Question about the name "F/A-18"

[javelina1]

None of this was important.

 

 

But your responses are always entertaining... ;)

 

 

OP - thanks for the question, was a bit curious too. :thumbup:

[BuzzU]

If the F/A means fighter-attack which it does in the case of the F/A-18. Why is the F-16 not the F/A-16? Why not F/A-14? There are lots of examples that make no sense. F-15C or F-15E?

 

The whole deal is meaningless.

[macedk]

LOL wut

 

the hole really important f a b c letter conversation :)

[Frederf]

If the F/A means fighter-attack which it does in the case of the F/A-18. Why is the F-16 not the F/A-16? Why not F/A-14? There are lots of examples that make no sense. F-15C or F-15E?

 

The whole deal is meaningless.

F/A does not mean fighter-attack in the way you are picturing it. It is not a case that an airplane is built, looks like it can do some fighter task and attack task, better call it something appropriate. Instead one or more jobs is imagined and then an airplane attempts to fulfill those jobs.

 

In the case of F-16 and A-16 there was an "F" job and an "A" job. Each had a different set of requirements and the assumption was that different machines would satisfy each. A-16 and F/A-16 failed to meet the "A" job requirement. F-16 met "F" job requirements which may or may not have also included some attack capability in itself. Yes, fighter design requirement can include attack capability and still be a fighter design.

 

It could have been the case that USN bought two airplane designs: F-18 and A-18. They just got lucky and the same airplane fulfilled both requirements. So Hornet is F-18 and is A-18. It is two airplane designations, roles, and requirements fulfilled by one airplane hardware.

 

The reason there is no A-14 or A-15 is because there was no "A" job requirement as part of the program.

[BuzzU]

I'm confused. What can the F/A-18 do in the attack role that the F-16 can't do?

[javelina1]

I'm confused. What can the F/A-18 do in the attack role that the F-16 can't do?

 

 

come back on one engine... ;)

[BuzzU]

True.

[probad]

but the f-16 always comes back on one engine

[Alfa]

It could have been the case that USN bought two airplane designs: F-18 and A-18. They just got lucky and the same airplane fulfilled both requirements. So Hornet is F-18 and is A-18. It is two airplane designations, roles, and requirements fulfilled by one airplane hardware.

 

IIRC it was a requirement from the outset that the "F-18" and "A-18" had to use the same airframe with little or no modification. For this reason it was determined that the advantage of having two separate versions was lost(since compromises between A/G vs. A/A capabilities had to be made anyway), while the versatility of having both capabilities in one aircraft was an obvious advantage - especially onboard an aircraft carrier. The challenge was to integrate onboard systems and make the same aircraft sufficiently capable of both tasks.

 

So I don't think you could say that they "got lucky"......they had to work hard for it and continued to do so throughout its service life :)

Edited November 20, 2018 by Alfa

[BuzzU]

I'd still like an explanation of why the F-16 isn't F/A-16?

[Revelation]

I'd still like an explanation of why the F-16 isn't F/A-16?

 

Because when it was submitted for appropriations to be funded by Congress it was solely going to be a fighter/interceptor. It was originally designed with Fox2's in mind. Later Fox 1s & 3s were added as well as the A/G component.

[Alfa]

I'd still like an explanation of why the F-16 isn't F/A-16?

 

Who knows :) - it could simply be that, unlike the F/A-18, the F-16 wasn't meant to be an actual "strike-fighter" from the outset, but only slowly evolved into that over time.

 

IIRC it was initially meant to be a low cost "counter-air" fighter to supplement the bigger and more expensive F-15(Hi-Low mix), but before it became operational the USAF changed the requirement somewhat wanting it to have a secondary A/G capability(sort of like with the MiG-29). This capability only evolved slowly - first with the airframe modifications introduced with the Block 15 and then further with the F-16C(from Block 25). But I guess they could have changed the designation to F/A-16 at some point along the way to denote the changing role.

 

Edit: sniped by Revelation.

[mvsgas]

As I posted before

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3690338&postcount=13

It is completely arbitrary. It has nothing to do with the aircraft design (meaning what engineers work on in a aircraft company) But what service leadership wanted the aircraft to do.

 

So, some Admiral in the Navy decided the F/A-18 was going to be used as a Attack and Fighter Aircraft, submitted the paperwork, it was approved and it was designated F/A-18.

 

Same goes to all other designations, hence we have:OA-10, FB-111, etc.

[BuzzU]

Thanks, guys. I guess my memory failed me again. I thought when the two planes competed against each other it was for a dual role plane. My bad.

[Los]

There's also the stock answer that the Navy and the Air force do things differently, they might as well be from two separate countries. ...that should suffice.

[BuzzU]

That's what I said in post#2. I guess I should have stayed with that idea.

[Kev2go]

Man this is still going around in circles and with the stories somewhat changing with each telling from some of the same ppl

[BuzzU]

We drew you back. :)

[Kev2go]

They never needed to rebrand in order to market the airplane. Just like they never needed to call the F-4 Phantom the F/A-4 Phantom (which had already gone through a name change after they revamped the entire type/model/series nomenclature scheme in the 60's.

 

The F/A thing came about when the Hornet was redesigned from the YF-17 to be a multirole fighter, at the same time business development and marketing and the DoD (the famous military industrial complex) ginned up the catch-phrase "multi-role fighter", which was basically right after the F-16 won and they had to figure out how to make something out of the capital investment McDonnell-Douglas made.

 

 

So, hopefully you can see how all of this is just so much B.S. to get congress-critters to sign off on appropriations so long as enough parts are made in their district.

 

It's as much about jobs and votes as it is actually winning wars, kids. None of this is about building the best jet in a time (Cold War) when everyone was pretty sure the world was gonna end in a bright flash (still might). It's about feeding the economic machine and a chicken in every pot.

 

 

 

 

 

I thought bananimal already gave you a lesson on speculation in another thread . :music_whistling:

 

Teasing aside I would also note that in this specifc case you are looking with the benefit of hindsight goggles.

 

 

 

Sure... all of these products of the defense industry were unnecessary. Except for the part when they were actually needed :megalol:

 

All the conventional weapons have come in handy in the conflicts fought during cold war and post cold war period which did not involve retaliating with the push of a button.

 

 

McDonal douglas was going to have thier plane get sold irregardless Of the fact that usaf chose the yf16, because the navy sure as hell didnt choose it.

 

 

There was quite a good reason for the yf17 over f16. It was more suitable to develop as a carrier based fighter, and it had 2 engines which was a requirement. Its not that MCdogulas had to market it as UNique in being "multirole" vs Viper in order to sell the navy. That was jsut a cherry on top.

 

 

\DOnt know about you but compared to last generation It was quite a sensible move to go from LArge and expensive, to Building smaller More cost effective aircraft, that are easier to maintain, and are able to generate higher mission sorties, that didnt compromise too much on the technological aspect of things where it would just make the aircraft Irrelevant on the battlefield due to simplistic avionics ( What would have happened if the FM had gotten thier way)

Edited November 21, 2018 by Kev2go