Hellcat V, naming scheme question.
- Thread starter Nob Akimoto
- Start date
Nope. They skipped straight from YF-12 to F-14.
There were four incarnations of the Blackbird:
A-11: Original version, a Mach-3 strike plane, the original concept was a scaled-down B-70 Valkyrie.
YF-12A: A Mach-3 interceptor designed to stop a theoretical Mach-3 Soviet bomber which never materialized.
RS-71: Reconnaissance/Strike.
SR-71: Redesignation of RS-71, Strategic Reconnaissance, the SR version was the final and dropped all attack capability in favor of enhanced speed and sensors.
Yeah another flight sim that didn't have the F-16 was United States Navy Fighters. They had the Yak-141, Su-34 and the proposed replacement for the Su-25, but no F-16.
I haven't played many flight sims, but USNF and its follow ons used [shift] [e] punched 2-3 times. Not particularly difficult when your plane's crashing and survivals the only thing on your mind...
A-ha!
The F-2 was in fact the McDonnell FH-1 Phantom I
The F2H Banshee never got a post-Macnamara designation
The F-3 was the McDonnell F3H Demon
The F-6 was the Douglas F4D Skyray
The F-10 was the Douglas F3D Skyknight
Incidentally, the A3D Skywarrior attack bomber carried the unflattering nickname of "All Three Dead," because of its lack of ejection seats.
The F-2 was in fact the McDonnell FH-1 Phantom I
The F2H Banshee never got a post-Macnamara designation
The F-3 was the McDonnell F3H Demon
The F-6 was the Douglas F4D Skyray
The F-10 was the Douglas F3D Skyknight
Incidentally, the A3D Skywarrior attack bomber carried the unflattering nickname of "All Three Dead," because of its lack of ejection seats.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Which does make perfect sense to me, since the F-16, with no carrier capabilities (as I understand it) does not belong in a game with that title
.Works well enough for flight sims, where usually your career does end if you die, I suppose. Hmm, I guess at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what combination is used - in flight sims and other career-based games, the advantages of ejecting over dying mean that you'll make the extra effort
. While, on the other hand, in storyline-based games like WC, ejection is simply not worth the effort when you can simply replay the mission over and over.You misunderstand. USNF had plenty of non naval aircraft, and since its story revolved around a major war being fought in the Ukraine between Russia and the rest of the world, it makes sense for the F-16 to be there, with all the rest.Originally posted by Quarto
Which does make perfect sense to me, since the F-16, with no carrier capabilities (as I understand it) does not belong in a game with that title
.
Bob McDob
Better Health Through Less Flavor
Never!
http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/faq/ramfaq2.txt
Subject: C.1. Why is the "stealth fighter" called F-117 instead of F-19?
updated 2000-12-17
Nobody who really knows has explained it.
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.
The USAF Museum lists "Lockheed F-19 CSIRS" among the
fighters, with a note "see F-117".
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.
The descriptions of the "F-19" also were very misleading regarding how
to shape a stealth aircraft, with lots of round curves, which wasn't
practical then.
The designation F-19 has been "used" for something else, as
there is a NASA document titled "XF-19 EW suite"
(Document ID: 19770060541 A (77A43393)), published on 1977 Jul 01),
which mentions "the projected XF-19 U.S. STOL fighter-bomber" and
that "The XF-19 is designed for forward area tactical interception of
hostile aircraft and missles, or for tactical close air support, with
capability of operating from unimproved/minimal/damaged runways, or small
ships."
However, the document is only about desirable features of the ECM system
of a possible future STOL fighter-bomber and "XF-19" is just a number
the author uses for the hypothetical aircraft as it was the next "free"
number then.
There's also the separate question of why it was given an F-series
(fighter) designation at all. Some think it should have gotten
an A- or B- designation, as it's got no air-to-air capability.
But F- is correct for pure ground attack fighters too.
The F-117 has been popularly known as "Nighthawk" for some time; the Air
Force made the name official on 24 June 1994.
The three main theories (in no specific order) are:
* No reason whatsoever: The Pentagon just picked a random number.
* The aircraft was using the call sign "117" (possibly for reasons
connected with the following theory, 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.
* F-117 follows the designations F-112 to F-116, in the old USAF
designation scheme, which were applied to some other aircraft
types -- but if so it's unclear which ones.
Some believe F-112 to F-116 were used for foreign types such
as MiG-21 and Su-17 being flown in secret, and as F-117 was
too, it got a number in that series.
Biographies on the USAF's official web site www.af.mil lists
YF-110 and YF-113 among aircraft types flown for pilots
who have served with 4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron.
YF-113G seems to have been the Flogger G MiG-23 variant,
it's not clear if any other YF-113s also were of the MiG-23/27
family or not.
Another explanation is that it's just a continuation of the
old scheme, as applied to later aircraft, and never redesignated
F-19 (as F-111 never was), sort of like this:
F-4 F-110 Fictional designations between " "
F-111
F-14 "F-112"
F-15 "F-113"
F-16 "F-114"
F-17 "F-115" This doesn't take into account F-5 and YF-12,
F-18 "F-116" and had the common scheme not been adopted
F-117 the USN would have kept its old system,
possibly leaving the "F-19" spot for F-117:
F-1 FJ
F-2 F2H
F-3 F3H
F-4 F4H (USN), F-110 (USAF)
F-111 F-111 (USAF), "F3Y" (USN)
F-5 "F-112" (USAF) and "F3T" (USN)
F-6 F4D
F-7 F2Y
F-8 F8U
F-9 F9F
F-10 F3D
F-11 F11F
F-12 "F-113"
F-13 not assigned
F-14 "F13F" ("F12F" was never built)
F-15 "F-114"
F-16 "F-115"
F-17 "F-116"
F-18 maybe "F5H" (McDonnell Douglas) or "F4T" (Northrop)
F-19 not assigned
F-20 "F-112G", or maybe "F-117"?
F-21 "F1I"?
F-22 "F-118"
F-23 "F-119"
Bob McDob
Better Health Through Less Flavor
Subject: C.6. Why was the YF-22 chosen over the YF-23?
When the Lockheed YF-22 and Northrop YF-23 were unveiled in 1990, it was
generally believed that the two companies had made different trade-offs
among the various design requirements. The YF-23 appeared to be optimised
for stealth, with its trapezoidal wings, butterfly tail, and generally
futuristic appearance (the distinct resemblance to the fictional "Firefox"
attracted a lot of comments). The YF-22, on the other hand, had a more
conventional appearance; although it was obviously designed with stealth in
mind, there was a definite resemblance to the F-15 it was intended to
replace, and the impression was of an aircraft designed for manoeuvrability
first and stealth second. The YF-22 had thrust-vectoring jet nozzles,
while those of the YF-23 were designed to hide the engines' infrared
signature from below.
In April 1991, the YF-22 was selected for production. According to the
USAF, neither aircraft showed any clear advantage in either manoeuvrability
or stealth. The reasons given for the choice were that the Lockheed
aircraft was better designed for maintainability, had more potential for
future development, and was slightly cheaper.
An unconfirmed report has it that one factor was the fact that the YF-23
had its internal AAMs "stacked" in its bays, while the YF-22's missiles
each had a bay to themselves; this meant that, on the YF-23, a malfunction
in one launcher might prevent the launch of another missile in the same
bay. In YF-23's favour can be said that it was built with production
tooling for the composite airframe, whereas the YF-22 was from the
beginning different from the planned F-22.
There remains a popular opinion that the reasons given were bogus, and that
a preference for manoeuvrability over stealth was the real reason for the
choice. However, there is no obvious reason why the USAF should want to
lie about its reasons, and it seems likely that the external appearance of
the two aircraft wasn't as good a guide to their capabilities as many
people thought.
[From Mike Spick & Barry Wheeler, _Modern American Fighters and Attack
Aircraft_, and magazine reports]
When the Lockheed YF-22 and Northrop YF-23 were unveiled in 1990, it was
generally believed that the two companies had made different trade-offs
among the various design requirements. The YF-23 appeared to be optimised
for stealth, with its trapezoidal wings, butterfly tail, and generally
futuristic appearance (the distinct resemblance to the fictional "Firefox"
attracted a lot of comments). The YF-22, on the other hand, had a more
conventional appearance; although it was obviously designed with stealth in
mind, there was a definite resemblance to the F-15 it was intended to
replace, and the impression was of an aircraft designed for manoeuvrability
first and stealth second. The YF-22 had thrust-vectoring jet nozzles,
while those of the YF-23 were designed to hide the engines' infrared
signature from below.
In April 1991, the YF-22 was selected for production. According to the
USAF, neither aircraft showed any clear advantage in either manoeuvrability
or stealth. The reasons given for the choice were that the Lockheed
aircraft was better designed for maintainability, had more potential for
future development, and was slightly cheaper.
An unconfirmed report has it that one factor was the fact that the YF-23
had its internal AAMs "stacked" in its bays, while the YF-22's missiles
each had a bay to themselves; this meant that, on the YF-23, a malfunction
in one launcher might prevent the launch of another missile in the same
bay. In YF-23's favour can be said that it was built with production
tooling for the composite airframe, whereas the YF-22 was from the
beginning different from the planned F-22.
There remains a popular opinion that the reasons given were bogus, and that
a preference for manoeuvrability over stealth was the real reason for the
choice. However, there is no obvious reason why the USAF should want to
lie about its reasons, and it seems likely that the external appearance of
the two aircraft wasn't as good a guide to their capabilities as many
people thought.
[From Mike Spick & Barry Wheeler, _Modern American Fighters and Attack
Aircraft_, and magazine reports]
OriginalPhoenix
Professor Emeritus
This goes contrary to just about every other source I've seen over the past several years, which stated the YF-23 was noticeably more stealthy (or more correctly, NOT more noticeably
), while the YF-22 was clearly more agile. This viewpoint was not base don external appearance, but ananlyusis of airframe and performance test figures.I have a hard time altering that viewpoint based on a single source.