Talk:1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Background / origin

The article does not mention why the tri-service designation system was introduced. I'we heard rumors that is was because confusion between

talk) 15:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Rockets

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)[reply]

  • This is the aircraft designations (and vehicles that look at least somewhat like aircraft) - the GTR-18 Smokey Sam is covered under a completely different designation system. - NiD.29 (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably this one:
      1963 United States Tri-Service missile and drone designation system - although it doesn't list G, but TR would seem to match as a training rocket. - NiD.29 (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
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)[reply]
Done. - NiD.29 (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skipped design numbers

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)[reply]

Andyjwagner 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

Discussion about this article and United States Department of Defense aerospace vehicle designation

User:ZLEA, User:BilCat

Hi. I'm kinda new to this and only really stumbled on these aviation pages by accident. I've been trying to clean up some of the pages (fixing formatting, better in-line citations, etc), specifically these


I had thought that the first page (US DoD aerospace vehicle....) IS the current system and that it superseded the 1962 Tri-Service page, but that's not the case, correct? Just to check my understanding, all US armed forces designate their aircraft by using the 1962 MDS system. That system has been modified and began to include missiles/rockets/drones in 1971. The DoD Directive which mandates an aircraft designation system has changed (4505.6 in 1962, now is 4210.15E 2004 incorporating change 2 in 2020) and the Air Force publication which details the system has changed (originally 66-11, then 82-1, now 16-401) but the system at its heart is still the 1962 MDS system and 16-401 acknowledges that, right?

If so, I have to make some corrections to the edits I made recently. And I'd like to make some formatting changes to help make the above clearer:

1962 page: keep as is. The vehicle types and mission types should stay what they were originally published as in 1962. But the article can state that "1962 MDS system is the current system being used to designate military aircraft. For more on how it is currently utilized, see US DoD aerospace vehicle designation"

1963 drone page: same as 1962 page. It is technically still being used, just under the same umbrella as the 1962 MDS now. Same language for "is the current system being used....for more on how it is utilized, see US DoD aerospace ..."

US DoD aerospace vehicle designation: basically state that the US currently uses updated versions of the 1962 aircraft and 1963 missile/drone/rocket systems concurrently. DoD Directive 4120.15E mandates a system using MDS be used and delegates Sec Air Force to handle it. Air Force uses updated versions of the tri-service 1962 aircraft and 1963 drone systems side-by-side. Air Force's 16-401 lays out how the 1962 and 1963 systems are used and gives you the updated rules. Army and Navy put their stamp on it w/ AR 70-50 and NAVAIRINST 13100.16 and say "yeah, whatever Air Force said". [Navy follows the rules now but for a good 30 years or so, they technically followed the 1962 system but still released their own list of aircraft designations (separate from the 4120.15-L list) which had their unique quirks to it and only stopped publishing said list in the 90s, right?]

List of Missiles by country page: give the short version from above and link to 1963 drone and US DoD aerospace articles

US military aircraft designation systems: for 1962, say that it is the current version but to see how it's being implemented, see below. For 1963 drone, say the same. Final entry on the article is "Current military aircraft designation assignment": Currently, modified versions of the 1962 and 1963 systems are used simultaneously, for more info see US DoD aerospace page.

What do y'all think? Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jasonkwe When the DoD releases a directive/regulation on aircraft/missile designations, it doesn't necessarily mean the creation of a new designation system. The Tri-Service system was first defined in 1962 by DoD Directive 4505.6, and while subsequent directives such as Directive 4120.15 gradually evolved the system from its original form, the changes were never drastic enough to be considered a new system. Therefore, the system used today is still the same system introduced in 1962.
The preceding 1922 USN and 1924 USAAS/USAAC/USAAF systems went through similar changes throughout their lifetimes. The USN system had its mission and manufacturer components flipped about a year into its adoption. The USAAS system saw the merger of the three bomber categories in 1930, the addition of production codes in 1939, block numbers in 1941, and, most notably, a major rework of the mission prefixes in 1948. The Tri-Service system is no different, it evolves through updated directives and regulations.
The United States Department of Defense aerospace vehicle designation appears to be a bit misleading as it presents Joint Regulation 4120.15E as a designation system. The title is a bit confusing and I doubt 4120.15E is notable enough for its own article. I think we should consider merging with this article. - ZLEA T\C 22:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's what I was checking, that 4120.15 is not a new designation system and that if you dig under the hood of what's being used, you'll find the 1962 MDS system.
I had thought about merging the DoD aerospace page back in with the 1962 page but I'm not sure that's a good idea. I was thinking that the 1962 page has value in how it presents what was originally released so you could see the progression from the prior Air Force, Navy, and Army systems. What's being used now isn't a completely separate system but it's not the same as the 1962 system in its original form.
It's like....Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species". Groundbreaking, very important work. But if you asked someone what is the modern understanding, is it "On the Origin of Species"? No, there's been lots of modifications and changes along the way. But is it a completely different system than what's in Darwin's book? No. So having a page for both "On the Origin of Species" and a page for "Modern Evolutionary theory" is good.
Alternatively, maybe it is better to merge the US DoD page in with the 1962 page. Have the 1962 page mention that it initially did not manage missile/rocket designations but, after some updates, it does now. And the tables will show the current misson types, modifiers, etc.
But I'm leaning toward keeping the DoD page separate... Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 1962 Tri-Service aircraft system and the 1963 missile system are still separate systems. While they were both modified simultaneously, by 4120.15 and subsequent regulations, they are still two completely different systems which share little common structure. The
WP:GNG (though I doubt any of them do). - ZLEA T\C 01:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not at all suggesting that 1962 aircraft and 1963 drone/missile pages be combined (though I think they do actually share a fair number of features). I'm talking about what to do with the US DoD aerospace designation page (and how that would affect the 1962 and 1963 pages).
You feel that the US DoD aerospace page should be merged/deleted and the system updates should be moved to the 1962 and 1963 pages respectively? Would you suggest a portion of each article show the system's initial state and then a separate section below show its current state?
From my end, I think that the US DoD aerospace page should remain and that (if we focus it as an article on 4120.15) it does pass
WP:GNG
. My rationale is that 4120.15 was created in 1971 and it has remained since then. Its name has been altered (1971 was "Designating and Naming Military Aircraft, Rockets, and Guided Missiles", 1985 and onward was "Designating and Naming Military Aerospace Vehicles") but it's still the same entity so there's not as much worry that there's a bunch of individual directives/regulations that water down the notability.
But more importantly, if someone asks the basic question of "how does the US military designate their aircraft?", the best answer is "they use 4120.15. You can read the details in AFI 16-401". I'd say pointing to a page on 4120.15 (which acknowledges it uses 1962 and 1963) is better than pointing to 1962 and 1963 separately. Especially since the 1962 and 1963 systems currently aren't really used on their own outside the context of 4120.15.Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, pointing directly to 4120.15 would be misleading as it would paint the regulation as if it were a distinct designation system as well as well as give a false impression that aircraft and missiles use the same system. The "1962" and "1963" in the titles do not mean that the articles cover the designation systems as they were first defined. The inclusion of their introduction year is due to
WP:COMMONNAME, as most reliable sources refer to them as the "1962" and "1963" systems. The best answer to "how does the US military designate their aircraft?" is "they use the 1962 Tri-Service designation system. The system was last modified by Joint Regulation 4120.15E." - ZLEA T\C 01:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
If edited so it's stated up front in the intro paragraph and in the overview (that the 4120.15 regulation uses the 1962 and 1963 systems), I don't think it'd be misleading.
I'm not disagreeing with their names or the fact that the articles can be updated to show the modifications they've had. But I think it's kind of telling that this discussion is even being had. If you search for 1962 Tri-Service designation system, most search results are from wikipedia, 3rd-party fan-maintained sites, or forum posts. There's a handful of references to it in government or .mil documents but often just as "in 1962....new designation system was implemented" or "DoD designation". You can find mentions of it here and there in different phrasings but only if you already know what the answer is and read between the lines. The fact that neither has an official name makes it a thousand times worse.
The other thing is, neither is ever mentioned without the other in official documentation. If there's updates, they're rolled out via 16-401 and no one states plainly that these are ostensibly still two systems being used side-by-side. A lot of this is frustration with the Air Force/military bureaucracy for not making things clear in the pages of directives they roll out....then ignore the guidelines in said directives when they do stuff like name the F-117 or FA-18. To say nothing of the new "e" bullshit.
I still think a page on how designations are currently created would be valuable but I can see that it's arguable that such a page might not pass
WP:GNG
. If that's the case, I'm thinking it'd be best to:
  • Dismantle the US DoD aerospace page (reduce confusion)
  • Update the 1962 and 1963 pages w/ stuff from the US DoD aerospace page (examples, explanations, sources, etc). Explain in both 1962 and 1963 pages that they ARE the current systems in use but they're jointly maintained and referred to within AFI 16-401
  • Have the US military aircraft designation systems page list the 1962 aircraft and 1963 missile/rocket systems at the bottom with (1962-present) and (1963-present) and links to each respective page. Give a brief explanation that these two systems are currently in use and are jointly described in 16-401. Especially since it's that page that is linked in the US Armed Forces navbox.
Thoughts? Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 09:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 4120.15 page should probably be merged into the "History" section of the 1962 and 1963 articles. Perhaps a table system similar to the one at 1924 United States Army Air Service aircraft designation system could be used to show when certain elements of the designation system were added and/or removed. The 1962 system is already at the bottom of United States military aircraft designation systems, but I removed the 1963 system as it does not apply to aircraft. - ZLEA T\C 12:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal (absorb the US DoD aerospace vehicle designation page)

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. (This is a courtesy ping to the OP, Jasonkwe, as it has been some time since this proposal was first made.) - wolf 16:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

US DoD aerospace vehicle designation system page is mostly redundant (see above topic) Already copied over the info and sources from DoD page to this page and 1963 rocket/missile page. (technically, the DoD page could be merged into the 1963 rocket/missile page or the United States military aircraft designation systems page but proposing it be merged into this one as it's the most active.

If ok'd, I'll manually fix whichever of the links that direct to the US DoD page that need to be fixed so that they direct to this page or the 1963 rocket/missile page respectively (ie. the DoD page is listed in the See Also as "US DoD aerospace...", change it so it reads See also "1962 Tri-service....")Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 07:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Q

There is a reason for the absence of the target prefix Q? 151.29.59.56 (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
@ZLEA: 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)[reply]

F-111

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

add "OA-1K" and "F-15EX" to Non-systematic or aberrant designations

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1962_United_States_Tri-Service_aircraft_designation_system&oldid=1196035671"