Is it to confuse the enemy? Didn't they know better? Were they trying to be clever? These are some of the questions that followed the recent announcement that the Secretary of the Air Force has designated the Joint Strike Fighter the F-35. Some official documents also refer to the aircraft as the F/A-35. Both designations are incorrect according to official instructions.
According to the Department of Defense aircraft designation system, the next U.S. fighter should have been designated F-24. (The F-23 was the McDonnell Douglas competitive design to the Lockheed F-22 Raptor high-performance fighter.)
The DoD designation system has been in use since 1962, when it replaced separate Army, Air Force, and Navy-Marine Corps systems under which the same aircraft flown by two or more services would have different designations. For example, the McDonnell Phantom was the Navy's F4H and the Air Force's F-10. The Marines flew the HUS as the Seahorse; the Navy used the helicopter as the HSS-1 Seabat; and the Army called it the H-34 Choctaw. Under the 1962 system, those aircraft became the F-4 and H-34, respectively.
The F-35 designation for the Joint Strike Fighter has created a furor among aviation buffs, historians, and active-duty aviation personnel. Three variants of the aircraft are planned: the Air Force F-35A conventional takeoff/landing aircraft; the Marine Corps and Royal Navy F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing aircraft; and the Navy F-35C carrier-capable aircraft.
The issue is further muddied by references to the F/A-35, i.e., a combination fighter-attack aircraft. Ironically, the F/A designation is not official. In 1975—three years before the first flight of the Navy—Marine Corps F-18 Hornet-Vice Admiral William Houser, then the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Air), determined that the designation F-18 would be used for the fighter variant and A-18 for the attack variant. On 5 September 1978, however, Admiral Houser's successor, Vice Admiral Frederick Turner, wrote to the Commander, Naval Air Systems Command, stating his preference for the designation F/A-18:
My choice, F/A-18, would be based not so much on conformance with existing directives as with the necessity to designate this aircraft so that it truly reflects its multimission nature. ... I prefer to continue [with F/A-18] even though it may be one that receives its legitimacy through use rather than directive. DoD instructions do not provide for an F/A designation. Rather, aircraft given another primary mission were to have a prefix lettered added. Thus, the F-I (FJ) Fury aircraft assigned to the nuclear strike role was designated AF-1, and the F-4 (F4H) Phantom configured for photo reconnaissance became RF-4.
Nevertheless, several Air Force officials now are using F/A35, apparently in the hope that it, too, will "[receive] its legitimacy through use rather than directive."
In the same manner, the Air Force officially has redesignated the F-22 Raptor. Air Force Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper announced on 17 September that the F-22 is now the F/A-22. The new designation, the general told an audience at the Air Force Association's National Convention, more accurately describes the fighter. "Secretary Roche and I have decided to adopt the name F/A-22, using the A prefix to emphasize the multiple roles and many dimensions of the Raptor," he said.
Calling the F-22 an attack aircraft is ludicrous by any criterion. The aircraft is primarily a high-performance fighter, carrying air-to-air missiles and a 30-mm Gatling gun. Its "attack" capability will be two 1,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions. Rather, the F/A-22 designation is a ploy to garner congressional support for the troubled F-22. The Air Force announced on 7 November that the program has experienced a "potential cost overrun" of up to $690 million.
In another move, the Air Force has proposed an FB-22. This would be an enlarged aircraft, with some loss of stealth, and optimized for ground attack. By proposing a derivative, the Air Force hopes to gain more support for the F-22 program.
Political considerations increasingly are driving what the U.S. military services call their aircraft, with total lack of concern for reality—and instructions.