Subject:
|
Re: Military Weapon Designations?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 Jul 2000 04:43:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
261 times
|
| |
|
|
OK, here's something hopefully definitive:
Mark Sandlin wrote:
> > Another example, using vehicles: the F-4 Phantom is a general-purpose
> > fighter-bomber used by the US Air Force. The F-14 Tomcat is a short-range
> > air-to-air interceptor used by the US Navy. The Harrier is a V/STOL figher
> > used by the Marines, and has no "F"-designation.
>
> > And then it gets weird. In looking for a new advanced tactical fighter, the
> > USAF held a competition between two contractors' entries, each woth a
> > different
> > designation (YF-22 and YF-23), BEFORE the USAF decided which one to adopt.
> > But
> > when the Army looked for a replacement for the old M1911 sidearm, they
> > reserved
> > the M-9 designation for the winner.
> >
> > Huh, that's not much better than "I dunno". :-, But I suspect that
> > it is largely marketing.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > - jsproat
>
> The "Y" designation refers to a pre-production fighter's experimental
> status. I think if the government is producing it, they give it the "X"
> prefix.
However, the Mustang experimental craft were "XP-51," while the Superfortress
designation was "YB-17," and they came from the same level of production. Rather
than designating sector of origin, before (IIRC) 1947 or 1948--the year the USAF
was split from the Army--the Y and X designated what government fund paid for the
aircraft, but without real rhyme or reason. The two were used pretty
interchangeably, but since about '63 X has meant "Experimental" and Y has meant
"Prototype," which are similar ideas but not quite the same thing. Y-craft are
considered flying models of aircraft meant for service, while X-craft are not
expected ever to see service in their current form. (Remember the X-29? Not much
more than an FSW testbed.)
Experimental designations were indeed awarded before aircraft production was
decided upon, because the US government had ordered the prototypes. So the 1940s
Northrop bomber prototype was the YB-35, although it lost to the YB-36
Peacemaker. As to the Harrier, it doesn't have an F designation, it has an AV
designation reflecting its ground-support role: A for Attack (like the A-10, A-6,
the A-20 Havoc of WWII, and the Douglas AH-1 Skyraider fighter-bomber and AC-3
"Spooky" gunship of Vietnam), and V for V/STOL (like the V-22 Osprey). The
current incarnation of the Marine harrier is AV-8B. The British call it "Harrier
Mk [whatever]." They're not into acronymy.
Interestingly, the USAF seems to have recycled both bomber and fighter
designations, fighters shortly after the F-111 (although the F-117 defies this),
and bombers after the YB-70 Valkyrie project went belly-up. It's possible that
the fighters are in fact "variants" of an unknown "F-11" and "F-17" (or prototype
with that designation), because some countries have add one hundred to a model
number to designate variants, namely Germany (Ju 88, Ju 188, Ju 288, Ju 388, Ju
488).
As for the firearms, I'd guess the "M" designation means in modern weapons what it
did in the era of the M1911 pistol and M1917 machine gun: "Military." The
numbering convention is, however, a bit nonstandard.
best
Lindsay
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Military Weapon Designations?
|
| (...) **snip of some interesting stuff!** (...) this) The only $.02 I can contribute: I just bought an Osprey book of Lockheed "cutaways" featuring some interesting breadth info about a number of aircraft without much depth about any specific model. (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
