> bombs were attached to a pylon between the two vertical tails (hence the
ES> strike designation).
Ed, I hate to tell ya, but your post has a few errors in it.
The A-12 was developed to be a Mach 3+ reconnaissance aircraft, period!
It was not designed to be an interceptor. It carried no missiles.
It sounds like you were describing the YF-12A which was designed to
be an interceptor. It carried 3 missiles of the early Phoenix type of
missile. It didn't go into production so the only 3 that were built
were used as research aircraft, primarily by NASA.
The SR-71 was a longer version of the A-12 (and also had a crew of 2
rather than the A-12's one-guy-who-has-to-do-everything!). The SR-71
was used similar to the way the A-12 was used. It was a recon bird
and had no missiles on board.
Also it did not have a pylon between the two vertical tails. This
sounds like you are referring to the M-21/D-21. The M-21 had a crew
of two and the plane carried an unmanned drone mounted on it. The
drone was another recon craft. This project did not turn out to be
a successful one and was canceled. Two B-52H bombers were modified
to carry two modified D-21 drones on pylons mounted on the bottom
of the wings. A solid rocket booster was attached to the modified
D-21's to push the drone's speed up to a high enough value for the
ramjet to light the fuel and go on its merry way.
It can be confusing as to which plane does/did which task, but I
hope I have helped to sort it out.
---
. SLMR 2.1a . Forget Pace's Skunk Works book; buy Jay Miller's!!
----
MidWest BBS - 708-513-1034 -ILINK Charter Member, UsMail Regional Hub, Usenet
Colin Saunders
about an F-13? I guess I missed something. Wasn't the IAI Kfir
designated F-13 by the USAF? I seem to think that for some reason.
Hold it, was it the F-21? Somehow that seems more correct. Forget I
said anything.
Bye
Colin Saunders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Saunders
Carleton University
Email address: csau...@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------