Official MDS database listing — current official DoD aircraft designations

Stargazer

Stargazer

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
25 June 2009
Messages
13,735
Reaction score
2,914
Quoted from Andreas Parsch in another topic:

Just in case someone asks about the mentioned "MDS database": It's not classified, but there is no public access to it. In May 2014, I FOIA-requested a full excerpt. and got a PDF:
http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/original-docs/Tab_1_A8_PDF_MDS_listing_20140509.pdf
There are very few "weird" entries (like A-14A), but mostly it's just a somewhat nerdy reference
wink.gif
.
Click to expand...

I'm starting this topic so we can discuss the "weird" entries... and then some. Feel free to comment, ask questions, and so forth!
 
Embraer A-14A: Single engine turbo-prop, low-wing, all metal, two-seat, pressurized light attack aircraft; USN; one PT-6A-68C engine.
Embraer A-29B: Light attack aircraft, which is a single-engine turboprop, low-wing, all-metal, two-seat, pressurized light attack aircraft; USN; one PT6A-68 engine.


These two entries obviously refer to one and the same type, a Brazilian Tucano as listed under a standard DoD designation (A-14A, next slot available after the cancelled A-12A Avenger II) and A-29B (a Brazilian Navy designation reused "as is"). There is no indication that these could be two different variants, and since "A-14A" has never been seen in use anywhere else than this list, one can rightfully assume that it was to be the official designation before the original designation "A-29B" stuck.

However, an interesting hypothesis can be seen on the Military Aircraft Designations Yahoo! group as follows:

I have a feeling A-14A is the designation for the EMB-314 aircraft leased for the Imminent Fury/Combat Dragon II program. A-29A is the designation for the EMB-314 aircraft that Embraer had marketed under the AT-29 designation, which was selected for the Light Air Support (LAS) program.
Click to expand...

Please note however that the PDF doesn't list an "A-29A" at all, just an A-29B.

More about "Imminent Fury", from a 2009 web page of the Neptunus Lex site that is no longer online:

The US Navy is apparently eying a new strike aircraft – one that’s “not invented here,” probably won’t costs $83 million per copy, and won’t land on an aircraft carrier:
The U.S. Navy’s new Irregular Warfare office has been looking at an agile Brazilian observation and ground-attack turboprop to provide an “organic” close air support aircraft for special operations forces.
Under the classified “Imminent Fury” program, the Navy has already leased, tested and armed at least one Embraer EMB-314 Super Tucano, according to Capt. Mark Mullins, a naval special warfare officer serving as the deputy director of the Navy Irregular Warfare Office at the Pentagon.
“This is a close air support, manned aircraft with a pilot and sensor operator. The idea here is that SOF needs an organic capability that can stick with them while they’re doing their mission,” Mullins said. “We’re not buying them; we’re leasing them right now. That’s an important point.”
Click to expand...

I have attached a photo of the "Imminent Fury" aircraft for reference. If anyone knows what the black stallion on the nose is supposed to represent (a squadron?) please let us know.
 

Attachments

  • usn36722.jpg
    usn36722.jpg
    172 KB · Views: 135
KC-145A (manufacturer to be determined): Replacement for the KC-135 Stratotanker family of aerial refueling tankers. Will also have a receptacle to allow its own refueling. Secondary missions include passenger, cargo, and aero-medical avacuees (sic); USAF; 2 engines to be determined.


A weird entry to say the least... First of all, it appears squeezed between the C-12 and C-14 (which is totally illogical). Secondly, it duplicates the C-145A designation already applied to the PZL Mielec M28 Skytruck used by the US Air Force!! It could be a typo, as even this document is not devoid of them (for instance: TAMAMO instead of TACAMO for the E-6A!)
 
ZRQ-21A (manufacturer to be determined): UAV that will provide situational awareness by providing ISR capability from 3,000-ft of 1-meter size objects; USN/USMC; single engine to be determined.


Other sources (see attached PDF) clearly give the RQ-21A as the InSitu Blackjack (formerly known as the Integrator) a Multimission mini-UAV for STUAS (Small Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System) requirement...
 

Attachments

  • Insitu_Integrator_UAS1.jpg
    Insitu_Integrator_UAS1.jpg
    16.2 KB · Views: 135
  • Integrator-UAV.jpg
    Integrator-UAV.jpg
    31.4 KB · Views: 132
  • 0305234M_7_PB_2013 (RQ-21A).pdf
    128.4 KB · Views: 5
Thanks very much for posting this list; it is indeed rather strange. It looks as if it was put together by someone with no knowledge or interest in aviation, aircraft history or accuracy.


Many aircraft listed have been out of the inventory for over 30 years, such as the RA-5C and EB-57E, and many other entries are just plain wrong, like the YF-7F (should be the YA-7F Strikefighter).


Wes W.
 
Skyblazer said:
KC-145A (manufacturer to be determined): Replacement for the KC-135 Stratotanker family of aerial refueling tankers. Will also have a receptacle to allow its own refueling. Secondary missions include passenger, cargo, and aero-medical avacuees (sic); USAF; 2 engines to be determined.


A weird entry to say the least... First of all, it appears squeezed between the C-12 and C-14 (which is totally illogical). Secondly, it duplicates the C-145A designation already applied to the PZL Mielec M28 Skytruck used by the US Air Force!! It could be a typo, as even this document is not devoid of them (for instance: TAMAMO instead of TACAMO for the E-6A!)
Click to expand...
This entry is clearly a typo for KC-45A (just as YF-7F should be YA-7F). I think we can assume that a typo in this list doesn't make the mistyped MDS an official one ;) .
 
tigercat2 said:
Thanks very much for posting this list; it is indeed rather strange. It looks as if it was put together by someone with no knowledge or interest in aviation, aircraft history or accuracy.
Click to expand...
The list is the result of 50 years of bureaucracy, where presumably very few of the people who were responsible for it at one time or the other had lots of interest in aviation history.

Many aircraft listed have been out of the inventory for over 30 years, such as the RA-5C and EB-57E,
Click to expand...
The DOD office maintaining the list does not delete entries by themselves. An entry is removed if the military office responsible for an aircraft program issues a proper request to delete an MDS. This involves paperwork etc. which probably nobody likes to do. And who cares about an obsolete MDS, which has no effect on the assignments and uses of current designations? In fact, I sometimes wonder why many older MDS have been deleted at all.

What also makes me wonder is the apparently random selection of a few "historical" entries (e.g. some old bomber designations). To me, this looks like they had maybe an intern around 2004, who was given the task to enter historical designations into the database. When the internship ended, so did the effort to add historical designations, and the result are the oddball entries we see today ;) .
 
Andreas Parsch said:
Skyblazer said:
KC-145A (manufacturer to be determined): Replacement for the KC-135 Stratotanker family of aerial refueling tankers. Will also have a receptacle to allow its own refueling. Secondary missions include passenger, cargo, and aero-medical avacuees (sic); USAF; 2 engines to be determined.


A weird entry to say the least... First of all, it appears squeezed between the C-12 and C-14 (which is totally illogical). Secondly, it duplicates the C-145A designation already applied to the PZL Mielec M28 Skytruck used by the US Air Force!! It could be a typo, as even this document is not devoid of them (for instance: TAMAMO instead of TACAMO for the E-6A!)
Click to expand...
This entry is clearly a typo for KC-45A (just as YF-7F should be YA-7F). I think we can assume that a typo in this list doesn't make the mistyped MDS an official one ;) .
Click to expand...

Quite right! What misled me here is that this is supposed to be an up-to-date 2014 list and so it's obvious that the KC-45A is NOT to be since it's the KC-46A Pegasus that took its place! (plus the KC-45A is already listed there in its proper place!)
 
Received today through USAF FOIA request 2022-06005-F , supposedly current as of October 2022. Sadly this copy is just a list of designations without any other information.
 

Attachments

  • MDS FOIA Request 20 Oct 22.pdf
    70.3 KB · Views: 24
Wow. Malicious compliance at its finest.


Press on, my friend.
 
aim9xray said:
Wow. Malicious compliance at its finest.
Click to expand...
They didn't even care to insert the additions in their proper place along the way. I wonder if it's malice, laziness or just incompetence, of which there seems to be plenty of around these days...
 
No YF-117D for Tacit Blue, no YF-118G for Boeing/McDD Bird of Prey, no Northrop YF-23...
And yet there are the YF-22A, the YF-117A, a YF-7F (that I suppose is meant to be the YA-7F?), etc.
 
CiTrus90 said:
a YF-7F (that I suppose is meant to be the YA-7F?)
Click to expand...
There are several typos in this list. For some of them, one can make a reasonable guess for the correct designation:
- AMH-130R: Some C-130 variant, maybe AMC-130R
- MIM-147A: Almost certainly MIM-174A, for the land-based SM-6

What makes me really wonder is "W-2A". It has to be a typo (there is no "W" primary mission or vehicle type letter), but I cannot imagine any real designation "close" to it.
 
CiTrus90 said:
No YF-117D for Tacit Blue, no YF-118G for Boeing/McDD Bird of Prey
Click to expand...

Those designations, if they’re considered official, are probably maintained by another organization
 
Andreas Parsch said:
There are several typos in this list. For some of them, one can make a reasonable guess for the correct designation:
- AMH-130R: Some C-130 variant, maybe AMC-130R
- MIM-147A: Almost certainly MIM-174A, for the land-based SM-6

What makes me really wonder is "W-2A". It has to be a typo (there is no "W" primary mission or vehicle type letter), but I cannot imagine any real designation "close" to it.
Click to expand...

My guess would be E-2A, which otherwise appears to be missing. Presumably based on screwing up the conversion from W2F-1 to E-2A? (Or possibly just because E and W are next to each other on a keyboard. :oops:)
 
TomS said:
My guess would be E-2A, which otherwise appears to be missing. Presumably based on screwing up the conversion from W2F-1 to E-2A? (Or possibly just because E and W are next to each other on a keyboard. :oops:)
Click to expand...
Seconded.
 
Stargazer said:
Yep, I actually commented as much a few posts above, about an earlier release of the same list.
Click to expand...
My bad, I jumped at it immediately before carefully reading the whole thread.

Andreas Parsch said:
What makes me really wonder is "W-2A". It has to be a typo (there is no "W" primary mission or vehicle type letter), but I cannot imagine any real designation "close" to it.
Click to expand...
Agree on the typos explanation as the most logical, but I believe the W designation would denote a weather/atmospheric research vehicle (think for example WB-57F, WP-3D, etc.).
Maybe, at some point, NASA's ER-2 received the designation of W-2A but that didn't stick? A bit like the FA-22A vs F-22A story.

BTW speaking of F-22s, there is also a F-22B on that list...

quellish said:
Those designations, if they’re considered official, are probably maintained by another organization
Click to expand...
Interesting. Could that also explain why they do not follow the proper Mission Design Series' rules? As in the YF-117D which, despite sporting the F- designation, would clearly not be a prototype for a fighter? Same with the YF-117A, that might have retained it in the official MDS as being "ported over" from the "other" organization's list?
Plus the complete lack of MDS for all foreign exploitation types as well.
 
CiTrus90 said:
Agree on the typos explanation as the most logical, but I believe the W designation would denote a weather/atmospheric research vehicle (think for example WB-57F, WP-3D, etc.).
Click to expand...
The W prefix is a Modified Mission Letter, which cannot stand on its own. Similar e.g. to K-for-Tanker, which is also only a prefix.

CiTrus90 said:
Interesting. Could that also explain why they do not follow the proper Mission Design Series' rules? As in the YF-117D which, despite sporting the F- designation, would clearly not be a prototype for a fighter? Same with the YF-117A, that might have retained it in the official MDS as being "ported over" from the "other" organization's list?
Plus the complete lack of MDS for all foreign exploitation types as well.
Click to expand...
I have tried to summarize the historical background of these designations here:
 
Andreas Parsch said:
The W prefix is a Modified Mission Letter, which cannot stand on its own. Similar e.g. to K-for-Tanker, which is also only a prefix.
Click to expand...
Except "K" as a standalone prefix was officially assigned, but never used, wasn't it?
 
CiTrus90 said:
BTW speaking of F-22s, there is also a F-22B on that list...
Click to expand...

F-22B was planned as the two seat trainer, then cancelled quite late on. Entirely predictable there'd be an MDS assigned before the cancellation.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom