ASCC/ASIC/US DoD Reporting Name for Soviet/Russian/Chinese Aircraft and Missiles

NMaude said:
So would I be correct that the US DoD designation for the S-500 is the SA-X-30 (Since it's still in the prototype stage)? Also does anyone know what its' NATO reporting name is?
Click to expand...

If it's still prototype then likely won't have one, issued when confirmed in service. The two schemes address slightly different phases, DoD starts earlier in intelligence and assessment whereas ASCC is operational.
 
Last edited:
This thread started almost 15(!) years ago with some postings, which suggested various additions/changes to my webpage about DOD/NATO designations and names for Soviet/Russian and Chinese aircraft and missiles. At that time, I had effectively abandoned updates of my website, and didn't follow the subject any more.

But since a while, I have resumed working on my site, and for the last few weeks, I have worked on a major update of the by now 20 year old (and therefore hopelessly outdated) page on DOD/NATO designations. The result is now online:

Western (NATO / U.S. DOD) Designations of Soviet/Russian, Chinese and Other Adversaries' Military Aircraft and Missiles
(The URL has changed, but the old URL is redirected to the new one)

The description of the DOD designation system has been slightly corrected, and updated to cover the new (actually not that new) country prefixes. But most significantly, a lot of so far missing designations have been added:
- Many Russian and Chinese missiles from the last 20 years
- Totally new sections on North Korean and Iranian missiles
- Many new and corrected "temporary" aircraft and missile designations
- A few missing aircraft code names

While collecting the data for the update, I found out (as I suspected) that reliable sources for these designations are very hard to find (if they exist at all in the public domain), especially when it comes to more recent missiles. Therefore a lot of notes have been added, liberally using words like "unconfirmed", "unclear", "questionable" and "maybe bogus". And I completely ignored some of the more outlandish claims (e.g. when I found only a single nondescript reference on some random internet page).

The end result of this approach should be tables, which are at least somewhat useful as a general and semi-reliable reference. Still, it is essentially certain that a few wrong entries have passed through, while I may have left out some actually correct ones. Therefore, suggestions for corrections are of course welcome, but please mention your sources ;) .
 
Andreas Parsch said:
I know this list. There are several names and designations, which I found only there, and these are exactly what I meant by "a single nondescript reference on some random internet page" ;).
Click to expand...
many new reporting names is from quizzes from quizlet.com. Many of these quizzes was deleted, some of them "for breaking the rules" (probably contained secret information).
 
Nagumo said:
many new reporting names is from quizzes from quizlet.com. Many of these quizzes was deleted, some of them "for breaking the rules" (probably contained secret information).
Click to expand...
I stumbled across this "quizlet" site in other contexts when trying to confirm designations. Sorry to say, but the accuracy of the information there didn't convince me at all. For the time being, "quizlet" is firmly on my internal list of "sites not to trust for info on military nomenclature".
 
Quizlet.com is simply a site to make quizzes from. A few times, someone clearly in the military has used it to make a quiz on topics that are at least restricted if not secret, presumably not realising the quiz is publicly discoverable. So, some of the info on there is true.
 
NMaude said:
noticed, Andreas, that the US DoD designation for the Oreshnik is the SS-X-34 not SS-X-31 as I'd seen elsewhere
Click to expand...
There is no really confirmed DOD code for Oreshnik. SS-X-34 seems to be the most "popular" option, and I have listed it as such in my tables. SS-X-31 is one of several possible codes for RS-26 Rubezh, from which Oreshnik is derived.

In any case, the higher numbers in the Russian SS series (-28 and up) are a total mess in the public record. Just look at the abundance of notes below my table ;). The only type of source, which I would accept as definitely authoritative here, are declassified military or intelligence documents.

NMaude said:
do you have any idea what its' NATO reporting name is (Aside from beginning with an "S")?
Click to expand...
If I had, I wouldn't post it here, because technically this is restricted information until those controlling that information choose to release it.

That said, I haven't seen any alleged NATO name for Oreshnik so far.
 
I did not know the word, but it turns out I have done the work. And used the results.

A simple internet search will do to acquaint any non-geologist, non-taphonomist or non-paleo-ecologist with the meaning of fishbed.
The meaning of Fagin should be just as easy to unearth, even to those unfamiliar with Charles Dickens.
Seek, and you shall find.
 

Attachments

  • 1000017048.jpg
    1000017048.jpg
    34.9 KB · Views: 20
It seems like the use of NATO code names would be perfect for aircraft like the Chengdu J-36 and and Shenyang "J-50", since we still do not have confirmation of the Chinese designations for these aircraft.
 
from Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1986-87: Reports continue to persist, without supporting evidence, of a delta-winged J-10 and swept (or swing) winged J-12 under development, with designation "gaps" explained by a fighter version of "Fantan A" (J-9 "Fantan B"), and possible Chinese production od the MiG-23 (as J-11).
 
Nagumo said:
from Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1986-87: Reports continue to persist, without supporting evidence, of a delta-winged J-10 and swept (or swing) winged J-12 under development, with designation "gaps" explained by a fighter version of "Fantan A" (J-9 "Fantan B"), and possible Chinese production od the MiG-23 (as J-11).
Click to expand...
it may by Q-5 "144" demonstrator
 

Attachments

  • Q-5-144_1.jpg
    Q-5-144_1.jpg
    162.5 KB · Views: 13
EmoBirb said:
I know what a felon is, but Fagin seems like a made up word like "Fishbed" to me
Click to expand...
It was going to be Fishhead but when a top general mispronounces it then you change all the literature and do not correct the boss. Just kidding of course. The Su-9 was Fishpot-A and Su-11 Fishpot-C.. They were both Balalaika-style aircraft, so "Fish" fit them all as an exercise in consistency. The real question is why Su-15 didn't get Fish in the name. :)
 
I was flabbergasted to learn years ago that the NATO reporting name for the MiG-15 was "Faggot":D.
 
NMaude said:
I was flabbergasted to learn years ago that the NATO reporting name for the MiG-15 was "Faggot":D.
Click to expand...
FAGOT, actually. It was apparently originally FALCON but that was too nice, just like Tu-22 BLINDER was originally BEAUTY (I would personally call that irony not a compliment).
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
FAGOT, actually. It was apparently originally FALCON but that was too nice, just like Tu-22 BLINDER was originally BEAUTY (I would personally call that irony not a compliment).
Click to expand...

And the Il-28 went from BUTCHER to BEAGLE for, presumably, the opposite reason
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
just like Tu-22 BLINDER was originally BEAUTY (I would personally call that irony not a compliment).
Click to expand...

I agree about the irony part. Also the Tu-22M (Originally Tu-26) NATO reporting name is Backfire and while Soviet aircrews didn't normally use the NATO reporting name (Fulcrum for the MiG-29 is I understand an exception) they did use that one as apparently in early Tu-22M models their engines had serious reliability issues causing frequent engine failures.​
 
Now I know that the R-37 is the AA-13 Axehead but is the R-37M still an AA-13 or an AA-14?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom