• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Air Force Unveils New 'E-Series' Designation for Advanced Aircraft and Weapons

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,026
Reaction score
997
I reacted in the TX thread first but I really can't let this go. This is one of the stupidest additions to the US designation system in years (since YAL-1?).

Every aircraft or other system being developed today will be extensively designed, tested, and modelled in simulation before they start cutting metal. So this designation should in theory be applied to basically all new programs. It adds no value, meaning, or insight whatsoever. It's a sign of how out of touch the Air Force is that they think this actually helps in any way.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,253
Reaction score
1,281
I reacted in the TX thread first but I really can't let this go. This is one of the stupidest additions to the US designation system in years (since YAL-1?).

Every aircraft or other system being developed today will be extensively designed, tested, and modelled in simulation before they start cutting metal. So this designation should in theory be applied to basically all new programs. It adds no value, meaning, or insight whatsoever. It's a sign of how out of touch the Air Force is that they think this actually helps in any way.
Almost as bad as, "F/A".
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,026
Reaction score
997
I reacted in the TX thread first but I really can't let this go. This is one of the stupidest additions to the US designation system in years (since YAL-1?).

Every aircraft or other system being developed today will be extensively designed, tested, and modelled in simulation before they start cutting metal. So this designation should in theory be applied to basically all new programs. It adds no value, meaning, or insight whatsoever. It's a sign of how out of touch the Air Force is that they think this actually helps in any way.
Almost as bad as, "F/A".
As in F/A-22? Yeah, that was sad.

At least F/A-18 kinda sorta made sense given the program history of the Hornet (the original idea being to build two distinct but rapidly convertible models, the F-18 and the A-18).
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,867
Reaction score
1,460
Gimme a break. What happens to the E-2 / E-3 / E-4 varied aircraft, in this case ? Will their successor be called EE-15 (for example) ?

..and then, English Electric heirs won't be happy at all.
 

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,336
Reaction score
605
Do I get it right?
Lower case letter "e", not a capital letter "E".
eT-7A, not ET-7A.

The USAF took the wrong lessons from the smartphone industry, i.e my smartphone Sony Xperia XZ1 Compact.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,026
Reaction score
997
Gimme a break. What happens to the E-2 / E-3 / E-4 varied aircraft, in this case ? Will their successor be called EE-15 (for example) ?

..and then, English Electric heirs won't be happy at all.
Well, the idea is that this only gets applied during development. So it's kinda equivalent to the X or Y prefixes but only for stuff that hasn't been built yet, I guess. Still silly though.
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,244
Reaction score
144
Entirely unnecessary. Can you imagine the brain damage resulting from attending the meetings of the focus group responsible for this? :eek:
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,787
Reaction score
1,061
Why e? Why not d? Surely 'd' for digital would make more sense?
 
Top