geraldp@mentor.com (Gerald Page) (07/18/90)
From: geraldp@mentor.com (Gerald Page) I've heard a lot about the F-117 being the first "stealth fighter", but not much at all about the F-19. I've read several military-type novels about it, including Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising", but haven't seen anything about it in the news or on this newsgroup. Clancy refers to it as the "Frisbee", supposedly due to it's terrain following flying characterstics. The novels I've read usually place it in a low altitude bombing/attack role. Does anybody have any facts about the F-19? Jerry. [mod.note: If memory serves, Clancy nicknamed his fictionalized F-19 the "Frisbee", not because of its flight characteristics, but because of its rounded appearance. - Bill ]
gwh%monsoon.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (07/24/90)
From: gwh%monsoon.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) In article <1990Jul18.040928.14461@cbnews.att.com> geraldp@mentor.com (Gerald Page) writes: >I've heard a lot about the F-117 being the first "stealth fighter", but >not much at all about the F-19. I've read several military-type novels >about it, including Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising", but haven't seen >anything about it in the news or on this newsgroup. Clancy refers to it >as the "Frisbee", supposedly due to it's terrain following flying >characterstics. The novels I've read usually place it in a low altitude >bombing/attack role. Does anybody have any facts about the F-19? The "F-19" is, as suggested by where you found references, fiction. Sorry 8-) As a side note, I've been poring over the Aerofax booklet on the F-117...some very neat things in it. For instance, the 'Have Blue' program was the development program for the stealth fighters. After some initial jostling, Lockheed and Boeing were given contracts to build 2/3 scale prototypes. Lockheed made 3 planes (2 flight, one ground test), Boeing 2 (note, _I've_ never seen hide nor hair of one of the Boeing Have Blue planes...speculation as to what they looked like is an interesting topic.) These prototypes flew first in 1977. Both of Lockheeds were lost to accidents; the first prototype nearly killed Bill Parks (of Lockheed) in an ejection seat failure following some landing gear problems. The second burned in a fire caused (on the ground) by hydraulic problems. Both these accidents were in 1978. However, before that occured, operational tests had verified the basic concept. In 1978 the Air Force initiated the Senior Trend program, to develop the full scale plane from Lockheed's prototype. In 1981, the plane first flew. == George William Herbert == * Warning: This person contains chemicals * == JOAT for Hire: Anything, == ** known to cause Cancer, Birth Defects, ** =======Anywhere, My Price.======= ************ and Brain Damage! ************ == gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu == == ucbvax!ocf!gwh == The OCF Gang: Making Tomorrow's Mistakes Today
clallen@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Charles L Allen) (07/24/90)
From: clallen@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Charles L Allen) In article <1990Jul18.040928.14461@cbnews.att.com> geraldp@mentor.com (Gerald Page) writes: >I've heard a lot about the F-117 being the first "stealth fighter", but >not much at all about the F-19. I've read several military-type novels >about it, including Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising", but haven't seen >anything about it in the news or on this newsgroup. Clancy refers to it >as the "Frisbee", supposedly due to it's terrain following flying >characterstics. The novels I've read usually place it in a low altitude >bombing/attack role. Does anybody have any facts about the F-19? > >Jerry. Well I suppose that everybody will jump on this bandwagon. The F-19 does not exist. 'F-19' was the popular and fictional name for the stealth fighter before the Air Force went public with the F-117. A few years ago following one of the suspicious crashes, when the Stealth craze started, F-19 became a popular name for an aircraft that did not officialy exist. However in the secret circles of the Air Force, it already had the designation F-117. CHAz ==== Charles L. Allen | "Who would have thought that Academic Computing Services | the fatal flaw of communism is Syracuse University | is that there is no money in it?" clallen@rodan.acs.syr.edu | -A. Whitney Brown
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (07/24/90)
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) In article <1990Jul18.040928.14461@cbnews.att.com>, geraldp@mentor.com (Gerald Page) writes: > >I've heard a lot about the F-117 being the first "stealth fighter", but >not much at all about the F-19. I've read several military-type novels >about it, including Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising", but haven't seen >anything about it in the news or on this newsgroup. Actually, the F-117 *is* the F-19; rumors in the Av. press referred to a "stealth" fighter. Apparently, the AF, for reasons unknown, decided to fool everyone (or engage in disinformation) and skip the F-19 designation.... >Clancy refers to it >as the "Frisbee", supposedly due to it's terrain following flying >characterstics. >[mod.note: If memory serves, Clancy nicknamed his fictionalized >F-19 the "Frisbee", not because of its flight characteristics, but >because of its rounded appearance. - Bill ] Clancy also has called it the "Wobbin' Goblin" for it's alleged poor handling characteristics. Well, Tom based his guesses on the model makers guesses. F-117 pilots say it has EXCELLENT handling characteristcs. If you've seen the pics of the '117, there isn't one smooth curve on it! >The novels I've read usually place it in a low altitude >bombing/attack role. Does anybody have any facts about the F-19? Ah. Another myth broken by Aviation Week. The F-117 flies at night, at medium altitude, which allows for greater accuracy in placing bomb loads than flying at low-level and doing a pop-up. Now if we only knew what "self-defense" capability it had...
military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (07/24/90)
From: att!utzoo!henry >From: geraldp@mentor.com (Gerald Page) >I've heard a lot about the F-117 being the first "stealth fighter", but >not much at all about the F-19. I've read several military-type novels >about it... Almost certainly the stealth fighter was originally going to be the F-19. We know the s.f. has been around for quite a while, and there's also been a noticeable gap in the designations right there: F-18, okay, F-20, okay, but nobody's ever heard of an F-19. Almost everyone concluded that the F-19 was the s.f. Furthermore, "F-117" theoretically is an improper designation, as there were no F-112 through F-116 and the numbering got restarted at the low end two decades ago anyway. The best account I've heard of how the "F-117" designation got started is that the various Soviet fighters in US inventory are informally known by such numbers, so as to avoid announcing their nature in radio traffic, and for a while there was a deliberate attempt to obscure the s.f. by encouraging confusion between it and the Soviet fighters. (For example, there was a crash a few years ago, the details of which were kept highly secret, which was reported at various times as an s.f. crash and a MiG crash.) Why the USAF ended up sanctifying that designation is anyone's guess. There is a lot of politics in those designations sometimes, as witness the "F/A-18" (the rules say that multirole combat aircraft are just plain "F"). Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) (07/24/90)
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk> In article <1990Jul18.040928.14461@cbnews.att.com> geraldp@mentor.com (Gerald Page) writes: > >I've heard a lot about the F-117 being the first "stealth fighter", but >not much at all about the F-19. Also, can someone explain to me the way the USAF numbers its aircraft? I can account for most of the numbers 1 to 20, thus: 1: McDonnell FH-1 Phantom 2: McDonnell F2H Banshee 3: McDonnell F3H Demon 4: Confusion :-) North American FJ-4 Fury; Douglas F4D Skyray; McDonnell- Douglas F4H Phantom II. 5: Northrop F5 Freedom Fighter 6: ? 7: Chance Vought F7U Cutlass 8: Chance Vought F8U Crusader 9: Grumman F9F Panther, Cougar 10: ? 11: ? 12: Lockheed F-12; never got past YF-12 stage; became SR-71 Blackbird 13: ? Maybe the companies were superstitious; maybe someone felt no pilot would want to fly an F-13. 14: Grumman F-14 Tomcat 15: McDonnell-Douglas F-15 Eagle 16: General Dynamics F-16 Falcon 17: Northrop F-17; competitor to F-16 which failed. Later resurrected as: 18: McDonnell-Douglas F-18 Hornet 19: Lockheed F-19, the hypothetical Stealth Fighter. The real one is F-117 for some reason. Or is there an F-19 which no-one has seen yet? 20: Northrop's private follow-up to the F-5, which no-one would buy. 21: ? 22: The hypothetical ATF. The above is in no chronological order, and probably full of mistakes, as some of you will hopefully tell me by email. You can also fill in the blanks, please. And explain why, at the same time, there were also numbers from 100 up, e.g. F-104 Starfighter. "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott Adrian Hurt | JANET: adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk
jfb@ihlpm.att.com (Joseph F Baugher) (07/24/90)
From: jfb@ihlpm.att.com (Joseph F Baugher) The "F-19" is an intriguing problem. As you are undoubtedly aware, there is a "gap" in the USAF fighter designation scheme at number 19. F-18 is the McDonnell-Douglas "Hornet", F-20 is the Northrop "Tigershark", whereas F-19 is unspecified. For a long time, it was generally thought (a la Tom Clancy) that F-19 was the designation for the highly-classified stealth fighter. Now that we know that the designation of the Stealth is F-117A, this naturally raises the question: just WHAT is F-19? Aviation Leak had a brief report that came out just after the F-117A went public, in which some Air Force spokesman said that F-19 had never been assigned to any aircraft because "it might have gotten confused with the MiG-19". If anyone out there actually believes this explanation, I've got a bridge for sale :-) Anyone out there have any guesses as to what F-19 is? Joe Baugher ************************************** AT&T Bell Laboratories * "Round up the usual suspects." * 200 Park Plaza ************************************** Naperville, Illinois 60566-7050 (708) 713 4548 ihlpm!jfb Who, me? Speak for AT&T? Surely you jest! jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com
terryy%earthquake.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Terry Yeung) (07/27/90)
From: terryy%earthquake.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Terry Yeung) In article <1990Jul24.024951.21186@cbnews.att.com> adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) writes: > >Also, can someone explain to me the way the USAF numbers its aircraft? I >can account for most of the numbers 1 to 20, thus: [stuff deleted] >10: ? >11: ? I believe there was an F11 called the Tiger. I'm not sure on the name but I am sure that an F11 exists. [stuff deleted] >20: Northrop's private follow-up to the F-5, which no-one would buy. >21: ? The F-21 is the designation of the Israeli Kfir C-2. The US Navy and the Marines both borrowed some for aggresser training. I believe they've returned them by now. Terry Yeung terryy@ocf.berkeley.edu
fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (07/27/90)
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) > From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk> > > Also, can someone explain to me the way the USAF numbers its aircraft? I > can account for most of the numbers 1 to 20, thus: I see the problem: You're assuming that there is some method to the numbering scheme. Also you're working with old/new Navy numbering, old/new Air Force numbering, and the current combined/rationalized numbering scheme. The following are from the old Navy scheme: McDonnell FH-1 Phantom, McDonnell F2H Banshee, McDonnell F3H Demon, North American FJ-4 Fury, Douglas F4D Skyray, McDonnell-Douglas F4H Phantom II, Chance Vought F7U Cutlass,Chance Vought F8U Crusader, Grumman F9F-<numbers> (Panther/Cougar). This system used a letter for aircraft type, another letter for the manufacturer, and a number (sometimes with addtional letters and numbers for subtypes. So the FH-1 was a fighter (F), made by McDonnell (H), first one for Navy by that manufacturer. The Panther/Cougar was an example of two variants of a given type: F9F6 for the straightwing Panther, and F9F7 for the sweptwing Cougar. (I think it was -7.) Grumman's letter designator was H. I think Lockheed's was V...so you see that the manufacturer's name had little to do with his designator. This numbering scheme was in force at least from the 1930's through the early 1960's. Some from the old Air Force numbering: "And explain why, at the same time, there were also numbers > from 100 up, e.g. F-104 Starfighter." Numbering for operational aircraft types was sequential (with some gaps) from the 1930's through the early 1960's. So for fighters, you have a continuous lineage from such as the P-26 "Peashooter" through the P-51 "Mustang" through F-86 "Sabre"...F-100 "Super Sabre"...F-110 "Phantom"... Obviously, this was going to get out of hand, and there were some cases of the same fighter (originally P for "pursuit") flying for both the AF and the Navy. The F-110 and F4H both meant McDonnell Phantom II. So they started over at F-4. And the navy dropped the letter designator. And some from the current combined numbering scheme: Lockheed F-12,F-13, Grumman F-14 Tomcat, ... > 11: Would be the F11F "Tiger" and F11F-1 "Super Tiger" > 13: ? Maybe the companies were superstitious; maybe someone felt no pilot > would want to fly an F-13. Well, there was the XF13F "Jaguar". A swingwing testbed aircraft from Grumman. They seem to have learned enough to make the F-14. > 22: The hypothetical ATF. (Not so hypothetical anymore.) 23: Another ATF contender, recently rolled out. Isn't this stuff fun? Sort of like baseball statistics. ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (07/28/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk> >Also, can someone explain to me the way the USAF numbers its aircraft? I >can account for most of the numbers 1 to 20, thus: > 1: McDonnell FH-1 Phantom > 2: McDonnell F2H Banshee > 3: McDonnell F3H Demon > 4: Confusion :-) North American FJ-4 Fury; Douglas F4D Skyray; McDonnell- > Douglas F4H Phantom II. > ... You're confusing two different numbering systems. *All* the numbers you give above are the old US *Navy* designations, which are quite unrelated to the USAF scheme that was standardized across all the US services in the 1960s. The USN scheme used an initial letter for type of aircraft, using codes similar to the USAF ones but not (I think) always identical, a second letter which designated manufacturer (e.g. H for McDonnell and D for Douglas, before they merged into one company), and a number to distinguish successive aircraft of the same type from the same maker. So, for example, the F4H was the fourth fighter from McDonnell Aircraft. There were no hyphens in Navy numbers. The USAF scheme is basically type code, hyphen, number, so F-20 is nominally the 20th fighter design. Numbers are often assigned to things that never make it to production, e.g. the F-20 :-(, so the number space seems to have gaps. When the USAF scheme was standardized across all the services, there came the problem of renumbering all the Navy aircraft. There was also a minor nuisance in that the numbers were getting large for some types, e.g. the F-111. All the numbers were nominally restarted at 1, and Navy aircraft were renumbered in such a way as to preserve as much similarity to the original numbers as possible. So the Phantom II, F4H to the Navy and about to enter USAF service as the F-110, became the F-4 for everybody. I believe the Phantom, Banshee, and Demon became F-1 through F-3. The Fury was out of service by then (I think), so it was not renumbered. The Skyray became the F-6, I think. Assorted other long-forgotten types got most of the seemingly-missing numbers, although I don't think there was an F-13. >21: ? >22: The hypothetical ATF. F-21 was the designation for IAI Kfirs temporarily in US service. The two ATF prototypes are the YF-22 and YF-23. To tidy up loose ends :-), the basic USAF designations often get prefix letters to indicate different roles and suffix letters to distinguish different variants, so an RF-4D is the D variant of the F-4 converted to a reconnaissance aircraft. Don't try to fit the SR-71 into the scheme in any rational way, as it simply does not fit; that designation came about for historical and political reasons. That's also true of some other recent aircraft, like the F-117. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
jwstuart@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jesse William Leo Stuart) (02/04/91)
From: jwstuart@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jesse William Leo Stuart)
It may be rather late to post this, but what the heck?!
F-21 Kfir An Isreali built developement of the Mirage 5, bought by the
US navy as a Top Gun agressor aircraft. It cost much less
than an equivilent A-4, which proforms rather like the Kfir
since the French spent all of the developement costs for the
Mirage 5, and the Isrealis stole the blueprints!
The 100 series fighters were so called because the WWII P- designation for
aircraft, meaning Persuit (ie. P-51 Mustang, P-40 Warhawk, etc..) were changed
to F- aircraft for Fighter since the Pursuit aircraft concept of the 20's and
30's was so radically changed during WWII. The latter F-100+ nomenclature was
just a continuation of this.
Jess Stuart
CSU Chico..