OT: F/A-22 renamed F-22A Raptor

[BladeLWS]

Looks like the Air Force wanted to change the designator on the Raptor yet again. The "A" for the variant of the aircraft.

 

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123013520

[britgliderpilot]

Looks like the Air Force wanted to change the designator on the Raptor yet again. The "A" for the variant of the aircraft.

 

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123013520

 

 

USAF thought process:

 

Gee - we're bored.

 

We seem to be underspending, need massive quantities of needless paperwork to build it back up again.

 

Hmmn - haven't had much media interest in the Raptor recently.

 

Hey - our Raptor funding may be in danger!

 

Let's rename the Raptor! Again!

[Maverick-90]

has it been renamed multiple times?

[BladeLWS]

Yea, first it was the F-22, then the F/A-22, now the F-22A

[Caretaker]

It had been renamed from "F-22" to "F/A-22" already to underline its "multirole" capabilities ;)

 

Now I don't doubt that it may be a more capable bomber than the F-117 (in fact if it's as stealthy than there's no doubt it's the better choice to drop JDAMs with), but nevertheless this was more of a marketing move towards the congress people who sit on the budgets...

 

The "A" suffix in turn should be pretty normal, standard for every first production version?

[D-Scythe]

It had been renamed from "F-22" to "F/A-22" already to underline its "multirole" capabilities ;)

 

Now I don't doubt that it may be a more capable bomber than the F-117 (in fact if it's as stealthy than there's no doubt it's the better choice to drop JDAMs with), but nevertheless this was more of a marketing move towards the congress people who sit on the budgets...

 

The "A" suffix in turn should be pretty normal, standard for every first production version?

 

It was renamed F/A-22 the first time to please congress, as many critics have complained that building a multi-billion dollar fighter for the sole purpose of achieving air supremacy against a non-existent threat was much too expensive. Thus, the "A" was for attack, emphasizing that the Raptor can be used as an attack jet.

 

I'm glad that it was changed back to F-22A. Not that it matters - the F-15E, arguably the most lethal strike jet in the world has no "A" in its name.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Yeah, those designations are pretty funny. An example is the F-117, which has never been used in the fighter role. Oh well...congress...the opposite of progress...what are ya gonna do? *shrugs* :D

[Cobra360]

Would it be the F/A-22A not F-22A, and to add to the point the F-111 hardly a fighter but still the ''F'' designation

[504 Wolverine]

Would it be the F/A-22A not F-22A, and to add to the point the F-111 hardly a fighter but still the ''F'' designation

 

The proposed naval variant of the F-111 (F-111B) was to be armed with the AIM-54 and fulfill the role of fleet defender.

[Cobra360]

The proposed naval variant of the F-111 was to be armed with the AIM-54 and fulfill the role of fleet defender.

 

Yes, true and there was the FB-111, slightly longer range with a dedicated nuclear bomber role. There may well be a FB-22 at some stage aswell.

[SUBS17]

But they discovered it was too heavy when it first landed on a Carrier thats why they selected the F14.

[Cobra360]

That and the visibility over the nose was very limited for the pilot to the point where it is out of sight for most of the landing, not good when you have to match up the pitch and roll of the ship so the main gear contacts the deck evenly.

[Stormin]

It always bothered me that it had the F/A designation. I doubt that it would be used in the attack role as long as there are F-16s and F-35s available.