Talk:1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met This article has been marked as needing immediate attention! Aircraft WikiProject

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

[edit] KC-767

The article includes the KC-767 as an example of "Non-systematic or Aberrant designations", but the 767 tanker isn't a US military aircraft yet. "KC-767" is just a marketing name within Boeing, although the Japanese and Italian may call their version of the 767 tank by that name. If the Boeing proposal wins the KC-X program, I would think it would be assigned a normal 2 digit number. Interestingly enough, if the EADS/Airbus and Northrop Grumman proposal is accepted, its marketing name, KC-30, would be a "normal" number as the C-30 designation is not assigned, but a higher number C-32, has already been assigned. --rogerd 22:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The designation KC-767A was officially assigned by the U.S. DOD in 2002, when the now defunct leasing plan for Boeing 767 tankers was still in effect. "KC-767A" is listed in the DOD's official publication of approved aerospace vehicle designations, see http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/412015l_0504/p412015l.pdf . For a bit of background information on this allocation, see http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/nonstandard-mds.html#_MDS_KC767 . If the 767 wins the current competition, the USAF may or may not keep the KC-767A designator. If a new number is assigned, it's anyone's guess which one it will be, because C-series assignments have been a bit erratic lately (2-digit numbers up to C-41, then continued with C-143 and -144).Andreas Parsch 12:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for setting me straight. Based on this, it appears that the KC-767 name may indeed be what is used of Boeing wins the competition. I hope that Boeing wins, but it will be sad if the marketing people win out and that aberrant name is used. --rogerd 13:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The USAF has officially reserved the designation KC-45A for the winner of the KC-X competition, so things like KC-767A and KC-30A are effectively dead. Andreas Parsch 19:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you referencing Military Aviation Designations yahoo group where they refer to a USAF PowerPoint presentation? I think we should wait until something more substantial is published. I hope you are correct. This is interesting because C-45 was the designation for the military version of the WW2-era Beechcraft Model 18. --rogerd 20:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I received official confirmation of the KC-45A designation from DOD (as part of the reply to a FOIA request). I publish all my data on my website (http://www.designation-systems.net/), which seems to be accepted on Wikipedia as a reliable reference source regarding designations ;-).Andreas Parsch 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One year later

Bill CJ this isn't the designation of an actual aircraft, as discussed above had the KC-767 been adopted it'd of been called the KC-45. Anynobody 02:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read it again, carefully. Especially the first lines in Andreas Parsch's first response. - BillCJ (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Only in the recent KC-X competition. The KC-767 designation was adopted as part of the 2002-03 lease/buy deal that was later canceled. See the current DoD designation document.[1] -Fnlayson (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] B-Class

Please add a picture so this article can be B-Class Flubeca 18:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What picture would be appropriate? I don't think there really is one, unless you want one of the document or some diagram. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, what about a pic of the aircraft that illustrates the designation changes? "The F4H whas reddesignated F-4" or sometning, maybe a designation painted on an aircraft. I remeber an old pic of the USAF's first F4H trials aircrat borrowed from the Navy, with F-110 on the nose. I don't know if there's anything else out there like that, but we might find something. - BillCJ (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• I was just thinking if one aircraft image gets added, folks will try to add one for most every aircraft. But your suggestion is distinct. Mention the old designations in the caption too. Good idea Bill. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)