DoD designation duplicated?

[Stargazer]

It has been pretty clear to all of us compulsive list-makers that for a few years now the allocation of new designations by the U.S. Department of Defense has stopped following rigorous logic, and is often based on pleasing the contractors by keeping all or part of their inhouse designations rather than making sense. And if it allows to more easily conceal certain programs on the side, then all the better...

But a duplication of designations seldom happens. And in fact, whenever it did happen in the past, it meant that the first allocation had been cancelled and the number reassigned. However, there are currently TWO distinct allocations of the same number for two current ongoing military programs involving delivery of U.S. companies to military entities:

• MQ-28A is Boeing's Ghost Bat stealth, multirole UCAV for the Royal Australian Air Force's ATS (Airpower Teaming System) program
• RQ-28A is Skydio's X2D small quadrotor reconnaissance drone, 1,083 of which are to be delivered to the U.S. Army

Is the latter one the only official one? And if so, was the use of "MQ-28A" by Boeing wishful thinking? Or is it a case of DoD duplication? And if it's a company-only designator, how can the U.S. government allow for it to coexist so blatantly with the real one, thus adding to the confusion?

 

[Andreas Parsch]

It's almost certain, that RQ-28A is an officially assigned MDS, and it's quite possible, that MQ-28A is one as well. It's two different designations, and we can assume that the database system doesn't care, that (in theory) you should not allocate two Q-28 series MDS to completely different aircraft.

My best guess(!): Boeing applied for MQ-28A, because they were not aware of the RQ-28A allocation (MQ-27 had been the "last in line" for some time). And it was approved without much ado, because whoever does these approvals doesn't care about the "integrity" (or whatever you may call it) of the system.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It has been pretty clear to all of us compulsive list-makers that for a few years now the allocation of new designations by the U.S. Department of Defense has stopped following rigorous logic, and is often based on pleasing the contractors by keeping all or part of their inhouse designations rather than making sense. And if it allows to more easily conceal certain programs on the side, then all the better...

But a duplication of designations seldom happens. And in fact, whenever it did happen in the past, it meant that the first allocation had been cancelled and the number reassigned. However, there are currently TWO distinct allocations of the same number for two current ongoing military programs involving delivery of U.S. companies to military entities:

• MQ-28A is Boeing's Ghost Bat stealth, multirole UCAV for the Royal Australian Air Force's ATS (Airpower Teaming System) program
• RQ-28A is Skydio's X2D small quadrotor reconnaissance drone, 1,083 of which are to be delivered to the U.S. Army

Is the latter one the only official one? And if so, was the use of "MQ-28A" by Boeing wishful thinking? Or is it a case of DoD duplication? And if it's a company-only designator, how can the U.S. government allow for it to coexist so blatantly with the real one, thus adding to the confusion?

I think it's because the MQ-28 is the Aussie designation, like E-7 was, and it got repeated for the USAF.

There's a similar cut-out for the T-50 and FA-50 Korean trainers, but those were far enough away to not duplicate anything.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

There's a similar cut-out for the T-50 and FA-50 Korean trainers, but those were far enough away to not duplicate anything.

T-50 wasn't "far out" at all. When the Korean T-50 designation was assigned, the MDS T-series had reached T-47. A few years later, it had gone up to T-49. In 2005, the US DoD explicitly "reserved" the T-50A MDS for the Korean aircraft, just to make sure that T-50 would not be assigned as an MDS to a different aircraft. That was almost 20 years ago, and apparently at that time some people did still care a bit about the MDS numbering sequences .

 

[1635yankee]

There were two distinct F-4Gs, one a series of USN F-4Bs with modified electronics, the other the USAF's "Wild Weasel" version of the Phantom. The former was out of service well before the USAF's version came into service.

Of course, there are many reused designations, but no one (one hopes!) is going to mistake the Huff-Daland B-1 for the Rockwell one or the Curtiss B-2 for the one from Northrop

I don't think there are any other simultaneous duplicates than the RQ-28 and MQ-28.

 

[Scott Kenny]

T-50 wasn't "far out" at all. When the Korean T-50 designation was assigned, the MDS T-series had reached T-47. A few years later, it had gone up to T-49. In 2005, the US DoD explicitly "reserved" the T-50A MDS for the Korean aircraft, just to make sure that T-50 would not be assigned as an MDS to a different aircraft. That was almost 20 years ago, and apparently at that time some people did still care a bit about the MDS numbering sequences .

The T-series up in the 40s is pre 1962.

 

[Stargazer]

The T-series up in the 40s is pre 1962.

Nope.
T-41 to T-47 were all allocated AFTER 1962.
For some reason, the new tri-service T- sequence was not used beyond T-2...
It may have to do with the fact that the T-28, T-29, T-33, T-34, T-37, T-38, T-39 were still in active service well into the 1980s and were never renumbered into the new system.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Nope.
T-41 to T-47 were all allocated AFTER 1962.
For some reason, the new tri-service T- sequence was not used beyond T-2...
It may have to do with the fact that the T-28, T-29, T-33, T-34, T-37, T-38, T-39 were still in active service well into the 1980s and were never renumbered into the new system.

Yet the new trainer is the T-7.

And of course the T-6 Texan II before it.

 

[Hood]

For some reason, the new tri-service T- sequence was not used beyond T-2...

It was used, just oddly - the Slingsby Firefly was T-3A, but then 4 and 5 were unassigned, T-6 just happened to be free for Texan II and now we have T-7 Red Hawk. The T-43 Boeing 737 nav trainers seem to be the start of the duplication of the system.

The C-sequence was duplicated as in recent years non-USAF transports have followed on from C-143, the F-sequence was duplicated (111 & 117 plus all the myriad oddities surrounding the captured Soviet aircraft in the 11x sequence), the H-sequence was abandoned after the Little Bird (AH-6), the U-sequence has a big gap between 28 and 38. So there are oddities about how several sequences were applied.

 

[Robert]

Is there any evidence that MQ-28 is an official US DoD military aircraft designation? It just seems to be a Boeing Australia thing.

 

[Stargazer]

It was used, just oddly - the Slingsby Firefly was T-3A, but then 4 and 5 were unassigned, T-6 just happened to be free for Texan II and now we have T-7 Red Hawk. The T-43 Boeing 737 nav trainers seem to be the start of the duplication of the system.

Yes, of course. But I was referring to the post-1962 years. It took over three decades until T-3 was allocated. Until then it was only the old sequence.
ALSO... don't forget that even T-1 was reallocated at the same time! The T-1A Jayhawk was a trainer version of the Beech 400A!! Yet there never was a new T-2!

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Yet the new trainer is the T-7.

And the newest Navy trainer is the T-54.

The C-sequence was duplicated as in recent years non-USAF transports have followed on from C-143

It's not only "non-USAF". Both the C-145A and C-146A are USAF planes (AFSOC).
So both T and C are currently using two parallel series, and it's anyone's guess, from which series the next allocation is taken.

Anyway, some historical background about all this:

When the joint MDS system, based on the old USAF one, was introduced in 1962, the following type letters were taken over from the USAF to the new system: B, C, F, H, T, U and X. Of these, only B, C and F were restarted from 1, while H, T, U and X just continued. I don't know why it was done like this, but it most likely has something to do with B, C and F having reached relatively high numbers. But the evidence is solid, because the first official document listing the new designations also listed the "next number" for each series. So e.g. for F it said "Next is -12A", while e.g. for H it said "Next is -52A".

So the "low" T and H numbers (T-1/2 and H-1 to -6) were not intended to form the start of new series. Instead (for reasons, which I also don't know) it had only been decided to not allocate "high" numbers to some redesignated Army/Navy planes, which had no existing USAF equivalent. Best guess here is that a few numbers could be left unchanged (e.g. HU-1 -> H-1, HO-6 -> H-6, T2J -> T-2), which was also the motivation for a few other oddities in the redesignation scheme (e.g. no P-1 or S-1).

So why do we now have two parallel series for T and C? For T, I don't know why the "low numbers" were started to be (re-)used with the T-1A Jayhawk. I have seen the allocation records for the T-1A MDS, and they don't say anything special about the number.

But I kind-of know why the "high numbers" for C were revived with C-143. About 20 years ago, I had an informal e-mail exchange about this very subject with someone who was directly involved in the process. He said, that the next-in-line C-number at the time was C-42. But they found out, that the label "C-42" (or "C42") was already in use for an aircraft, a small sports plane built in Germany. Apparently they were not sure, if use of C-42 by the DOD for another aircraft would be a trademark infringement. He said that while this sounds far-fetched, it was argued that you never know with lawyers, and to "play it safe", they shouldn't allocate C-42 as an MDS. For other reasons, C-43 and C-44 were also not favored (the two numbers were eventually also skipped), and in the end, someone with authority said "Let's use C-143", i.e. continue the old high numbers series. And that was it - C-143A was allocated.

In the end, it's all moot nowadays anyway, because sequential numbering has mostly been abandoned. I think less than half of the new design numbers allocated in the last years have been assigned in proper sequence.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Is there any evidence that MQ-28 is an official US DoD military aircraft designation? It just seems to be a Boeing Australia thing.

There is some evidence, but it's not entirely conclusive. It's complicated .

My own data for official MDS records ends in October 2018, way before both RQ-28A and MQ-28A showed up. Even though I FOIA-requested more data about 3 years ago, the process has somehow stalled.

But someone else managed to get a full list of all MDS from DOD's database up until late 2022. This list includes both RQ-28A and MQ-28A. However, and very unfortunately, this is a completely unannotated list, i.e. it lists only the designations, but nothing else - no manufacturer, no description, and especially not the status ("active" or "retired"). And even more unfortunately, it does list designations, for which I know (from my own complete data up to 2018), that they have been entered into the database but explicitly labeled as "retired" immediately (for whatever reason - they could just as well not stored these non-designations at all) - these are "H-69A" and "T-50A". So the fact that MQ-28A is included in that plain MDS probably means, that it's indeed officially allocated. But in principle it could also be listed with a remark like "set aside because of unofficial usage" or something like that.

 

[Stargazer]

So the "low" T and H numbers (T-1/2 and H-1 to -6) were not intended to form the start of new series.

You are obviously THE U.S. DoD designations specialist, and I dare not contend with anything you write! However, I'm puzzled by your assertion that "the low H numbers were not intended to form the start of a new series." If I understand correctly, the argument is that it was just convenient to redesignate the old types: HO-4, -5 and -6 simply became H-4 to -6 with the "O" prefix; "HU-1 became H-1 with the "U" prefix; HU2K became H-2... But that logic also presided over the changes in the other series you've mentioned as being properly "restarted"... F-1 to F-11 were redesignations, too! And yet F-12 and F-14 came afterwards, not F-112 and F-113 (I know some will contend that the case of the F- series is unique because it served to hide foreign evaluations...). So to me the argument is not entirely convincing. I have a theory concerning the Air Force's rejection of the tri-service T- and H- series: they consisted of Navy and Army aircraft only, and they would have none of it!

Some additional remarks here:

• You forgot to mention the V- list, which was restarted from V-1 (and which also consisted of redesignated types at first);
• I can see no reason why the N-156F (which never received a designation prior to 1962) became the F-5, while the Convair GD-12, developed after 1962, became the F-111...
• One can consider there has been a THIRD use of the H- list since AH-1 designations are now duplicating the UH-1 slots...

 

[Andreas Parsch]

You are obviously THE U.S. DoD designations specialist, and I dare not contend with anything you write! However, I'm puzzled by your assertion that "the low H numbers were not intended to form the start of a new series." If I understand correctly, the argument is that it was just convenient to redesignate the old types: HO-4, -5 and -6 simply became H-4 to -6 with the "O" prefix; "HU-1 became H-1 with the "U" prefix; HU2K became H-2... But that logic also presided over the changes in the other series you've mentioned as being properly "restarted"... F-1 to F-11 were redesignations, too! And yet F-12 and F-14 came afterwards, not F-112 and F-113 (I know some will contend that the case of the F- series is unique because it served to hide foreign evaluations...). So to me the argument is not entirely convincing. I have a theory concerning the Air Force's rejection of the tri-service T- and H- series: they consisted of Navy and Army aircraft only, and they would have none of it!

As I said, I don't know why the low-numbered H and T designations were not planned to be the start of a new continuous series. My guess (conveniently keeping numbers) may be just wrong, but I stick to it, because there is a lot of evidence, that "keeping the number" was an important principle, followed as often as possible. Also, your assertion that the USAF rejected to continue "low numbered" H and T series because they were all Army/Navy planes, would also have applied to C. C-1 to C-3 were also all Navy.

You forgot to mention the V- list, which was restarted from V-1 (and which also consisted of redesignated types at first);

I didn't forget it, I left it out on purpose . The USAF "V" series (for "Convertiplane") was short-lived and obsolete by 1962. The letter was effectively up-for-grabs in the new 1962 system, and was used for a different purpose, namely "STOL/VTOL". So it basically a no-brainer to start this series from 1 (and re-integrate the only surviving convertiplane into it without changing its number).

I can see no reason why the N-156F (which never received a designation prior to 1962) became the F-5, while the Convair GD-12, developed after 1962, became the F-111...

The designation F-111A was allocated to the TFX program in late 1961 (19 Dec 61, to be exact). So using the old system for this designation was justified, I'd say. The Navy also allocated "old-style" designations up until 6 July 62, when the new system came into effect for new allocations.

For F-5A, I don't have such exact evidence. For all I know, they could have designated it just as well as the F-112, immediately before the new MDS system became mandatory. Or as the F-12, immediately after that.

My pet hypothesis goes like this:
The whole redesignation effort must have been quite a bureaucratic nightmare. Once you have designed your new designation system, you have to collect all active designations from all three services, and if they don't comply with the new system (which was true for all Navy ones), somehow find new designations in the new system. I imagine a kind of committee, consisting of Air Force, Navy and Army representatives. Also, we know, that "keeping the number" was an important principle for finding new MDS slots for old Navy designations. Now consider the upcoming F-series, in the spring of 1962:
- The following fighter models were listed in the Navy's inventory (some almost gone, some brand new): F3D, F4D, F9F, F11F, F2H, F3H, F4H, FJ, F8U, F2Y (a single YF2Y-1 still lingering on in some far corner of the inventory list).
- Most important fighters at that time were the F8U and F4H, so keep the numbers for those -> F-4 and F-8
- Following the example of F4H, F2H and F3H get F-2 and F-3
- Grumman is also important , so change their F9F and F11F to F-9 and F-11.
- FJ has an "implicit 1" in it, so give it F-1.
- That leaves 3 models (F3D, F4D, F2Y) and 4 F-numbers (F-5, 6, 7, 10). No matter what you do, you have one open F-number too many (because you granted the F11F crowd the F-11 number, even though only 10 Navy models needed redesignation).
- But then a USAF guy in the alleged committee speaks up and says that they need a new F-designation for a new fighter (the N-156F) anyway, and they can just as well take one of the 4 remaining slots. So the numbers 5, 6, 7, 10 are allocated (by rolling the dice or whatever ), and everyone is happy.

The chances that my hypothesis is true, are essentially zero. But my point is: The whole process was not entirely trivial, and probably needed lots of discussions and compromises. And the USAF's new N-156F was somehow squeezed in, and happened to end up with the F-5 number for no particular reason.

As a final note to all that: The Navy's remaining YF2Y-1 was finally stricken from the inventory in July 1962, immediately before the new system became effective, but (presumably) after the whole redesignation list had been finalized for good.

 

[BlackBat242]

Of course, as the USAF "didn't do attack aircraft" the A-Attack sequence started with AD Skyraider>A-1, then on to the AJ Savage>A-2, A3D Skywarrior>A-3, A4D Skyhawk>A-4, A3J Vigilante>A-5 and A2F Intruder>A-6.

The A-7 Corsair II was designated after October 1962, as was the AV-8 Harrier (should have been something else [especially since the prototypes were designated AV-6 Kestrel], but someone tried to fit it into the "fixed-wing attack" sequence.

The A-9 & A-10 are known... but don't get me into the CIA-assigned A-11/A-12... .

Of course, when the USAF's B-26 Invaders were redesignated back to "attack" aircraft to sooth the Thai sensibilities for USAF aircraft operating from Thai based they resumed their original A-26 designation, not a new one.

 

[Kiltonge]

Tangentially, it is curious how Lockheed Martin is able to trademark MDS in aviation categories. I would have expected the designation to remain Government IP in relation to aircraft.

Good and services: airplanes. F-35

F-35 Trademark of Lockheed Martin Corporation - Registration Number 3799192 - Serial Number 77849132 :: Justia Trademarks

Airplanes and structural parts therefor

trademarks.justia.com

Goods and services: aircraft ( and handbags etc ). X-59

X-59 Trademark Application of Lockheed Martin Corporation - Serial Number 98144930 :: Justia Trademarks

Metal key chains. Computer hardware peripherals, namely, mouse pads; computer carrying cases; decorative refrigerator magnets; calculators; mobile phone cases; carrying cases for mobile phones; protective covers and cases for mobile phones, tablets, media players; portable and handheld digital...

trademarks.justia.com

Goods and Services: Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). RQ-170 SENTINEL

RQ-170 SENTINEL Trademark - Serial Number 77896786 :: Justia Trademarks

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and structural parts therefor

trademarks.justia.com

 

[Stargazer]

Tangentially, it is curious how Lockheed Martin is able to trademark MDS in aviation categories. I would have expected the designation to remain Government IP in relation to aircraft.

Considering the jump from F-23 to F-35, and the totally non-sequential RQ-170 (among others), I guess one could argue that perhaps they were Lockheed designations that the company pushed to have them become official. But as for X-59, indeed, it's weird to trademark it. It's a bit like Boeing when they trademarked every three-digit 70* designation (legend has it that there never were Peugeot cars in the 700 range for that reason).

 

[Hood]

Of course, as the USAF "didn't do attack aircraft" the A-Attack sequence started with AD Skyraider>A-1, then on to the AJ Savage>A-2, A3D Skywarrior>A-3, A4D Skyhawk>A-4, A3J Vigilante>A-5 and A2F Intruder>A-6.

Then there is the oddity of the A-37, it more properly should have been AT-37 perhaps or alternatively A-9, but they simply snipped out 'T' and it became A-37. Easy for the paperwork I guess.

The A-7 Corsair II was designated after October 1962, as was the AV-8 Harrier (should have been something else [especially since the prototypes were designated AV-6 Kestrel], but someone tried to fit it into the "fixed-wing attack" sequence.

AV-8 was in the V sequence however given the A is the Modified Mission prefix.
General Dynamics marketed their Model 100 proposal as A-8A but that was probably unofficial.
A-8 was available but Harrier was given V-8 even though that had been assigned in 1961 to the Ryan Flexible Wing Aerial Utility Vehicle as XV-8, even though it wasn't a proper vertical TO design (the proposed OV-12 for the Pilatus PC-6 was equally weird). Yet A-8 was never used for anything else, perhaps to avoid confusion with AV-8.
As you say, ideally it would have been AV-6B, with the Harrier II perhaps taking up AV-6D onwards or even AV-16 perhaps which had been earmarked for future Harrier projects

Andreas is right, creating a unified system for aircraft plus the rockets and missiles must have been a herculean task that didn't satisfy everyone. Moving forwards it probably made sense to have aircraft and missiles used by two or more services to have a common nomenclature, but it must have been a pain to organise existing equipment, especially those WW2-era variants used for VIP transports and odds and ends that didn't have much life left. It's just a shame the system has broken down now, but then all the designation sequences from the 60s and 70s seem to be failing now that the institutional memory of those times has gone.

 

[Robert]

There is some evidence, but it's not entirely conclusive. It's complicated .

My own data for official MDS records ends in October 2018, way before both RQ-28A and MQ-28A showed up. Even though I FOIA-requested more data about 3 years ago, the process has somehow stalled.

But someone else managed to get a full list of all MDS from DOD's database up until late 2022. This list includes both RQ-28A and MQ-28A. However, and very unfortunately, this is a completely unannotated list, i.e. it lists only the designations, but nothing else - no manufacturer, no description, and especially not the status ("active" or "retired"). And even more unfortunately, it does list designations, for which I know (from my own complete data up to 2018), that they have been entered into the database but explicitly labeled as "retired" immediately (for whatever reason - they could just as well not stored these non-designations at all) - these are "H-69A" and "T-50A". So the fact that MQ-28A is included in that plain MDS probably means, that it's indeed officially allocated. But in principle it could also be listed with a remark like "set aside because of unofficial usage" or something like that.

Oh right, I'm assuming you are referring to this comment by quellish. I guess I missed the "MQ-28A" in that wonderfully sorted list

 

[Robert]

Tangentially, it is curious how Lockheed Martin is able to trademark MDS in aviation categories. I would have expected the designation to remain Government IP in relation to aircraft.

Good and services: airplanes. F-35

F-35 Trademark of Lockheed Martin Corporation - Registration Number 3799192 - Serial Number 77849132 :: Justia Trademarks

Airplanes and structural parts therefor

trademarks.justia.com

Goods and services: aircraft ( and handbags etc ). X-59

X-59 Trademark Application of Lockheed Martin Corporation - Serial Number 98144930 :: Justia Trademarks

Metal key chains. Computer hardware peripherals, namely, mouse pads; computer carrying cases; decorative refrigerator magnets; calculators; mobile phone cases; carrying cases for mobile phones; protective covers and cases for mobile phones, tablets, media players; portable and handheld digital...

trademarks.justia.com

Goods and Services: Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). RQ-170 SENTINEL

RQ-170 SENTINEL Trademark - Serial Number 77896786 :: Justia Trademarks

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and structural parts therefor

trademarks.justia.com

Maybe they just want to sell T-shirts, or prevent other people from doing so. I'm sure company lawyers had some good reason to do so. On the other hand, the US Navy has trademarked "MQ-25" (I don't have my source at hand, would have to dig it up).

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Regarding the A-8 slot ...

General Dynamics marketed their Model 100 proposal as A-8A but that was probably unofficial.

This was definitely unofficial.

A-8 was available but Harrier was given V-8 even though that had been assigned in 1961 to the Ryan Flexible Wing Aerial Utility Vehicle as XV-8, even though it wasn't a proper vertical TO design (the proposed OV-12 for the Pilatus PC-6 was equally weird). Yet A-8 was never used for anything else, perhaps to avoid confusion with AV-8.
As you say, ideally it would have been AV-6B, with the Harrier II perhaps taking up AV-6D onwards or even AV-16 perhaps which had been earmarked for future Harrier projects

A while (i.e. a long time ) ago, I did a short write-up on the AV-8A designation here. So it was actually the AV-6B originally, but the actual reasons for the change to AV-8A were not documented in writing.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

but don't get me into the CIA-assigned A-11/A-12... .

These were not "CIA-assigned". A-11 was never assigned to anything flying - you probably refer to the more or less unexplained one-time use of "A-11" for the YF-12A, when latter was first announced to the public. A-12 was Lockheed's in-house designation for the CIA spyplane. Since the CIA is a civilian agency and never used the military aircraft designation schemes, the aircraft were flown under this company designation.

In the MDS series, the A-11A designation was reserved in the 1986/88 time frame (it's unknown by whom and for what), but never taken up. And A-12A of course was the well-known USN ATA project.

 

[quellish]

Even though I FOIA-requested more data about 3 years ago, the process has somehow stalled.

Send the FOIA office a request for an updated estimated date of completion. Include the date it was first filed. CC the FOIA public liason and make sure to describe the data fields etc you are asking for.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Send the FOIA office a request for an updated estimated date of completion. Include the date it was first filed. CC the FOIA public liason and make sure to describe the data fields etc you are asking for.

I might try something like this, but I doubt it will change, let alone accelerate, anything. It's not that they don't know that the progress is disappointing: In February this year, 4+ years(!) after my original request, I received an apology that it's taking so long, together with the question, if I'm still interested in the results. I immediately answered like "Yes, of course", which was followed by a confirmation from the FOIA office, that they will keep the case active.

What I request (basically a full excerpt of the MDS database, with all unclassified fields) should be clear enough. In fact it's my third request of that kind, and the first two went through without much problems (and within less than a year).

 

[quellish]

I might try something like this, but I doubt it will change, let alone accelerate, anything. It's not that they don't know that the progress is disappointing: In February this year, 4+ years(!) after my original request, I received an apology that it's taking so long, together with the question, if I'm still interested in the results. I immediately answered like "Yes, of course", which was followed by a confirmation from the FOIA office, that they will keep the case active.

What I request (basically a full excerpt of the MDS database, with all unclassified fields) should be clear enough. In fact it's my third request of that kind, and the first two went through without much problems (and within less than a year).

Asking for an EDC and including the public liason is what got mine moving again, they provided the final response within a week.

 

[Yellow Palace]

For F-5A, I don't have such exact evidence. For all I know, they could have designated it just as well as the F-112, immediately before the new MDS system became mandatory. Or as the F-12, immediately after that.

If you very carefully examine the timelines, the F-12 was being called the F-12 before the F-5 came along. It was remarkably convenient for all involved that the fighter version of the A-12 - there was the B-12 and the RS-12 cluttering up drawing boards around the same time! - wound up needing an official designation at exactly the same time the F-1 through F-11 designations were being assigned.

It's my totally unsubstantiated (and utterly inconsequential) belief that, had the MDS not been invented (or, more likely, invented a year or two later) the AF-12 would have become the F-112, and the N-156F would have become the F-113.

It's just a shame the system has broken down now, but then all the designation sequences from the 60s and 70s seem to be failing now that the institutional memory of those times has gone.

Ironically, in this age of computers needing systematic naming conventions and metadata (there's the day job creeping in!), there's also probably less requirement for the system. The US Navy had ten types of fighter and five of attack aircraft, all needing to be clearly identified. Now it has... two. The USAF is similar, of course. That makes it much easier to identify what kind of aircraft you're talking about.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Tangentially, it is curious how Lockheed Martin is able to trademark MDS in aviation categories. I would have expected the designation to remain Government IP in relation to aircraft.

That's the best safeguard against inadvertent duplication of a designation (*elegantly coming back to the original thread topic* ). Even if DOD bureaucrats don't care, Lockheed Martin's lawyers surely do !

 

[Archibald]

I could never figure why they reserved the F-7 slot in 1962 for the Convair Sea Dart...

 

[aim9xray]

I could never figure why they reserved the F-7 slot in 1962 for the Convair Sea Dart...

One or more Sea Darts were held in storage for possible hydroski configuration testing for some years. And since they were on the inventory, they had to be designated (which they were as YF2Y) and redesignated under the new system (which they were as YF-7A).

 

[Kiltonge]

Maybe they just want to sell T-shirts, or prevent other people from doing so. I'm sure company lawyers had some good reason to do so. On the other hand, the US Navy has trademarked "MQ-25" (I don't have my source at hand, would have to dig it up).

If that was the case they'd only file for specific trademark categories, not including that of aircraft themselves.

The Navy's trademark for MQ-25 is here:

Trademark Status & Document Retrieval

tsdr.uspto.gov

They have various others in the aircraft categories, like CH-53K and EA-18G, which makes sense as the DoD is the 'owner' of MDS, not industry.

Which USN aircraft project was this, with a star inside a P and two trails?

 

[Andreas Parsch]

One or more Sea Darts were held in storage for possible hydroski configuration testing for some years. And since they were on the inventory, they had to be designated (which they were as YF2Y) and redesignated under the new system (which they were as YF-7A).

For those who really want to deep-dive into this ...

There is a Navy website called Allowances and Location of Naval Aircraft. For the years 1956 to 1988, you can view/download PDFs with detailed accounts about the whole Naval Aviation inventory. For the years around the redesignation, 1961/62, the reports were issued monthly. The interesting part regarding one-offs like the YF2Y-1 is called "Distribution of Non-Program Aircraft by Model", and is always near the end of the document (within the last 10 pages or so). For several years since the late 1950s, there is single YF2Y-1 listed in status "Board of Inspection & Survey" and then in "Awaiting Decision". The last issue it appears in is June 1962, so it's gone by July 62. The AJ-1 / A-2A is quite similar, BTW. There is a single example listed in status "Bailment" until September 62. In the October 62 issue (which is the first one to use the MDS designation), it's gone, so the AJ-1/A-2A lasted only marginally longer than the YF2Y-1/YF-7A.

 

[TomS]

Considering the jump from F-23 to F-35, and the totally non-sequential RQ-170 (among others), I guess one could argue that perhaps they were Lockheed designations that the company pushed to have them become official.

The F-35 was government first. I still remember, but cannot find evidence for, Lockheed actually posting a website immediately after the selection with the designation F-24. Only after DoD confirmed General Hough's fumble during the press conference did it change on the website. It was the F-24 (on the website) for maybe 12 hours?

 

[BlackBat242]

These were not "CIA-assigned". A-11 was never assigned to anything flying - you probably refer to the more or less unexplained one-time use of "A-11" for the YF-12A, when latter was first announced to the public. A-12 was Lockheed's in-house designation for the CIA spyplane. Since the CIA is a civilian agency and never used the military aircraft designation schemes, the aircraft were flown under this company designation.

In the MDS series, the A-11A designation was reserved in the 1986/88 time frame (it's unknown by whom and for what), but never taken up. And A-12A of course was the well-known USN ATA project.

I suppose that the author of the Air Force Magazine article in 1964 was using that single mention as his source, then...
he calls Lockheed's new Mach 3 twin-engine high-altitude recon aircraft "A-11" throughout the article.

 

[Stargazer]

For those who really want to deep-dive into this ...

There is a Navy website called Allowances and Location of Naval Aircraft. For the years 1956 to 1988, you can view/download PDFs with detailed accounts about the whole Naval Aviation inventory. For the years around the redesignation, 1961/62, the reports were issued monthly. The interesting part regarding one-offs like the YF2Y-1 is called "Distribution of Non-Program Aircraft by Model", and is always near the end of the document (within the last 10 pages or so). For several years since the late 1950s, there is single YF2Y-1 listed in status "Board of Inspection & Survey" and then in "Awaiting Decision". The last issue it appears in is June 1962, so it's gone by July 62. The AJ-1 / A-2A is quite similar, BTW. There is a single example listed in status "Bailment" until September 62. In the October 62 issue (which is the first one to use the MDS designation), it's gone, so the AJ-1/A-2A lasted only marginally longer than the YF2Y-1/YF-7A.

It's still weird that the DoD decided to redesignate Navy aircraft which were all but obsolete, while not bothering about the Air Force's as-yet unbuilt F-111!

 

[GeorgeA]

In the category of reassigned but not actually duplicated, NASP was originally designated X-31 (AW&ST, 3/31/86, p. 15) before being redesignated the X-30A (AW&ST 4/21/86, p.17). X-31 was then reassigned to the Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability testbed built by Rockwell and MBB.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It's still weird that the DoD decided to redesignate Navy aircraft which were all but obsolete, while not bothering about the Air Force's as-yet unbuilt F-111!

Contract for that was awarded before 1962, they'd have to spend a stupid amount of money to rewrite a lot of paperwork (see also the F117, which had been used for various classified aircraft before the Stealth Fighter)

The Navy aircraft existed and were completely incompatible with the MDS rules, so HAD to be renumbered.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

In the category of reassigned but not actually duplicated, NASP was originally designated X-31 (AW&ST, 3/31/86, p. 15) before being redesignated the X-30A (AW&ST 4/21/86, p.17). X-31 was then reassigned to the Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability testbed built by Rockwell and MBB.

The X-31 NASP was a simple error/typo by the AWST.

This X-30/31 confusion was one of the "designation rumors" which I tried to confirm/refute in my research. Result: The original MDS request for NASP asked for the design number X-30 (a logical choice, since it was the next in line number), and that request was granted with the allocation of the X-30A MDS.