Talk:1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system

message: The article does not mention why the tri-service designation system was introduced. I'we heard rumors that is was because confusion between Douglas F4D Skyray and McDonnell F4H Phantom II, but it could not be because of the merge between McDonnell Aircrat and Douglas Aircrat because that did not happen before 1967. Anyone know why? /Esquilo (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've read or gathered Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered that the DoD designations be combined after he learned that the F-4 Phantom had different designations by the Navy/USMC and the Air Force previously. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this was raised years ago but I added some stuff about the reasoning to the article.  Sources I found agree that it was McNamara's confusion/exasperation with the different Air Force/Navy systems which meant the Phantom II was designated the F-4H by the Navy and the F-110 by the Air Force.  I couldn't find great sources that confirm it was the F-4H vs F-110 but adequate (I think) sources for the explanation that it was due to his confusion and frustration with the multiple systems.Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background / origin 

message: Shouldn't R (Rocket) be in the vehicle type table?  I ask because of the GTR-18 Smokey Sam article. -Rolypolyman (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: G is for runway launch or other method of ground launch not covered by the other letters. I'd add it, but someone made tables there, and I don't edit tables. - BilCat (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. - NiD.29 (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rockets 

message: The E-7 designation was not skipped, it was used by the Boeing E-7A Wedgetail. Although not used in US service, it did use the US military designation.
The T-2 designation was not skipped, it was used by the North American T-2A Buckeye, which was originally designated T2J-1 using the Navy system, pre-1962.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyjwagner (talk • contribs) 16:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look into the E-7, but the T-2 was indeed skipped in the current sequence.  The trainer sequence is a bit confusing since there have been not one, but three "T" sequences since the unification of trainer designations.  The first sequence is a continuation of the USAF sequence, which currently ends at T-53.  The short-lived second sequence was created in 1962 with the unification of the military's various designation systems.  This sequence comprised only two designations, including the North American T-2 Buckeye.  In 1990, a third, distinct sequence was started back at T-1, but it skipped the "T-2" designation to avoid confusion with the T-2 Buckeye which was still in service at the time.  Hence, "T-2" is considered skipped even though the designation was assigned in a different sequence. - ZLEA T\C 21:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

text: From what I see, the E-7 designation was assigned by the RAAF.  As such, it cannot be counted as a US military designation just because it happens to be the one designation in the "E" sequence skipped by the Tri-Service system.  I did see that the USAF is (or at least was) considering buying the E-7 to replace the E-3, so if that happens we will have to wait and see if they assign it the missing "E-7" designation or if they assign the next sequential designation. - ZLEA T\C 21:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If this article is about the 1962 system then the T-2 Buckeye was part of the 1962 system and not skipped, the fact that it as re-started later in the 1990s at T-1 and they also continued the old 1948 USAF system just confuses the matter which this article just adds to the confusion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "System" and "sequence" are two different things.  "T-2" was not skipped in the 1962 sequence, but it was skipped in the 1990 sequence (both sequences being part of the 1962 system). - ZLEA T\C 20:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skipped design numbers 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a proposed merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the merge proposal was: merge.  - wolf 16:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: *Merge per nom and ZLEA, the DoD article seems to have been brought to us by the Department of Redundancy Department. Carguychris (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal  (absorb the US DoD aerospace vehicle designation page) 

message: There is a reason for the absence of the target prefix Q? 151.29.59.56 (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: By "target prefix" I assume you mean the "Q" prefix used on the QF-4, QF-16, and similar aircraft.  The "Q" prefix identifies these aircraft as drones, not targets.  There is no prefix specifically intended for target aircraft. - ZLEA T\C 13:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your prompt and gentle answer. Actually, I did the absurd error of not-reading Q between P and R. Excuse the disturb. 151.29.55.235 (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q 

message: So why did the F-110 become the F-4 when that designation didn't even exist prior to the system, while the F-111 kept its designation? Idumea47b (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Phantom entered service with the Navy as the F4H Phantom around 1960. Then the Air Force ordered it with F-110A number and "Spectre" name.  The new tri-service designation system came into effect in 1962. Check the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II article for more details. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As Fnlayson said, the F-4 originated as a Navy fighter.  Most aircraft that had Navy designations were assigned new Tri-Service designations in 1962, regardless of whether they had USAF designations before the change.  There are exceptions, though, such as the R4D, R5D, and WV respectively becoming the C-47, C-54, and EC-121 in 1962, all based on their pre-1962 USAF designations.  Interestingly, most of the exceptions are either transports or helicopters. - ZLEA T\C 19:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-111 

message: I would suggest adding the F-15EX Eagle II : "EX" isn't systematic, why not F-15F.
The OA-1K Sky Warden is clearly not in accordance, it is designated as a new version of the A-1 sky raider (thus the K) modified for observation (thus the O and the name).
I've never edited an article before. 2001:861:8C91:37E0:C0B7:741C:44DF:F7CE (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Added both, along with the Embraer A-29; the Pentagon really seems determined not to have an aircraft called the A-14, doesn't it? Also, it's debatable whether the next version of the F-15 should be the F model or the J model, as there were stillborn proposals for the F-15G and F-15H, so I referenced both possible series letters. Carguychris (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the issue with "A-14" is, or why the Air Force is having such a hard time following its own designation system. "OA-1K" is absolutely inexplicable, even more so than the "T-6 Texan II". As to "F-15J", there already is one: the Mitsubishi F-15J. Granted, it's not an official MDS designation,. as far as I know, but they usually skip designations like that to avoid confusion. I'm kinda surprised they didn't go with "F-15M", like they did with the C-5M. It does make one wonder who exactly is assigning these designations, and if they've even read their own rules. BilCat (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about the F-15J, I forgot that there already was one! Changed it to L, although I see your point about the Pentagon's apparent fondness for M. Carguychris (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The F-15J designation seems to be sort of official.  McDonnell Douglas built two F-15J-24-MCs, plus kits for four further F-15J-24-MCs and four F-15J-25-MCs.  These were the only F-15Js with block numbers and production facility codes, which were dropped from Mistubishi-built aircraft.  Therefore, at least the first ten F-15Js carried official MDS designations.  Whether the rest of the F-15J production carried official MDS designations is a different story. - ZLEA T\C 03:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  add "OA-1K" and "F-15EX" to Non-systematic or aberrant designations