# Explain the naming convention of US fighter planes **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 20, 2005, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-naming-convention-of-us-fighter-planes/309122 "2005-06-20T21:35:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![sewalk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@sewalk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sewalk)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-naming-convention-of-us-fighter-planes/309122/21 "2005-06-21T05:11:02Z")
Which should have been called the RS-71 for Special Purpose(Reconiassance). A gaffe by Lyndon Johnson was made official to avoid embarrassing the President. ‘S’ designations are most commonly assigned to naval aircraft, like the S-2 Tracker and S-3 Viking, which were primarily ASW patrol bombers. ---
**Author:** ![pace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c2a13f/32.png) [@pace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pace)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-naming-convention-of-us-fighter-planes/309122/22 "2005-06-21T05:14:13Z")
i wonder how/when UAVs will replace the conventional reconnaisance technology … considering the elimination of the human factor, I bet some amazing prototypes are already in the EMD phase. ---
**Author:** ![sewalk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@sewalk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sewalk)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-naming-convention-of-us-fighter-planes/309122/23 "2005-06-21T05:32:09Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Note that the F-15C is intended as an attack plane, not an air superiority fighter Actually, the F-15 **E** is the strike/interdiction version. But is does retain all of the air-to-air capability of the F-15D\*, from which it was derived. The A and C versions are air superiority fighters with minimal air-to-ground capability. The B and D are two seat training versions of the A and C. The E is a two-seater to allow for more precise navigation and weapon delivery during low altitude flight. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-naming-convention-of-us-fighter-planes/309122/24 "2005-06-21T05:41:07Z")
> [@sewalk](#): > > Which should have been called the RS-71 for Special Purpose(Reconiassance). A gaffe by Lyndon Johnson was made official to avoid embarrassing the President. > > ‘S’ designations are most commonly assigned to naval aircraft, like the S-2 Tracker and S-3 Viking, which were primarily ASW patrol bombers. I call legend on this. The **S** basic mission code had been assigned to “anti-submarine warfare” aircraft by 1962 (as noted in my copy of the 1963 edtion of The Observer’s Book of Aircraft). The SR-71 is clearly an aberration in the military nomenclature, although, given its unique status, only RF-12 would have seemed remotely appropriate with RU-17 or RE-3 (the E-3 was actually later assigned to a Boeing AWACS) being the other possible options. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-naming-convention-of-us-fighter-planes/309122/25 "2005-06-21T05:45:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Actually, the F-15E is the strike/interdiction version. You are correct. I need to punish my wayward finger for hitting the wrong key. However, while the -E is certainly capable of aerial combat, the USAF still seems to demonstrate an aversion to the Attack designation, given the -E’s primary mission. ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-naming-convention-of-us-fighter-planes/309122/26 "2005-06-21T07:41:26Z")
Don’t know if this should be a separate thread but what about the bombers? Did they get reassigned in '62 as well? Cause it seems that the XB-70 was as high as they got, and that the two most highly advanced bombers in the world then got to be called B-1 and B-2… ---
**Author:** ![sewalk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@sewalk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sewalk)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-naming-convention-of-us-fighter-planes/309122/27 "2005-06-21T08:13:52Z")
In 1962, all designations were reset to 1. The B-1 project was started at just about that time but didn’t receive a designation for a couple of years. The Fighter list was prepacked with a few entries that were carryovers from Navy designations in current use like the F-4 Phantom II (F4H) and the F-8 Crusader (F8U). The F-111 was a bit of an aberation. It wasn’t operational until late 1964 but was given an old Air Force designation anyway. The whole TFX program was one giant aberation, really, with the General Dynamics F-111A for the Air Force and the Grumman F-111B for the Navy. F-13 was not assigned and it remains unknown to this day whether F-19 has been assigned. > [@tomndebb](#): > > I call legend on this. You’re right. After a bit of Googling, it appears the name was changed by Curtis LeMay, not LBJ, because LeMay thought SR-71 sounded better. A stenographer transposed the letters when transcribing Johnson’s speech, giving rise to the legend. Audio recordings and Johnson’s notes are consistent on “SR-71”. As for how it ended up as SR-71, no one really knows. The “71” seems to have come from the bomber series, but after that, it’s a total charliefoxtrot. Current consensus It should have been R-1 and left at that. IMHO, the U-2 should have been redesignated R-1 and the SR-71 would therefore be R-2. With the CIA as involved as they were in both those programs, there was no way the USAF was going to be allowed to choose designators that made sense. ---
**Author:** ![sewalk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@sewalk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sewalk)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-naming-convention-of-us-fighter-planes/309122/28 "2005-06-21T08:18:00Z")
More Googling also revealed that F-19 was skipped at the request of Northrup so that their F-20 Tigershark would not be confused with the MiG-19, one of its potential competitors. There was long a (dismissed) legend that the USAF skipped F-19 to avoid confusion with the MiG-19, something aviation nuts scoffed at. Turns out it was true, after a fashion. ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-naming-convention-of-us-fighter-planes/309122/29 "2005-06-21T08:38:17Z")
This page, [U.S. Military Aviation Designation Systems](http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/index.html), might be of some interest. ---
**Author:** ![Jurph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@Jurph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jurph)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-naming-convention-of-us-fighter-planes/309122/30 "2005-06-21T11:44:24Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > You are correct. I need to punish my wayward finger for hitting the wrong key. > > However, while the -E is certainly capable of aerial combat, the USAF still seems to demonstrate an aversion to the Attack designation, given the -E’s primary mission. They demonstrated a healthy aversion to “F/A” until someone pointed out that there’s nobody up in the sky to fight, at which point the F-22 became the F/A-22. There are even people talking about retrofitting a fighter airframe into a bomber (stiffening the structure, allowing external stores, etc.) and calling it the F/B-22, even though such a plane would be almost purely a bomber. I think it’s more that they don’t want to get rid of “F”. For the record, I think the A-10, B-52, and AC-130 are three of our most useful platforms today; I think we should scrap the F/“A”-22 altogether and throw our lot in with the other services on the JSF. But then, I’m not a general. Yet. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-naming-convention-of-us-fighter-planes/309122/31 "2005-06-21T12:03:13Z")
> [@Jurph](#): > > For the record, I think the A-10, B-52, and AC-130 are three of our most useful platforms today; I think we should scrap the F/“A”-22 altogether and throw our lot in with the other services on the JSF. But then, I’m not a general. > > Yet. Well, the Air Force is getting the F-35 along with everyone else at some point. They need to take in the F-22, at least in limited numbers, for recruiting purposes. If you want people to join, you gotta have something sexy to show them. For the Marines, it’s teh snappy black and red uniforms. For the Navy, it’s an Aircraft carrier cruising along like it owns the ocean, for the Army, it’s guys jumping out of helos or Abrams tanks flying off of hills. For the Air Force, it’s svelte and sleek supersonic air superiority bombers. While the C-130 does more useful stuff, it just wouldn’t look as good in a commercial 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-naming-convention-of-us-fighter-planes/309122/32 "2005-06-21T12:04:16Z")
> [@Raguleader](#): > > For the Air Force, it’s svelte and sleek supersonic air superiority bombers. While the C-130 does more useful stuff, it just wouldn’t look as good in a commercial 🙂 Meant to say supersonic air superiority _fighters_ I need to sleep more. ---
**Author:** ![sewalk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@sewalk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sewalk)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-naming-convention-of-us-fighter-planes/309122/33 "2005-06-21T12:15:49Z")
I think that the biggest reason that the F-22 hasn’t been canceled is institutional inertia. That, and the affinity blue-suiters have for bright shiny objects. “Ooh, it goes fast. Gotta get one of those.” Apologies to **Airman Doors** and **Tripler** and any other poor USAF dopers out there. To be fair, we probably do need a 21st century interceptor to counter emerging threats from the Indian and Chinese aviation industries. That being said, I also think that the British prediction of 50 years ago that the manned interceptor is obsolete is about to come true. UAVs will take over air to air combat within 25 years in the same manner they are taking over tactical reconaissance today. ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-naming-convention-of-us-fighter-planes/309122/34 "2005-06-21T12:52:33Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Actually, the Goodyear-licensed version of the Chance-Vought F4U was the FG. > > The F2G had a re-designed rear fuselage and a totally new engine and I am fairly sure that there was never an F4U equivalent. Thanks for that correction. Again a modification like the diffierent canopy/turtledeck and bigger engine would have probably just been a suffix change in the air force as it was with planes like the P-51. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-naming-convention-of-us-fighter-planes/309122/35 "2005-06-21T12:52:42Z")
As explained by a Gulf War F-117 squadron commander I once heard speak: “F-117” was a code number used by Lockheed for radio communications with Edwards AFB (which could easily have been heard by, um, outsiders). It had been USAF practice to continue the “Century Series” numbers as code names for a variety of aircraft that the world wasn’t supposed to know they had, including several Soviet aircraft. 117 was simply the next number available. There may well have been radio calls of “F-118” and up since. The F-19 designation had been reserved for open use when the airplane was made public. However, the unveiling was done early and in a rushed manner, and the F-117 name came out before the paperwork was put into place. USAF simply bowed to the inevitable and formalized the number. The F-35 and variants have not been given a formal nickname yet - the US term is still “Joint Strike Fighter”, the UK term is still “Joint Combat Aircraft”, and those would still be the names even if the XF-32 had won the competition. The amount of politicking involved with naming decisions is more extensive than one might imagine - and almost pointless, since the services will come up with unofficial nicknames anyway. The B-52 has always been the BUFF, not the Stratofortress; the A-10 is the Warthog, not the Thunderbolt II. ---
**Author:** ![UncleRojelio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unclerojelio/32/3160_2.png) [@UncleRojelio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleRojelio)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-naming-convention-of-us-fighter-planes/309122/36 "2005-06-21T13:08:59Z")
> [@Enola Straight](#): > > Let’s not forget the SR-71 Blackbird…Strategic Reconnaisance. or it’s bastard brother, [YF-12](http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/yf12.htm) … Prototype fighter? ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-naming-convention-of-us-fighter-planes/309122/37 "2005-06-21T14:20:03Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > I seem to recall having seen a justification for the odd designation somewhere, but cannot remember what it is. Can anyone tackle this? I have heard that the plane was given the F designation early on so the Air Force could attract the top pilots to the program. The idea being that the best of the best wouldn’t want to fly anything other than a fighter. That is what I remember from a show on the History Channel. ---
**Author:** ![Jurph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@Jurph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jurph)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-naming-convention-of-us-fighter-planes/309122/38 "2005-06-21T16:12:31Z")
> [@sewalk](#): > > I think that the biggest reason that the F-22 hasn’t been canceled is institutional inertia. That, and the affinity blue-suiters have for bright shiny objects. “Ooh, it goes fast. Gotta get one of those.” Apologies to **Airman Doors** and **Tripler** and any other poor USAF dopers out there. > > To be fair, we probably do need a 21st century interceptor to counter emerging threats from the Indian and Chinese aviation industries. That being said, I also think that the British prediction of 50 years ago that the manned interceptor is obsolete is about to come true. UAVs will take over air to air combat within 25 years in the same manner they are taking over tactical reconaissance today. Apology noted and accepted. 🙂 As for the “blue-suiters,” I routinely hear references to the “fighter mafia” - an expression of the perceived bias towards pilots in the upper ranks of the Air Force. I also hear lots of people complaining that our pilot-heavy upper ranks are the reason we have been slow to adopt UAV technology, even though we have the technological edge in developing them. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-naming-convention-of-us-fighter-planes/309122/39 "2005-06-21T16:59:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Again a modification like the diffierent canopy/turtledeck and bigger engine would have probably just been a suffix change in the air force as it was with planes like the P-51. Actually, all the military services have a tendency toward inconsistent naming. When the P-47 and P-51 lost their razorbacks to give the pilot better rear visibility, they did not get new numbers. (The P-47 didn’t even get a new suffix, with the bubble canopy being added somewhere between the P-47D-16RE series and the P-47D-25RE so that there were both razorback and bubbletop P-47 **D** s. The USAAF/USAF and the US Navy each went from straight wing to swept wing on at least one plane without changing the basic designator (although they gave them new names): the Republic F-84 _Thunderjet_ (straight wings) and F-84 _Thunderstreak_ (swept wings) for the Air Force and the Grumman F9F _Panther_ (straight wings) and F9F _Cougar_ (swept wings) for the Navy. The Navy used the USAAF’s B-24 _Liberator_ under the designator PB4Y (Patrol Bomber, 4th model, by Consolidated). When they asked that the engines, armament, and tail section all be replaced, the new plane was still called the PB4Y (PB4Y-2 _Privateer_ instead of PB4Y-1, but the basic designator remained). When reviewing naming conventions in the services, it is well to remember Captain Barbossa’s reflection on the Pirate Code: “_And thirdly, the Code is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules._” ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-naming-convention-of-us-fighter-planes/309122/40 "2005-06-21T17:50:40Z")
On the other hand, the initial Allison-engined Mustang was labelled the A-37 Intruder. Upon having a Merlin bolted to the front end, it’s designation was changed to P-51. And of course the RAF called the same two variants simply Mustang MkI and Mustang MkII. What merits changes in designations and letter suffixes is all rather arbitrary. For example, it’s my understanding that the F/A-18E and F Super Hornets are almost completely new airplanes that just happen to look similar to the earlier Hornets. They didn’t get a new number for appropriations reasons. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-naming-convention-of-us-fighter-planes/309122.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-naming-convention-of-us-fighter-planes/309122.md?page=3)