Jump to content

F or F/A?


Assamita

Recommended Posts

Hi. Not sure if this has been discussed before, and if so, then sorry. 

The thing is that I recently learned the the F in models such the F-16 stands for fighter, which is an aircraft specialised in air to air combat, and the A, such in the A-4 or A-10, is for attack aircraft which is specialised in ground attacks. Hence the F/A-18, since it's a multi-purpose combat aircraft. 

If that's so, why aren't planes like the F-15 or F-35, which I believe are also multi-role aircrafts (correct me if I'm wrong), F/A-15 and F/A-35 respectively? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the Hornet in principle was supposed to come in two variants - the F-18 fighter and the A-18 attacker. By the early 80s however computers were advanced enough that the avionics needed for both missions could be merged into just one airframe, hence F/A-18. The other teen series aircraft (and the 5th gens) started out as "fighters", so they only got the F designation (even though, with the exception of the F-15A/B/C/D, they all fly multirole missions anyway). 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TLTeo said:

Because the Hornet in principle was supposed to come in two variants - the F-18 fighter and the A-18 attacker. By the early 80s however computers were advanced enough that the avionics needed for both missions could be merged into just one airframe, hence F/A-18.

Yes but IIRC it was actually a little the other way around - namely that there was a requirement that the separate fighter and attack variants should be using a common airframe, which in turn meant having to make compromises and thus loosing the advantage of having two separate versions. So it was decided to merge them into a single type for both mission types, which as you said, had become possible with the advances in electronics.

2 hours ago, TLTeo said:

The other teen series aircraft (and the 5th gens) started out as "fighters", so they only got the F designation (even though, with the exception of the F-15A/B/C/D, they all fly multirole missions anyway). 

Yes especially the F-15(and F-14), but to a little lesser extend the F-16, which from the start had some secondary A/G capability. But anyway, Assimata's confusion is quite understandable, since the application of the "F" vs. "F/A" designations is not always logical - e.g. "F-117"(a dedicated attack aircraft) and what about the F-35 and F/A-22 :).....the former was concieved as a multirole aircraft with an emphasis on attack, while the latter was designed as a direct replacement for the F-15 with the same "not a pound for air-to-ground" philosophy(i.e. pure air domminance platform) and apparently only got limited A/G capability and the "F/A" designation due to political critisim of excessive cost for a single role fighter. The F-16 didn't altough these days its used(in US service at least) primarily as a strike asset.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately, those designations don't mean anything and are subject to vagaries of politics and ''image'' as well as bizarre organisational doctrines. For example up into the sixties, the same plane was apt to have different designations altogether depending on if it was being used by the Air Force or Navy. Then there was the ''unification'' drive supposed to make everything less complicated and the numbering system started over. There's gaps inexplicably, sometimes due to prototypes (ie the YF-17 became the F-18, and the F-20 was stillborn, but 19 was skipped altogether). In the case of the F-35, Lockheed itself supposedly expected it to be the F-24 (and purportedly refers to it as such internally), but the guv decided to go with F-35 so it sounded more *waves hands* FUTURISTIC *end waving of hands*

  • Like 3

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a requirement for capabilities for attack and fighter jobs and it was expected that they would be satisfied by four separate airframes, i.e. A-16, F-16, A-18, and F-18. Three times an A-16 or F/A-16 was attempted. The first were a couple block 15s modified as prototype which would have been block 60 in production. It would have a 30mm external gun pod with a GAU-31 in it. Later there was another attempt to make a genuine block 30-based F/A-16 but they went with Block 40s instead. Lastly there we 24 genuine F/A-16A/B and a further 7 more F-16C and a B given equipment to make modernized versions but they never got the official designation.

The F-16 did most of the "A job" requirements but not all of them. I think the "A job" had to have a gun like the A-10 had because all the attempts had a 30mm weapon. The airplane which trialed the "A job" and "F job" for the Navy actually satisfied both requirements with the same airplane and was both the F-18 and the A-18, thus F/A-18.

The A-16 or F/A-16 or similar had all sorts of interesting features: cockpit armor a la A-10, Falcon Eye optical sensor on the nose similar to the MiG-29 IRST, Pave Claw 30mm center gun pod, Pave Penny, 7.62mm under wing gun pods, and related modifications.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My impression at the time was that the use of "F/A" was more of a marketing gimmick than anything else, considering how many previous aircraft were also "multirole" in practice.

That was just my opinion though


Edited by Cab
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USN Aviation aircraft designations have always been geared to the planes function within the airwing. VA, VF, VT..... The A-1, A-4, A-7 were all labeled "Light Attack" aircraft. The A-3, A-6 were "Medium Attack", none of them performed Fighter type duties, the A-7 did carry cheek mounted Sidewinders for self protection. Everything changed when the Hornet arrived, VA "Attack" became VFA "Strike Fighter". As military designations/nomenclature gets changed for no good reason (khaki's) the Lightning II which can carry ordnance is not called the F/A-35, but the F-35. The Navy in its infinite wisdom, has decided for the next decade or so Carrier Air Groups will consist of two Hornet squadrons, and two Lightning II squadrons. Their rolls will switch depending on the mission type. On the taxi overpass at NAS Lemoore when you go under the bridge the big sign says "welcome to Strike Fighter Country.

Hoss

  • Like 1

Sempre Fortis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2022 at 8:12 PM, Assamita said:

Hi. Not sure if this has been discussed before, and if so, then sorry. 

The thing is that I recently learned the the F in models such the F-16 stands for fighter, which is an aircraft specialised in air to air combat, and the A, such in the A-4 or A-10, is for attack aircraft which is specialised in ground attacks. Hence the F/A-18, since it's a multi-purpose combat aircraft. 

If that's so, why aren't planes like the F-15 or F-35, which I believe are also multi-role aircrafts (correct me if I'm wrong), F/A-15 and F/A-35 respectively? 

The USAF don't necessarily uses NAVY designation system, and remember that the F-15 was first and foremost a "not a pound for air to ground" air superiority fighter, the F-15 E is capable of air combat, true but you wouldn't take it into a dogfight vs a A or a C and expect to win at equal pilot skills.

Also, traditionaly, before the A-10 the USAF wasn't too hot on Close Air Support since the end of WWII and the P-47 Thunderbolt, question of culture, they left the role to the USM and USN, but retained their fleets of strategic bombers with a tactical bombing role on top.

I feel like I need to correct a little innacuracy, I forgot the USAF A1 Skyraider used in SANDY Rescue missions in Vietnam...

ac-ad1-f.jpg

Determination of a Sandy By John T. Correll March 1, 2006


Edited by Thinder

Win 11Pro. Corsair RM1000X PSU. ASUS TUF Gaming X570-PLUS [WI-FI], AMD Ryzen 7 5800X 3D, Sapphire Radeon RX 7900 XTX Nitro+ Vapor-X 24GB GDDR6. 32 GB G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series (4 x 8GB) RAM Cl14 DDR4 3600. Thrustmaster HOTAS WARTHOG Thrustmaster. TWCS Throttle. PICO 4 256GB.

WARNING: Message from AMD: Windows Automatic Update may have replaced their driver by one of their own. Check your drivers.

M-2000C. Mirage F1. F/A-18C Hornet. F-15C. F-5E Tiger II. MiG-29 "Fulcrum".  Avatar: Escadron de Chasse 3/3 Ardennes. Fly like a Maineyak.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2022 at 8:28 PM, Thinder said:

The USAF don't necessarily uses NAVY designation system, and remember that the F-15 was first and foremost a "not a pound for air to ground" air superiority fighter, the F-15 E is capable of air combat, true but you wouldn't take it into a dogfight vs a A or a C and expect to win at equal pilot skills.

Also, traditionaly, before the A-10 the USAF wasn't too hot on Close Air Support since the end of WWII and the P-47 Thunderbolt, question of culture, they left the role to the USM and USN, but retained their fleets of strategic bombers with a tactical bombing role on top.

I feel like I need to correct a little innacuracy, I forgot the USAF A1 Skyraider used in SANDY Rescue missions in Vietnam...

U.S. Navy and Air Force have been using a common designation system since the early 60's. Prior to that what we now know as the F-4 Phantom II was called the F4H by the Navy and the F-110 by the Air Force. Here is an Air Force Magazine article from 1962: F-110: USAF's New Tactical Fighter - Air Force Magazine

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And sometimes designations are pronounced or announced wrong by politicians, which then stick:
- The SR-71 was actually supposed to be the RS-71;

- The F-35 was actually supposed to be F-24 but was confused with its technology demonstrator (the X-35), so "F-35" was born.

- There are probably other examples...

Spoiler

Ryzen 9 5900X | 64GB G.Skill TridentZ 3600 | Gigabyte RX6900XT | ASUS ROG Strix X570-E GAMING | Samsung 990Pro 2TB + 960Pro 1TB NMVe | HP Reverb G2
Pro Flight Trainer Puma | VIRPIL MT-50CM2+3 base / CM2 x2 grip with 200 mm S-curve extension + CM3 throttle + CP2/3 + FSSB R3L + VPC Rotor TCS Plus base with SharKa-50 grip mounted on Monstertech MFC-1 | TPR rudder pedals

OpenXR | PD 1.0 | 100% render resolution | DCS "HIGH" preset

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Cab said:

U.S. Navy and Air Force have been using a common designation system since the early 60's. Prior to that what we now know as the F-4 Phantom II was called the F4H by the Navy and the F-110 by the Air Force. Here is an Air Force Magazine article from 1962: F-110: USAF's New Tactical Fighter - Air Force Magazine

 

According to the USAF Fact-Sheets, the F-15E Strike Eagle is a dual-role fighter designed to perform air-to-air and air-to-ground missions.

F-15E Strike Eagle

If what you say was a rule, it would be designated F/A since it is clearly designed for air-to-air and air-to-ground like the Super Hornet, and by memory 75% of its airframe was redesigned for the purpose while the F-18C, F/A-18 which demonstrator YF-17 was conceived as an Air Superiority fighter coming straight from the LWF program, saw the same process of redesign, extended role and redesignation.

So clearly, there is no strict rule here, as I said, the USAF don't necessarily uses NAVY designation system, and it is  not the case for the Strike Eagle.

Win 11Pro. Corsair RM1000X PSU. ASUS TUF Gaming X570-PLUS [WI-FI], AMD Ryzen 7 5800X 3D, Sapphire Radeon RX 7900 XTX Nitro+ Vapor-X 24GB GDDR6. 32 GB G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series (4 x 8GB) RAM Cl14 DDR4 3600. Thrustmaster HOTAS WARTHOG Thrustmaster. TWCS Throttle. PICO 4 256GB.

WARNING: Message from AMD: Windows Automatic Update may have replaced their driver by one of their own. Check your drivers.

M-2000C. Mirage F1. F/A-18C Hornet. F-15C. F-5E Tiger II. MiG-29 "Fulcrum".  Avatar: Escadron de Chasse 3/3 Ardennes. Fly like a Maineyak.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Thinder said:

According to the USAF Fact-Sheets, the F-15E Strike Eagle is a dual-role fighter designed to perform air-to-air and air-to-ground missions.

F-15E Strike Eagle

If what you say was a rule, it would be designated F/A since it is clearly designed for air-to-air and air-to-ground like the Super Hornet, and by memory 75% of its airframe was redesigned for the purpose while the F-18C, F/A-18 which demonstrator YF-17 was conceived as an Air Superiority fighter coming straight from the LWF program, saw the same process of redesign, extended role and redesignation.

So clearly, there is no strict rule here, as I said, the USAF don't necessarily uses NAVY designation system, and it is  not the case for the Strike Eagle.

I don’t know what to tell you. There is one designation system for US combat aircraft called the Tri-Service Aircraft Designation System. There might be differences in policy how they apply it, but the the format is the same and there will be no overlap of designation between the Services.

An interesting fact I remember is in the early to middle 90’s there was movement to remove the “/“ and change the designation to FA-18 in order to be standardized. I don’t know why it was never implemented.

Question: Do you know how the previous Navy designation worked? What the numbers and letters meant?


Edited by Cab
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cab said:

Question: Do you know how the previous Navy designation worked? What the numbers and letters meant?

 

No I have no idea, I only can base my observations on what the USAF and Navy are giving us as sources, reason for my comments, it looks to me that it changes with the change of personal in charge of their policies, and both USAF, USN and USM have seen a few since WWII.

If I remember well, at some point the USAF didn't even want to bother with close air support and yet, they used both F-100 and T-37 for the role, if anything this is a bit confusing...

Win 11Pro. Corsair RM1000X PSU. ASUS TUF Gaming X570-PLUS [WI-FI], AMD Ryzen 7 5800X 3D, Sapphire Radeon RX 7900 XTX Nitro+ Vapor-X 24GB GDDR6. 32 GB G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series (4 x 8GB) RAM Cl14 DDR4 3600. Thrustmaster HOTAS WARTHOG Thrustmaster. TWCS Throttle. PICO 4 256GB.

WARNING: Message from AMD: Windows Automatic Update may have replaced their driver by one of their own. Check your drivers.

M-2000C. Mirage F1. F/A-18C Hornet. F-15C. F-5E Tiger II. MiG-29 "Fulcrum".  Avatar: Escadron de Chasse 3/3 Ardennes. Fly like a Maineyak.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 1/29/2022 at 8:02 AM, Cab said:

Yes, no doubt personalities can make a difference.

Food for thought, here are two articles in Air Force Magazine from 2003 and 2005 referring to the Raptor as the "F/A-22":

The F/A-22 Gets Back on Track - Air Force Magazine

The F/A-22, in Fire and Flak - Air Force Magazine

 

 

There are effectively two creatures that were referred to as the F/A-22. One, was the Raptor we know and love, the F-22. But fearing Congress might defund or mess with purchasing, they wanted to "add capability" to justify it's purchase, so they claimed by carrying two JDAM's it was now an attack aircraft. Not a lie, not really truly truthful since they knew it's true role. But to protect it from it's deadliest enemy: a politician looking to save tax dollars. 

But then there was the OTHER  F/A-22 : a follow-on program for a dedicated strike variant, a little like the Mudhen. It never actually existed beyond talk and maybe a couple paintings or renderings. It was an idea, a proposal for a new program. There was talk of it maybe having a larger airframe, like a stretch for more fuel and larger internal bay, and might need a different wing configuration. But financial realities shot down that idea.

 

The predecessor to the Hornet was in many ways the Northrop F-5, and in those days they tried to make it as multi-role as possible, but they were very much limited by the very basic computers available. When the Hornet was under development, they originally envisioned one airframe for two different variants, a fighter and a separate variant Attack version. But as development got going, and the US Navy's pressure to get as much functionality for each airframe on a carrier... they got to the point where they could put both AA and AG computers onboard. And once that happened, the Navy and  McDonald Douglas REALLY wanted to make sure Congress and Pentagon leaders understood 100% that for the very first time, a Navy jet could do both roles equally well,  ensuring it's approval and purchase.

Since then... well the Mudhen, that was kinda the first to really ruin the designation, along with the F-117 Nighthawk, which was strictly an attack plane with ZERO "Fighter" in it. 

The F-15 A and C were not bought to be multi-role, that was just what the company wanted to develop to help  sales, and could easily incorporate. Sure, they did drop a few bombs at the range in the 1980s' but that was very few. The F-16 went from a light fighter, to a multi-role, to the backbone of USAF bombing, yet no one would say it's not a fighter, because it can still do that very well before or after it removes the bombs. But no F/A-15's or F/A-16's. Maybe it doesn't roll off the tongue. Maybe they didn't want to add any confusion. Maybe they wanted to train people to be fighter pilots, not attack pilots, and to assign them fighters not attack planes... regardless of what their squadron taskings were!

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the "F/A" designation was essentially a marketing gimmick that didn't follow the Tri-Service Aircraft Designation System but stuck anyway. The reality is fighters dropping bombs wasn't a new thing. The F-4, F-8, F-105, F-100, are just a few examples. Even the mighty F-14 Tomcat came from the assembly line ready to go. The U.S. Navy just chose not to use the capability.

But maybe the distinction with the Hornet was important at the time because the Navy was buying the jet to replace the A-7, which was a pure attack aircraft. Buying fighters that could drop bombs wasn't unique. But there would likely be skepticism that an attack aircraft could be an effective fighter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rick50 said:

Since then... well the Mudhen, that was kinda the first to really ruin the designation, along with the F-117 Nighthawk, which was strictly an attack plane with ZERO "Fighter" in it. 

As I understand it, the "F" in "F-117" was a feint to throw off the Soviets in this super secret program.

However, if I remember correctly what was said on the Fighter Pilot Podcast about the F-117, there was some serious thought given to the idea of arming F-117s with Sidewinders and blasting Soviet AWACS out of the sky, which is why the "F"-designation is not as ridiculous as it sounds when looking at the aircraft's operational history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cab said:

Yes, the "F/A" designation was essentially a marketing gimmick that didn't follow the Tri-Service Aircraft Designation System but stuck anyway. The reality is fighters dropping bombs wasn't a new thing. The F-4, F-8, F-105, F-100, are just a few examples. Even the mighty F-14 Tomcat came from the assembly line ready to go. The U.S. Navy just chose not to use the capability.

But maybe the distinction with the Hornet was important at the time because the Navy was buying the jet to replace the A-7, which was a pure attack aircraft. Buying fighters that could drop bombs wasn't unique. But there would likely be skepticism that an attack aircraft could be an effective fighter.

 

 

Yes, the Hornet was replacing Attack aircraft, and some Fighters too, and doing so in a multirole. 

Ok, but let's consider that simply carrying bombs does not make an attack plane. Purpose and cockpit layout play a factor, things like a gunsight angle adjustment,  a prominent clock for coordinated timing, prominent navigation,  maybe even a Time On Target device like  the Tornado IDS and Viggen.   So while some of your examples could carry bombs,  calling them "Attack" is probably a stretch for a couple of them.  By contrast the Hornet was the most advanced Attack jjet of that day, at entering service,  largely on the strength of computer displays that can provide for that mission.  Before it was the Hornet, it was actually two aircraft, the YF-17 and I think talk of an (A-18 ??), the landbased version made by Northrop, the carrier version by McDonald Douglas... but customers wanted carrier multirole, MD won and North lost. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry that post above was supposed to have a lot of text that got wiped out...

 

Basically the Nighthawk is not a fighter, it can't do BFM, has no burners or enough speed to be  good at intercepting an AWACS, it would need a LOT of luck  and probably some help to do that. I doubt the Soviets would have cared about what it was  named, they'd assume if it were stealth that it could sneak between SAM systems to do strikes. 

I think they named it a fighter more for the public, as "stealth attack jet"  is not as nice as "stealth Fighter", which the public knew of the concept from Revell and Monogram fictional designs sharing the "F-19" designation (assumed to be after the F/A-18). The Monogram model certainly came from the painting featured in the add above from Loral, which appeared for years in aerospace publications, and another one from Northrop Loral 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2022 at 2:12 PM, Assamita said:

Hi. Not sure if this has been discussed before, and if so, then sorry. 

The thing is that I recently learned the the F in models such the F-16 stands for fighter, which is an aircraft specialised in air to air combat, and the A, such in the A-4 or A-10, is for attack aircraft which is specialised in ground attacks. Hence the F/A-18, since it's a multi-purpose combat aircraft. 

If that's so, why aren't planes like the F-15 or F-35, which I believe are also multi-role aircrafts (correct me if I'm wrong), F/A-15 and F/A-35 respectively? 

The F/a designation was a weird anomaly of the Hornet. Originally they were going to have two planes an A-18 and an F-18. They realized they could be combined into one but kept the f/a-18 designation. The usaf. The usaf has never had a big distinction between attack and fighter planes and will look for an excuse not to use the a designation. In fact between 1947 and 1963 they didn't even have a for attack.

On 4/4/2022 at 9:06 AM, Yurgon said:

As I understand it, the "F" in "F-117" was a feint to throw off the Soviets in this super secret program.

However, if I remember correctly what was said on the Fighter Pilot Podcast about the F-117, there was some serious thought given to the idea of arming F-117s with Sidewinders and blasting Soviet AWACS out of the sky, which is why the "F"-designation is not as ridiculous as it sounds when looking at the aircraft's operational history.

My understanding it had to do with the usaf culture. The A-10 is operating by fighter squadrons for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2022 at 4:05 AM, Thinder said:

 

No I have no idea, I only can base my observations on what the USAF and Navy are giving us as sources, reason for my comments, it looks to me that it changes with the change of personal in charge of their policies, and both USAF, USN and USM have seen a few since WWII.

If I remember well, at some point the USAF didn't even want to bother with close air support and yet, they used both F-100 and T-37 for the role, if anything this is a bit confusing...

The t-37 attack planes got the designation A-37. The usaf and navy departments see things differently. The navy tends to view attack planes and fighters as different things. While the usaf lumps them together. So back in the 1970s a navy squadron operating the A-7 was an attack squadron while a usaf squadron was a fighter squadron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, upyr1 said:

The F/a designation was a weird anomaly of the Hornet. Originally they were going to have two planes an A-18 and an F-18. They realized they could be combined into one but kept the f/a-18 designation.

Designations for multipurpose airplanes is not unique. There have been TF, EA, and FB, just to name a few. The anomaly with the Hornet is why the inclusion of the "/" between the F and the A. There was an effort during the first half of the nineties to take out the "/" and make it FA-18, but that was obviously not successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...