6th Generation Fighters Projects

[swerve]

Astonishing.

The French seem to use the same name for their current 155mm gun whatever vehicle it's mounted on, which is a bit confusing the other way.

All the modernized F15, F16 and F/A18 should also be getting E prefixes because their new AESA Radars and Electric warfare self defense systems are already far more sophisticated than what was found on previous generations of E/A6 or EF111. As well as R due to the SAR modes.

The E for F-15, F-16 & F-18 (& now for JAS39) is weird. It started with the F-15E, & IIRC just happened to be the next spare letter for a new mark - & then got used to indicate a major redesign. It's not part of the official designation system.

Buddy tankers have been around a long time. They're not full-time tankers. New fighters having radars & EW systems which outclass old types with an E prefix isn't new, either. We can't load every type up with everything it can or might be able to do.

 

[Terran]

The E for F-15, F-16 & F-18 (& now for JAS39) is weird. It started with the F-15E, & IIRC just happened to be the next spare letter for a new mark - & then got used to indicate a major redesign. It's not part of the official designation system.

The F15E actually is out of sequence because it’s usually A C and E for single seat well B D and F are tandem seats. But the E model ended up not having a single seat version because it was deemed better for the back seat WSO.
F16 E and F models are the export block 60 models. Not an official designation for the USAF.
The F16V is used to designate new built block 70 F16 and retrofitted older ones sometimes.

The F/A18 E and F are really a completely new design vs the F18 A,B,C, and D so much so it should have been an F19 or F20. But both the USMC/USN And the British navy did this before with the Harrier and Harrier II. Where they designed such a substantial improvement that it really was a completely different aircraft from its namesakes. (Same for the Cobra and Huey series where we have 3 different aircraft that superficially resemble each other but if you get into the details are dramatically different and the USMC is doing it again with the CH53K.)
———————

Really my point is that Well the F/A may seem a gimmick (for the USAF it would have been) but for the navy it was part of a major shakeup. Squadrons in the USN shifted from VF fighters like the F14 or VA attackers like the A6 now became multi role capable with VFA and F/A18. They changed training and doctrine. Where F14 might have been able to drop a bomb it wasn’t intended to. F14 was an Interceptor. F4 might have been more flexible but end of the day a Phantom II’s main goal was to be an interceptor.
Well A6 might have been able to launch an air to air missile, it’s Forte was to drop bombs. When they got the Hornet and Super Hornet they changed training and doctrine. Because they now had a fighter that was more flexibly able to do both.
Many times people will say “Jack of all trades master of none…” they forget “Oftentimes better than a master of one.”
For the Navy that F/A and VFA was important because its squadrons were better able to do whatever needed doing off the deck of a carrier within the restrictions of the carrier’s stores and logistics. Though F35C doesn’t carry the A on it’s designation it carries it in spirit as again it’s able to flex across the board of potential mission needs.

By contrast the USAF when they put a pilot in an A10 or an F117 it’s a fighter squadron. The F15E may be an attacker but they are in a fighter squadron.
Well not advocating for adding a bunch of letters to the designations of American fighters I am trying to point out that for the Navy there was a rhyme and reason for the F/A-18 designation. The NAVY’s NGAD also has the reason with the F/A-XX moniker. As they are looking more multi role vs what would be the F-XX of the USAF.
Well perhaps the F35 should have been an F24 really the F35 is such a substantial jump in capabilities it is a genuine question if it really isn’t a generation beyond F22. With the new generation of doctrine and technological innovations that are rolling it wouldn’t surprise me if the NGADs end up being F40 and F/A 42.

 

[Masquerader]

The F15E actually is out of sequence because it’s usually A C and E for single seat well B D and F are tandem seats. But the E model ended up not having a single seat version because it was deemed better for the back seat WSO.
F16 E and F models are the export block 60 models. Not an official designation for the USAF.
The F16V is used to designate new built block 70 F16 and retrofitted older ones sometimes.

The F/A18 E and F are really a completely new design vs the F18 A,B,C, and D so much so it should have been an F19 or F20. But both the USMC/USN And the British navy did this before with the Harrier and Harrier II. Where they designed such a substantial improvement that it really was a completely different aircraft from its namesakes. (Same for the Cobra and Huey series where we have 3 different aircraft that superficially resemble each other but if you get into the details are dramatically different and the USMC is doing it again with the CH53K.)
———————

Really my point is that Well the F/A may seem a gimmick (for the USAF it would have been) but for the navy it was part of a major shakeup. Squadrons in the USN shifted from VF fighters like the F14 or VA attackers like the A6 now became multi role capable with VFA and F/A18. They changed training and doctrine. Where F14 might have been able to drop a bomb it wasn’t intended to. F14 was an Interceptor. F4 might have been more flexible but end of the day a Phantom II’s main goal was to be an interceptor.
Well A6 might have been able to launch an air to air missile, it’s Forte was to drop bombs. When they got the Hornet and Super Hornet they changed training and doctrine. Because they now had a fighter that was more flexibly able to do both.
Many times people will say “Jack of all trades master of none…” they forget “Oftentimes better than a master of one.”
For the Navy that F/A and VFA was important because its squadrons were better able to do whatever needed doing off the deck of a carrier within the restrictions of the carrier’s stores and logistics. Though F35C doesn’t carry the A on it’s designation it carries it in spirit as again it’s able to flex across the board of potential mission needs.

By contrast the USAF when they put a pilot in an A10 or an F117 it’s a fighter squadron. The F15E may be an attacker but they are in a fighter squadron.
Well not advocating for adding a bunch of letters to the designations of American fighters I am trying to point out that for the Navy there was a rhyme and reason for the F/A-18 designation. The NAVY’s NGAD also has the reason with the F/A-XX moniker. As they are looking more multi role vs what would be the F-XX of the USAF.
Well perhaps the F35 should have been an F24 really the F35 is such a substantial jump in capabilities it is a genuine question if it really isn’t a generation beyond F22. With the new generation of doctrine and technological innovations that are rolling it wouldn’t surprise me if the NGADs end up being F40 and F/A 42.

The YF-24 designation was allocated to a so-called "classified prototype" (probably a captured or defected MiG) flown by Joseph Lanni in Nevada in the late 1990s. It's unclear if the people at the HQ USAF/XPPE knew of the YF-24 cover designation when they formally assigned F-35 to the winning Lockheed Martin JSF aircraft.

It's hard to say for sure what designation will be assigned to a winning F/A-XX design, but since YF-45D was given to a classified aircraft flown by US Navy pilot Raymond Marshall in the 2018/2021 timeframe, any winning NGAD design for the USAF may end being designated F-25 whereas the F/A-XX could be designated F-30 to denote its planned deployment in the 2030s decade.

 

[swerve]

I.e. ignoring the system.

A-, B-, C-, E-, F-, X- etc. were specified as separate sequences. Numbers were supposed to be assigned in order within each set, not carried over from one to another (e.g. X-35 to F-35), assigned to mark a year, or jumped up a few to mark something very novel. The rules had been followed in general, though the F-18E was so much a new aircraft that it should have had a new number. YF-22 & YF-23 followed the rules.

The F-35 designation is nonsensical.

BTW, F-4 did everything, more or less. The number was a hangover from the old USN system, shoe-horned into the new united USN/USAF joint system, but nobody considered calling in an F/A- anything.

 

[Feanor]

Really my point is that Well the F/A may seem a gimmick (for the USAF it would have been) but for the navy it was part of a major shakeup. Squadrons in the USN shifted from VF fighters like the F14 or VA attackers like the A6 now became multi role capable with VFA and F/A18. They changed training and doctrine. Where F14 might have been able to drop a bomb it wasn’t intended to. F14 was an Interceptor. F4 might have been more flexible but end of the day a Phantom II’s main goal was to be an interceptor.
Well A6 might have been able to launch an air to air missile, it’s Forte was to drop bombs. When they got the Hornet and Super Hornet they changed training and doctrine. Because they now had a fighter that was more flexibly able to do both.
Many times people will say “Jack of all trades master of none…” they forget “Oftentimes better than a master of one.”

Minor side note, the capability growth between generations is such that a 4th gen multirole is a "master of all trades" in comparison to something like an F-4 or A6.