# Military Aircraft Designations **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 15, 2024, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-aircraft-designations/1001608 "2024-05-15T23:34:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2024, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-aircraft-designations/1001608/21 "2024-05-17T02:30:02Z")
> [@bump](#): > > There are exceptions- the F-111 was a medium range attack plane that ended up with the “F” designation because of development shenanigans Purely speculation on my part, but the F-111 would probably have still been given an ‘F’ designation even without the antichrist McNamara’s intervention. Giving aircraft that were strike/tactical bombers the ‘F’ designation under the purely nominal theory that they were ‘fighter-bombers’ when they were never going to be used as actual fighters was fairly common. The [Republic F-84 Thunderjet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_F-84_Thunderjet) was at least in theory supposed to be a fighter-bomber as designed, but was used almost exclusively as a tactical bomber. The [Republic F-105 Thunderchief](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_F-105_Thunderchief) which replaced it didn’t even seriously bother to play up any ‘fighter’ angle as a ‘fighter-bomber’ in its development: > It was originally designed as a single-seat, nuclear-[attack aircraft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_aircraft); > > As a follow-on to the Mach 1 capable [North American F-100 Super Sabre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_F-100_Super_Sabre), the F-105 was also armed with missiles and a rotary cannon; however, its design was tailored to high-speed low-altitude penetration carrying a single [nuclear weapon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon) internally. ---
**Author:** ![rsat3acr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a3d4f5/32.png) [@rsat3acr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsat3acr)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2024, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-aircraft-designations/1001608/22 "2024-05-17T04:08:20Z")
In the wiki link on designations it lists H-55 Osage with a verbal description as a trainer. When I was at Ft Rucker (now Novosel) 1980-81, it was designated TH-55. ---
**Author:** ![rsat3acr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a3d4f5/32.png) [@rsat3acr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsat3acr)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2024, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-aircraft-designations/1001608/23 "2024-05-17T04:18:43Z")
Sorry, forgot to thank EnolaStraight for the link. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2024, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-aircraft-designations/1001608/24 "2024-05-17T04:46:27Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > The [Republic F-105 Thunderchief](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_F-105_Thunderchief) which replaced it didn’t even seriously bother to play up any ‘fighter’ angle as a ‘fighter-bomber’ in its development: The ‘Thud’ was originally intended as fast penetration nuclear delivery vehicle, and eventually became the mainstay of Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) forces, taking out the SAM sites that the Russians deployed in Viet Nam to test NATO capability. In general, as warfare theories become more advanced, the tools become more specialized until a radical change causes a paradigm shift in tactics (the way advanced long distance and inexpensive drones are doing now). Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Chelonaut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chelonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chelonaut)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2024, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-aircraft-designations/1001608/25 "2024-05-17T11:58:37Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > And for added confusion, the [A-12](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_A-12) designation @Stranger_On_A_Train mentions which was a variant of the SR-71 The A-12 was ordered by the CIA and as a civilian plane didn’t fall under any military aircraft designation system. A-12 was a Lockheed internal designation, the 12th design in the Archangel project. Some of the earlier designs are shown on the wikipedia page. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-aircraft-designations/1001608.md?page=1)