The Air Force has issued the U.S. military’s first ever ‘fighter drone’ designations.

If I gloss over indecently, the message appears to be that the designed use of a 'Fighter Drone' would be in cooperation with manned aircraft, while leaving open the possibility of employing it on drone-only missions.

I wonder what kind of mind would think of that as indecent.
SamTheEagle.jpg
 
Idiots - they should have used the F-24 to F-34 empty slots, just adding a "Q" to them.
 
Archibald said:
Idiots - they should have used the F-24 to F-34 empty slots, just adding a "Q" to them.
Click to expand...
I thought so too at first, but on closer inspection, it is not the same. Adding a Q prefix to a Fighter makes it a simple target drone. Also, these aircraft are not manned fighters that are used in unmanned mode, they are UAV designs from the very start, which are specifically used here for combat, but could also be configured for other tasks.
 
Stargazer said:
I thought so too at first, but on closer inspection, it is not the same. Adding a Q prefix to a Fighter makes it a simple target drone. Also, these aircraft are not manned fighters that are used in unmanned mode, they are UAV designs from the very start, which are specifically used here for combat, but could also be configured for other tasks.
Click to expand...
agreed, otherwise One could argue the clash of A-10 vs F-10 vs C-10 etc etc
 
Stargazer said:
I thought so too at first, but on closer inspection, it is not the same. Adding a Q prefix to a Fighter makes it a simple target drone. Also, these aircraft are not manned fighters that are used in unmanned mode, they are UAV designs from the very start, which are specifically used here for combat, but could also be configured for other tasks.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think the type and mission codes are correct for the current system.

They do seem to be continuing the "tradition" of pulling Q-series numbers out of thin air, however. Either that or there are a ton of undisclosed drones with MDS designations out there.
 
That's quite amazing given they haven't seemed to have cared much about following them for years. But it lets them get a headline. . .
 
Stargazer said:
Adding a Q prefix to a Fighter makes it a simple target drone. Also, these aircraft are not manned fighters that are used in unmanned mode, they are UAV designs from the very start, which are specifically used here for combat, but could also be configured for other tasks.
Click to expand...

Maybe one day some of them will end up with a 'QFQ-42' and/or 'QFQ-44' (target) designation.
 
Should have no visible intake to confuse the enemy.

And I was hoping it used more of a diamond shape with minimal stabilizers. At this point it nedds to be using vectoring bleed air to keep it simple, stupid.
 
NMaude said:
The people at Wikipedia have moved fast both designs now have their own wikipedia entry:

General Atomics YFQ-42
Anduril YFQ-44

Just looking at the designations made me realise they skipped 43, I wonder why?
Click to expand...

Based on “The Merge”’s USAF source it is because -1 and -3 are flight/element leads in a 4-ship formation. Since CCAs are loyal wingmen they were given 42 and 44 and so 43 is skipped because it implies a flight/element leader.
 
ncc81701 said:
Based on “The Merge”’s USAF source it is because -1 and -3 are flight/element leads in a 4-ship formation. Since CCAs are loyal wingmen they were given 42 and 44 and so 43 is skipped because it implies a flight/element leader.
Click to expand...
This is super weird :oops:, and I find it kind of hard to believe. Also, what does a pilot flying an F-22 say to this ;) ?
 
Andreas Parsch said:
This is super weird :oops:, and I find it kind of hard to believe. Also, what does a pilot flying an F-22 say to this ;) ?
Click to expand...
Is it really any weirder than, say, F-35 or B-21?

If that is the basis for the designation, one might imagine NGAD being designated F-41. Which would be equally arbitrary, but we're through the looking glass now....
 
Yellow Palace said:
Is it really any weirder than, say, F-35 or B-21?
Click to expand...
Actually, while F-35 and B-21 didn't follow the sequence, the numbers are explained pretty well. F-35 = number taken from X-35, because of screw-up in public presentation; B-21 = "Bomber of the 21st century".

That FQ-42 is out of sequence again is not a big surprise (most new numbers are), and 42 itself is obviously always a good number :cool:. But the alleged explanation for skipping #43 is weird, even by the USAF's standards. "Callsign prefixes" - really??

<wild-speculation>
Maybe they just wanted to use even numbers, because some odd ones have been used for classified purposes? "YF-45D" is effectively confirmed, and there is even a rumor (but admittedly unconfirmed, and most likely false) about a "YF-43B".
</wild-speculation>

Yellow Palace said:
If that is the basis for the designation, one might imagine NGAD being designated F-41. Which would be equally arbitrary, but we're through the looking glass now....
Click to expand...
Yes, why not. Or F-50, to begin yet another new "decade" in fighter numbers. Or "F-51 Mustang II".
 
Andreas Parsch said:
That FQ-42 is out of sequence again is not a big surprise (most new numbers are), and 42 itself is obviously always a good number :cool:.
Click to expand...
Don't panic! :p
Andreas Parsch said:
But the alleged explanation for skipping #43 is weird, even by the USAF's standards. "Callsign prefixes" - really??
Click to expand...
Totally silly, I agree!
Andreas Parsch said:
Yes, why not. Or F-50, to begin yet another new "decade" in fighter numbers. Or "F-51 Mustang II".
Click to expand...
I can totally see that happen. In fact, you may just have given the guys the idea!
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom