Commercial usage of "military" designations

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,243
Reaction score
51
Thank you so much Andreas for your ever so captivating explanations. I for one could read on without getting tired as the subject of US designations absolutely fascinates me...

In the same vein as Bell using F-109 commercially without any approval of either the designation or the type, I'm also thinking of the recent Lockheed T-50 trainer, which apparently has forced the USAF to skip that number and proceed directly to T-51... Sikorsky's efforts with H-76 and H-92 probably would lead to the same situation if these numbers weren't so far from today's mark (though H-76 is now getting pretty close).
 

Andreas Parsch

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
242
Reaction score
0
Stargazer2006 said:
In the same vein as Bell using F-109 commercially without any approval of either the designation or the type, I'm also thinking of the recent Lockheed T-50 trainer, which apparently has forced the USAF to skip that number and proceed directly to T-51...
I don't think the T-50 label was used with the explicit intent to suggest an official DOD designation. Interestingly, DOD did not simply skip T-50, but actually reserved the official T-50A designation for the aircraft.

Sikorsky's efforts with H-76 and H-92 probably would lead to the same situation if these numbers weren't so far from today's mark (though H-76 is now getting pretty close).
H-76 is indeed pretty close, and it's possible (even likely) that DOD will skip it. And if "H-76" is registered as a trademark by Sikorsky, it might even be illegal for DOD to use the same label for a different helicopter.

In fact, one reason (possibly the primary one, and at least the only acknowledged one) for skipping C-42 is a conflict with a civilian "C-42" airplane. And that was an aircraft, which was neither a transport nor even remotely military!
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,243
Reaction score
51
If manufacturers start sueing the military for duplicate use of their designations, there's trouble ahead!

The USCG stays pretty clear from this risk by going for high number transports (C-143 and C-144) or reusing the company designations (MH-90, HV-911, etc.). Perhaps the future of military designations? I hope not!
 

Vahe Demirjian

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 1, 2013
Messages
288
Reaction score
83
If manufacturers start sueing the military for duplicate use of their designations, there's trouble ahead!

The USCG stays pretty clear from this risk by going for high number transports (C-143 and C-144) or reusing the company designations (MH-90, HV-911, etc.). Perhaps the future of military designations? I hope not!
H-76 remains unassigned, while C-145, C-146, and C-147 have been allocated to PZL Mielec, Fairchild Dornier, and Dash 8-300 planes in US service respectively. And note that HV-911 isn't an official designation, while H-76 is unassigned so far.
 
Top