Military Power

October 1, 2007: The U.S. Air Force is getting its new F-22 stealth fighter ready for service in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though air force generals insist this is not likely to happen. Last month, an F-22 successfully dropped its first SDB (small diameter bomb). This is a completely new smart bomb design, weighing only 250 pound (PHOTO). This weapon has a shape that’s more like that of a missile than a bomb (70 inches long, 190 millimeters in diameter), with the guidance system built in.

The smaller blast from the SDB is still pretty substantial (51 pounds of explosives). A new SDB design has a Focused Lethality Munition (FLM) warhead, which reduces the number of metal fragments created when the bomb explodes, and increases the blast effect. This is meant to reduce casualties to nearby civilians.

An F-22 can carry eight SDBs in its internal bomb bays, in addition to four air-to-air missiles. But why send F-22 into Iraq and Afghanistan? There are several reasons. One is combat experience. OK, there are plenty of A-10s, F-16s and F-18s available to drop smart bombs, so why use an F-22? Because the F-22 has not been in a combat zone yet, and you need to see how the aircraft reacts to the stresses and conditions only found in a combat zone. But there are other reasons as well. Iraq is right next to Syria and Iran, two countries with lots of Russian air defense radars that F-22s can play with. Afghanistan also has Iran as a neighbor, as well as a small border with China. Letting those countries get a look at the F-22 also has some psychological impact.

Moreover, lacking an air-to-air opponent, dropping smart bombs for ground troops might be the only work F-22s will get for a while. This CAS (Close Air Support) mission is all the air force has been doing for the past four years. Might as well get the F-22 in shape for it.


An F-22 Raptor drops a small diameter bomb from its weapons bay during a test mission Sept. 5 over Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. The test marks the first airborne separation of a small diameter bomb from the internal weapons bay of an F-22. (U.S. Air Force photo/Darin Russell)

Do they call them F/A-22 or just F-22 now? USAF/DOD keep changing it


Surely it should be the former now?

The current designation system for U.S. military aircraft was introduced by the Department of Defense in 1962. It was based on the system used by the U.S. Air Force between 1948 and 1962, and replaced the older systems used by the U.S Navy (and Marine Corps) and the U.S. Army. Existing aircraft which used designations not compliant with the new system (all Navy and Marine Corps, many Army, and a few Air Force aircraft) were redesignated effectively on 18 September 1962. The designation system has since been slightly revised and extended, and the latest version is defined by Air Force Instruction (AFI) 16-401(I) (formerly Air Force Joint Instruction 16-401) Designating and Naming Military Aerospace Vehicles, dated 14 March 2005. AFI 16-401(I) not only covers aircraft designations, but also the designations of unmanned vehicles (missiles etc.) and some of the bureaucratic red tape to be followed for actually assigning a name or a designation to a military aerospace vehicle.

Starting from the central dash and moving *left*, the letter codes now consist of up to four letters (although only the "basic mission" code is mandatory, and I've never seen a real designation with more than three letters).

(1) Vehicle type (optional; indicates something other than a conventional fixed-wing aircraft):

G = Glider
H = Helicopter
V = VTOL or STOL
Z = Lighter than air (Z for Zeppelin)

(2) Basic mission:

A = Attack
B = Bomber
C = Cargo transport
E = Special electronics
F = Fighter
O = Observation
P = Maritime patrol
R = Reconnaissance
S = Anti-submarine warfare
T = Trainer
U = Utility
X = Research

(3) Modified mission (optional; indicates that a type originally designed for the mission indicated by its "basic mission" code has been modified for a different mission); includes the A, C, E, F, O, P, R, S, T, and U mission codes, plus:

D = Drone control
H = Search and rescue
K = Tanker (K for Kerosene)
L = Cold weather
M = Multi-mission
Q = Drone
V = VIP or staff transport
W = Weather observation

(4) Status (optional; indicates any unusual status):

G = Permanently grounded
J = Temporary special test
N = Permanent special test
X = Experimental
Y = Prototype
Z = Planning

The sequence numbers are based on the vehicle type (if present) or the basic mission. For example, all helicopters (vehicle type "H") are numbered in a single sequence regardless of the basic mission code. In contrast, conventional aircraft (with no vehicle type code) follow separate sequences for attack aircraft, bombers, fighter, transports, and so on. There are a few exceptions here. For example, the AV-8 Harrier seems to have taken the number 8 slot in the "A" series rather than in the "V" sequence. For some reason, the "T" (trainer) sequence, last seen in the Cessna T-47 in 1984, was restarted with the Beech T-1 Jayhawk in 1990. Further adding to the confusion is the fact that two recent trainer programs were given the designations T-48 and T-49.

Other examples also exist illustrating how the system has not been followed perfectly. Some exceptions include:

o The A-37 Dragonfly, an attack version of T-37 trainer. There was an AT-37, so the A-37 should have either continued the AT-37 designation or been given a proper A-series number.

o F/A-18 Hornet. This aircraft should have been just the F-18, or possibly the AF-18.

o FB-111, a bomber version of the F-111. This plane should have been the BF-111.

o SR-71 Blackbird. The letters supposedly indicate "strategic reconnaissance", not an anti-submarine modification. In addition, the number is actually from the pre-1962 bomber series.

As indicated above, the numbering of aircraft was restarted at 1 when the services switched to the new system. While Air Force aircraft in service at the time retained their original designations (e.g. the F-111 and B-52), all Navy aircraft then in service were renumbered to conform to the new system:

Some aircraft were simply given the designation already used by the USAF for the same aircraft while others were given new designations. Examples of the latter included:


Beech SNB Expediter = C-45 *
Bell HTL/HUL Sioux = H-13 *
Convair F2Y Sea Dart = F-7
Convair P4Y Privateer = P-4
Convair R4Y Samaritan = C-131 *
De Havilland Canada UC Otter = U-1 *
Douglas AD Skyraider = A-1
Douglas A3D Skywarrior = A-3
Douglas A4D Skyhawk = A-4
Douglas F3D Skyknight = F-10
Douglas F4D Skyray = F-6
Douglas JD Invader = B-26 *
Douglas R4D Skytrain = C-47/117 *
Douglas R5D Skymaster = C-54 *
Douglas R6D Liftmaster = C-118 *
Fairchild R4Q Boxcar = C-119 *
Grumman A2F Intruder = A-6
Grumman F9F Panther/Cougar = F-9
Grumman F11F Tiger = F-11
Grumman S2F Tracker = S-2
Grumman TF Trader = C-1
Grumman UF Albatross = U-16 *
Grumman WF Tracer = E-1
Grumman W2F Hawkeye = E-2
Kaman HOK/HTK/HUK Huskie = H-43 *
Kaman HU2K Seasprite = H-2
Lockheed GV/R8V Hercules = C-130 *
Lockheed P2V Neptune = P-2
Lockheed P3V Orion = P-3
Lockheed R7V/WV Constellation = C-121 *
Lockheed TV Shooting Star = T-33 *
Lockheed T2V Seastar = T-1
Lockheed UV Jetstar = C-140 *
Martin P5M Marlin = P-5
Martin RM = C-3
McDonnell F2D/F2H Banshee = F-2
McDonnell F3H Demon = F-3
McDonnell F4H Phantom II = F-4
North American AJ Savage = A-2
North American A3J Vigilante = A-5
North American FJ Fury = F-1
North American T2J Buckeye = T-2
North American T3J Sabreliner = T-39 *
Piasecki HUP Retriever = H-25 *
Piper UO Aztec = U-11
Sikorsky HO4S/HRS Chickasaw = H-19 *
Sikorsky HR2S Mojave = H-37 *
Sikorsky HSS Sea King = H-3 *
Sikorsky HUS Seabat/Seahorse = H-34 *
Sikorsky HU2S Seaguard = H-52
Vertol HRB Sea Knight = H-46
Vought F8U Crusader = F-8

(* Designation already used by USAF)

Although the new system is much simpler and easier to understand, it hasn't always been applied faithfully. For example, why was the F-117 stealth fighter numbered under the older convention even though it was developed almost 20 years after switching to the new system? Why does it have an "F" designation when it isn't really a fighter? Why were the F-13 and F-19 designations skipped?

I hate multi-purpose aircraft, they never do either roll as well (and especially if they were initially designed for one roll and another was added)

So, now we have F-22s doing Air Superiority Missions, Bombing Missions, AND CAS Missions? Where will it end?

Unfortunate it is for those that "hate" multi role aircraft. Lets go back a bit and see if we really do hate them......the list is long (others should join in ) the P-51, hmm....just a fighter...no....P-47....no...FW-190....nope.....ME-109., mosquito, B25 mitchell, .....all have served in varios roles....so to assume that they didnt excell although being purpose built for a specific task....hmmm....I really think that the topic of "multi role" aircraft is for another vote and totally new topic...but since I didnt evoke debate in one of my last posts....I will try again.....chris post a new subject with a vote....yes or no to multi use aircraft.....should be a great debate......I am looking forward to this.....

Sorry and back to the topic at hand........even the F-14 was tested for release of air to ground ordanance...to put it in realistic terms.....got to get the bang for the bucks...

george babony wrote:Unfortunate it is for those that "hate" multi role aircraft. Lets go back a bit and see if we really do hate them......the list is long (others should join in )

george babony wrote:the P-51, hmm....just a fighter...no....

One of the most effective, famous and beautiful fighter aircraft of WWII, the P-51 was designed to fulfill a British requirement dated April 1940. The UK asked North American Aircraft to design and build a new fighter in only 120 days. The prototype was produced in record time, but did not fly until 26 October 1940. It was found that the 1,100-hp Allison engine was well suited for low-altitude tactical reconnaissance, but the engine's power decreased dramatically above an altitude of 12,000 feet, making it a poor choice for air-to-air combat or interception roles. Because of this, the RAF left its eight machine guns intact, but also fitted the Mustang with cameras. In this configuration, it served in at least 23 RAF squadrons, beginning in April 1942. After the RAF found the aircraft's performance lacking, they tested a new engine, the 12-cylinder Rolls-Royce Merlin. This gave much-improved performance, and led to the USAAF fitting two airframes with 1,430-hp Packard-built Merlin V-1650 engines. Practically overnight, the aircraft's potential began to grow. Since the RAF had had good success with the Mustang in a ground attack role, the USAAF bought 500 aircraft fitted with dive brakes and underwing weapons pylons. These were initially designated the A-36A Apache, but later retained the name Mustang. The reason the P-51 was so able to do different roles was that it was basically 2 different aircraft (the Allison Engine one not being effective as a fighter)

george babony wrote:P-47....no...

Later in the war, Jugs served as escort fighters for B-29 bombers in the Pacific mainly due to the fact that the P-51s were delegated to the European front. Mostly, though, they excelled in the ground-attack role, strafing and bombing their way across the battlefields of Europe. The main reason (from what I can tell) that it was used as a fighter (or escort) was due to lack of a dedicated fighter (escort) for the USAAF in the Pacific Theater.

george babony wrote:FW-190....nope.....

The Fw 190 is widely regarded as Germany's best fighter aircraft of World War II. Its appearance in the skies over France in early 1941 was a rude shock to the Allies, as it was clearly superior to any other plane. For nearly a year, until the debut of the Spitfire IX, the Fw 190 was the unmatched champion of the air war. As the war progressed, the Fw 190 was developed into many variants as a pure fighter, a ground-attack fighter/bomber, and as a close-support aircraft. No fewer than 40 different versions were produced, with different combinations of engines, armament, wings, systems, and roles. Though again, like the P-51, each variant was structurally different and thus not exactly role independent.

george babony wrote:ME-109

All known variants of the Bf 109 (Messerschmitt Bf 109) were fighters of some sort (pressurized fighter, Reconnaissance fighter, long-range fighter, High altitude fighter, Command fighter, ect) except for the "Gustav" or G-series which was used in ground attack role. Modifications included reinforced wing structure, an internal bullet-proof windscreen, the use of heavier, welded framing for the cockpit transparencies, and additional light-alloy armor for the fuel tank and armoring of the radiators. The 7.92 mm MG 17 was also replaced with the 13 mm MG 131 heavy machine guns for greater armor penetration.

george babony wrote:mosquito

The Mosquito was originally designed as a bomber but again, modifications were made to the airframe to allow it to serve other roles. For the Night Fighter Role four 20 mm Hispano cannon in the fuselage belly and four .303 in. Browning machine-guns mounted in the nose were added and it carried Aircraft Interception radar. This led to the development of a versatile fighter-bomber version (the FB VI) which first saw service in early 1943. The Mark VI had a strengthened wing for external loads and along with its standard fighter armament could carry two 250 lb bombs in the rear of the bomb bay and two 250 lb bombs under the wings, or eight wing-mounted rockets. One of the main reasons the Mosquito is as well known as it is today was that they made so many of them, which itself was mainly due to it's wood construction which left strategic metals available for other uses.

george babony wrote:B25 mitchell

The Mitchell was designed as a bomber, and that is what most people know it as, however it was modified for a couple of other purposes. To satisfy the dire need for ground-attack and strafing aircraft, the B-25G was made. The production model featured increased armor, a greater fuel supply than the B-25C and the transparent nose was replaced by a solid one, with two fixed .50-caliber machine guns and a 2.95-inch (75 mm) M4 Cannon, then the largest weapon ever carried on an American bomber. One B-25G was passed to the British, who gave it the name Mitchell II that had been used for the B-25C. Though it was successful in this mission to a degree, other aircraft served the mission better, but were unavailable at the time. A number of B-25s were converted for use as staff and VIP transports. Henry H. Arnold and Dwight D. Eisenhower both used converted B-25Js as their personal transports. As far as turning a bomber into a transport, the requirements for the two (at least on the outside) are not all that different however, the bomb bay is converted into transport facilities, and is thus unusable for bombing missions.

george babony wrote: .....all have served in various roles....so to assume that they didn't excel although being purpose built for a specific task....

the fact that they served those roles doesn't necessarily mean that they excelled in them. That, as you said is a discussion for a different time. As I have pointed out though, all of the examples you gave had extensive modifications so that they could serve the role it was not intended for (most of the time preventing the new variant from performing it's original role). That I don't particularly have problems with as the changes help to counter the shortcomings of it not being the intended role. What I do have problems with is saying that one aircraft will do all these different roles just by changing the armament carried (or in some cases even without doing that). For instance I don't particularly have a problem with the B-22 concept (see attached pic) as it is designed as a bomber (even though it uses a modified fighter airframe).

Is Close Air Support (CAS) a suitable role for an aircraft that costs $137.5 million per unit?

Close Air Support may be fine against an enemy that lacks modern Surface to Air Missiles, but as the Russians found out in Afghanistan once the enemy has something like Redeye or similar, then any militiaman can knock a multi-million dollar jet out of the sky with a simple $6,000 missile. The Israelis learnt the lesson as long ago as 1973 (Yom Kippur War)- that it is unwise to attack ground troops who are protected by a SAM umbrella.

Surely on the modern battlefield what is needed for CAS is an aircraft that can use the terrain to appear ftrom nowhere; launch off a 'fire and forget' missile; and quickly disappear behind the nearest hill before the enemy gets a chance to shoot off a shoulder launched SAM. Apache Helicopters (although even Helicopters have their limitations) or Harrier type VTOL ground attack machines would seem to fit the bill much more appropriately than a modified interceptor.

Agree or Disagree?

Hobilar wrote:Surely on the modern battlefield what is needed for CAS is an aircraft that can use the terrain to appear ftrom nowhere; launch off a 'fire and forget' missile; and quickly disappear behind the nearest hill before the enemy gets a chance to shoot off a shoulder launched SAM. Apache Helicopters (although even Helicopters have their limitations) or Harrier type VTOL ground attack machines would seem to fit the bill much more appropriately than a modified interceptor.

Agree or Disagree?

I Agree that a modified interceptor is not the aircraft for the job, and that VTOL and Helicopters are probably better suited for the job, but I think that what is needed far more than "stealth" is durrability. The A-10 for instance can take a tank shell to the cockpit, has tripple redundancy, and can still fly back to base with sections of the aircraft missing. The main word in Close Air Support I would have to say is "Support". I may be alone in this, but I generally think of loitering and striking several targets over extended periods of time when I think of CAS.

Why????? What is their problem?