What will be the next number for fighters, cargo, helos and bombers?

I have read on several forums the confusion over new USAF aircraft receiving numbers in the "old" (pre-1962 series), like the C-144, T-45, UH-72, etc, while at the same time some designations of new aircraft are clearly in the "New" (post 1962) series, such as the T-6, H-3, and KC-46.


Can anyone say for certain what the next fighter, cargo aircraft, trainer and helo will be? As noted here and in other forums, there seems to be no rhyme or reason for one numbering series or another.


Wes W.

tigercat2 said:

As noted here and in other forums, there seems to be no rhyme or reason for one numbering series or another.

Click to expand...

I think you pretty much summed it all up yourself, buddy! ;D

Thanks, its almost as if the folks in charge of military aircraft designations sit around in their office and say something like, "here's a new cargo aircraft, let's call it the C-XX (new series). Then a few months or years later, they say, "here is another new cargo aircraft, let's call it the C-XXX (old series).


Maybe it depends on the phase of the moon when they assign a new designation.




Wes W.

And then a suit screws up an says, "durrrrr, um. . .F-35?"

I think it's symptomatic of a larger problem that's all over the corporate world AND the political world today: the lack of background knowledge of what has been done before by others (made worse by the fact that most of the time they don't even care), lack of a sense of continuity, and worst of all, lack of a desire for liability to the customer/the people. Thirty years ago you could write an official office or a company's headquarters, make a complaint and receive, not only a reply but often some help, compensation or at least a formal apology and promise to do things better next time. Try to write to anyone nowadays: when/if you get an answer, most of the time it's automated, there's no-one at the other end. And most of the time your problem does not get solved... they got your money/your vote and basically say "screw you"...

I'd rather shrewd (albeit deceitful) calculation was the correct explanation, but I fear it has more to do with incompetence. Typos made by people with no knowledge of the usage, repeated by people with no care for accuracy (or blindly trusting whoever wrote their memos...).

My theory on the current random assignment of new designations is based on several factors:
1. Originally aircraft records were kept on hardcopy cards (or something similar) and a systematic system was required to place the records in a accessible sequence in some records store room. These days, with computers, all you do is have a master list - need not be in sequential order - and by pressing one button you get the records (a simplified statement, I agree, but it is a fact).
2. Aircraft manufacturers can now (informally) suggest a designation. It has happened before: I believe the Northrop F-20 was designated as such because Northrop liked it; the KC-10 designation was based on the DC-10, and the system is full with such examples. The Raytheon T-6 is another example - but you have to know the fame of the North American AT-6, otherwise the current T-6 is just 'random'.
3. It is only us, aerospace historians, that seek a neat sequence - those guys assigning the designations do not need a sequence. Probably many (if not all) of those guys have no idea what a F-103 is (just to take a random number).

The same things are true when you are dabbling in serial numbers. Whilst originally the serials were in a neat sequential order (again, remember hardcopy cards), these days they are all over the place. They are in some sequential orders over multiple years, they are based on construction umbers, some are even based on the user unit's number.

But, as I have stated several times before, all this mess keeps us busy and happy. So live with it.

tigercat2 said:

Can anyone say for certain ...

Click to expand...

No

... what the next fighter, cargo aircraft, trainer and helo will be?

Click to expand...

Ok, not for certain, but one can of course make a good guess. Jos has summed it up why there is no real need for sequential numberings nowadays, but using the "next avaiable" number is still the default method.
- Fighters: Will there be a new manned fighter in the next decades? If so, the numerical designation will be "some nice number" : .
- Cargo: My guess: Next "off-the-shelf" purchase - C-147. Next new design - C-48.
- Helicopter: H-73. VH-92A was a foreseeable out-of-sequence designation, and the low-numbered post-1962 sequence has never been used after H-6.
- Bomber: B-3. A no-brainer .

Andreas Parsch said:

Ok, not for certain, but one can of course make a good guess. Jos has summed it up why there is no real need for sequential numberings nowadays, but using the "next avaiable" number is still the default method.
- Fighters: Will there be a new manned fighter in the next decades? If so, the numerical designation will be "some nice number" : .
- Cargo: My guess: Next "off-the-shelf" purchase - C-147. Next new design - C-48.
- Helicopter: H-73. VH-92A was a foreseeable out-of-sequence designation, and the low-numbered post-1962 sequence has never been used after H-6.
- Bomber: B-3. A no-brainer .

Click to expand...

Of course, as was to be expected given his mastery of the subject, I concur with Andreas's comments.

As he didn't mention the Attack mission, let's add this: the next likely A- designation is A-17... unless of course some attack variant of an existing fighter leads to an F/A- type out-of-sequence number of course.

Like Andreas, I also believe the tri-service H- series is unlikely to be used, since it hasn't spawned a single new entry since the H-6.

I also believe C-47 will not be allocated because the DC-3 is still in everyone's memory. Unlike T-6, where a new trainer was supposed to take over the name and aura of the original one, there will likely be no Dakota II that can take the place of the "Dak", either in numbers, influence and career.

Of course the next bomber could be assigned the "B-72" number, following on from the SR-71, which followed the B-70. A bit of a stretch, however. I agree that B-3 will most likely be the next bomber, and SR-72 may, just may, be the designation for "son of Blackbird", not expected to be operational until 2030 or so (if at all).






Wes W.

Skyblazer said:

I also believe C-47 will not be allocated because the DC-3 is still in everyone's memory. Unlike T-6, where a new trainer was supposed to take over the name and aura of the original one, there will likely be no Dakota II that can take the place of the "Dak", either in numbers, influence and career.

Click to expand...

I'm going to guess that there is a more prosaic reason; C-47/DC-3 derivatives (Basler BT-67 conversions) are still in US Government service (Department of State Air Wing and US Forest Service come to mind). While marketed as the "BT-67", I'll bet that this is just an Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) and the original papers still read C-47 or C-53 or DC-3. It would be interesting to look up some BT-67 registrations on the FAA website and see what they really are/were...

Let's start over at 1 (one).

The sad truth is that there are so few military aircraft being procured these days (and probably for the future) that it makes little difference what the designation is.




Wes W.

Jemiba said:

Maybe there's method to that madness ?
Is it really helpful for politicians to tell all people, how many types of fighters, bombers or
transports already were bought with taxpayers money ? What would be the result ?
"They buy the F-154 now ? Weren't those 153 types before not enough ? And all those
in just about 70 years ??".

Click to expand...

As I remember the B-50( an improved B-29) was renumbered to "look" new to congress....

Adventurer104 said:

As I remember the B-50( an improved B-29) was renumbered to "look" new to congress....

Click to expand...

Yeah. There are examples of the opposite too. Depending on the political mood and context... The F-95 and F-96 were decidedly different from their F-86 and F-84 counterparts, but I believe it was decided to redesignate them as F-86D and F-84F so that it wouldn't seem like too many new types were being procured.

Skyblazer said:

Adventurer104 said:

As I remember the B-50( an improved B-29) was renumbered to "look" new to congress....

Click to expand...

Yeah. There are examples of the opposite too. Depending on the political mood and context... The F-95 and F-96 were decidedly different from their F-86 and F-84 counterparts, but I believe it was decided to redesignate them as F-86D and F-84F so that it wouldn't seem like too many new types were being procured.

Click to expand...

Also, for a while, the F-101B was going to be re-designated as the F-109, and consideration was given to re-naming the F-84H (turboprop version) as the F-106, if it had gone into production, IIRC.


Wes W.

aim9xray said:

I'm going to guess that there is a more prosaic reason; C-47/DC-3 derivatives (Basler BT-67 conversions) are still in US Government service (Department of State Air Wing and US Forest Service come to mind). While marketed as the "BT-67", I'll bet that this is just an Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) and the original papers still read C-47 or C-53 or DC-3. It would be interesting to look up some BT-67 registrations on the FAA website and see what they really are/were...

Click to expand...

I think you are right. The designation "C-47T" (for turboprop-modified C-47s) is still in the active MDS listing, and this alone should mark the C-47 slot as "in use".

tigercat2 said:

Also, for a while, the F-101B was going to be re-designated as the F-109,

Click to expand...

First hand evidence for this is actually rather thin.

and consideration was given to re-naming the F-84H (turboprop version) as the F-106, if it had gone into production, IIRC.

Click to expand...

Other way round. The designation XF-106 was tentatively allocated to the aircraft, before it was changed to XF-84H.