Question about the name "F/A-18"

Hello,

I would like to know why the F/A-18 have the "A" on the designation ? I know that A stands for "Attack" but why the F/A-18 and not the F-16, F-14, F-22 etc.

For example F-16 can attack ground targets as-well... So why this difference on the name?

Thanks :)

It's the Navy way.

Initially it was planned to have both an F and A variant but they got merged into the F/A-18. Recommend this video for some hornet history.

Hello,

 

 

 

I would like to know why the F/A-18 have the "A" on the designation ? I know that A stands for "Attack" but why the F/A-18 and not the F-16, F-14, F-22 etc.

 

 

 

For example F-16 can attack ground targets as-well... So why this difference on the name?

 

 

Thanks :)

F/A = Fighter/Attack. For example F/A-18A/B, F/A-18C,D, F/A-18E/F.

F=Fighter. F-14A/B, F-15C/D/E, F-16, F-22, F-35.

A=Attack. A-6, A-7, A-10A/C

B=Bomber. B-1, B-2, B-52.

C-Cargo. C-17, C-130.

F/A = Fighter/Attack. For example F/A-18A/B, F/A-18C,D, F/A-18E/F.

 

F=Fighter. F-14A/B, F-15C/D/E, F-16, F-22, F-35.

 

A=Attack. A-6, A-7, A-10A/C

 

B=Bomber. B-1, B-2, B-52.

 

C-Cargo. C-17, C-130.

I wouldn't consider the Strike Eagle (F-15E) as an Air Superiority platform OVER it being a Ground Attack platform...I mean, it is called the STRIKE Eagle not the Fighter Eagle...seems like they're categorized according to speed...the Fast Movers have to be F- and the slow slogging planes with 30mm guns have to be A- (A-10C, AH-64...etc.) Maybe they should have called it the F/A-15E

I wouldn't consider the Strike Eagle (F-15E) as an Air Superiority platform OVER it being a Ground Attack platform...I mean, it is called the STRIKE Eagle not the Fighter Eagle...seems like they're categorized according to speed...the Fast Movers have to be F- and the slow slogging planes with 30mm guns have to be A- (A-10C, AH-64...etc.) Maybe they should have called it the F/A-15E

No man, the US aircraft are categorized just like I said.

And Strike Eagle is just modified F-15 model, with A/G capabilities... It is just an exception from the rule.

I believe the simplest explanation is that the F/A-18 was designed to be a multi-role aircraft from the start while the others had the capability added later but the "A" was not added for whatever reasons.

I have always thought the most bizarre was the F-117...not a fighter at all.

Haha for the F-117 ... nice hit through ...

So the F/A-18 is the only one aircraft with full Air to ground + Air to Air capabilities (means from the stretch) ? The others (F-15, F-14, F-22, F-16) was originally build as a fighters and no other can do the same ?

I believe the simplest explanation is that the F/A-18 was designed to be a multi-role aircraft from the start while the others had the capability added later but the "A" was not added for whatever reasons.

 

I have always thought the most bizarre was the F-117...not a fighter at all.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

What I understood the F/A-18 replaces A-6 and F-14.

Initially it was planned to have both an F and A variant but they got merged into the F/A-18. Recommend this video for some hornet history.

Loved it

What I understood the F/A-18 replaces A-6 and F-14.

The F model eventually replaced the F-14 as fleet defender, but the A-D Models were a complement to the F-14 like the F-16 was to complement the F-15 in the 80's.

The F-117 was designated a fighter as a means of disguising the program as a headfake to the Russians as to it's "Stealth" design & intent.

*Edited: Corrected the F model statement*

Is a complete arbitrary thing. Just like years ago they try that on the F-22 and then change it back.

The only thing that define designation AFAIK is the DOD instruction 4120.15L

this is a direct PDF link

http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/412015l.pdf

The USN regulation should be NAVAIRINST 8800.3A

direct PDF link

edit: found a 2014 version

https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a8/publication/afi16-401/afi16-401.pdf

If you are interested in type designations see

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_United_States_Tri-Service_aircraft_designation_system

There is also a section on the Hornet being an exception and why.

While I am at it, here is the system for electronic system designation

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Electronics_Type_Designation_System

This all day.. The ground capabilities for the 15 and 16 were all something that came well after the aircraft were designed/created.

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Thats not necessarily true.

The Hornet wasnt Initially designed to be a pure attack plane either. YF 16 nd YF17 It was part of the Air forces LWF competition. YF16 won, but the USN believed the YF17 to be more suitable for adoption for carrier operations and it was developed into the F/A18.

At first There were supposed to be 2 versions, 1 for fighter, and anther for Attack, but advances in electronic meant they could for simplicity of logistics could afford to just have 1 Hornet type to fufill both functions. Ultimately becoming the NAvy Workhorse Multirole fighters because the NAvy was never going to get enough F14's that they wanted, and at the same time replace a whole list of Legacy Aircraft ( A7 , F4 phantom , and Eventually A6) . This was somewhat analgous to what High low mix, to what F16 was to the F15.

Whilst at its inception point intended Dog fighter ( thanks to Fighter mafia forcing this down USAF throats) , it still deviated far from what the Fighter Mafia had idealized By the time of the first production batch it was certainly being Marketed as a tactical Fighter for both tactical fighter squadrons to replace the Phantom and for Export sale abroad.

The first production block of the F-16A already had ground attack capability, albeit mostly unguided weaponry, and with simpler avionics to the F/A18A ( to be fair it was produced few years later) , and used for strike purposes by the Israeli's in various operations, even before the definitive F16C blocks came about and before they american piloted Vipers partook in the gulf war.

The the Reason its not an F/A16 is because US Air force and NAvy have different way of designating Airplanes.

There were plenty of Air force aircraft that got F designation but were either strike/ interdiction aircraft, or

in other instances tactical bomber aircraft.

IE F-105 , F-111, F-117

Not quite. It wasn't complementary, it was for modernization of the strike role.

 

Intent-wise, the F/A-18A/B/C/D most directly replaced the A-6 in the Navy and Marine Corps and A-6 and A-7 in the Navy. The F-14 was really replaced when the Super Hornet reached IOC.

 

BTW there was almost an A-6F, a demonstrator even flew, but it died at the blood soaked feet of the Super.

i wouldnt say most directly as IT took nearly 15 years for the Hornet to "replace" the A6.

A6 served served until 1997 in active duty service. The reason the A6 were retired and replaced is because they were old and no longer in production, but otherwise the Hornet IS a arguably a side grade to the A6 in the strike role.

The hornet ; better avionics, can "self escort" and also fulfil A2A function, But in terms fuel and ordinance payload it was inferior.

At least until the production of the F/A18C Lot 12 ( night attack) in 1989, the A6 Intruder remained the navy's only true all weather precision strike platform, and even then Hornets in Gulf war still needed to rely on A6;s for lasing targets. Its not until the AAS-38B version of the nitehawk was adopted in mid 90s, was the Hornet capable of self lasing and Buddy lasing ( thanks to Spot tracker) with 1 targeting device taking up only 1 hard point.

General Dixon (USAF), former commander of Tactical Air Command said that part of the rationale behind giving attack aircraft an 'F' designation within the USAF was to increase the attractiveness of the aircraft to the best performing pilots (those who were likely to get their 'dream sheet' assignments). They'd be much more likely to go for something with an 'F' designation than a 'B' or 'A'.

General Dixon (USAF), former commander of Tactical Air Command said that part of the rationale behind giving attack aircraft an 'F' designation within the USAF was to increase the attractiveness of the aircraft to the best performing pilots (those who were likely to get their 'dream sheet' assignments). They'd be much more likely to go for something with an 'F' designation than a 'B' or 'A'.

As a hotshot pilot, I'd rather go for the "F" too... rather than a B or an A... :thumbup:

Another good resource: https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/podcast/008-aircraft-nomenclature/

There were going to be four airplanes from the LWF/VFAX programs:

A-16

F-16

A-18

F-18

The A-16 never materialized as the 30mm cannon pod mostly didn't work out despite a second later attempt at an F/A-16. The A-16 and F/A-16 never met the "A" mission requirement. The A-18 and F-18 requirements were both satisfied by the same hardware so it was given a combo designation.

I asked an F-117 pilot why the F designation when it has no air to air weapons and he said it was to curtail the requirements that the US limit their nuclear bomber numbers by implying that the Nighthawk was a fighter not a nuclear-capable bomber, thereby complying the treaties at the time. Think of it as a legal loophole.

v6,

boNes

Well, what's the answer since we're going in circles now? Was post#2 right after all?

I know but it's as good an answer as can be determined.

Keep it simple. Especially, when the answer isn't important.

None of this was important.

It is important for the upcoming dcs -congress approval committee simulator...

Release in 2 weeks ;)

Acronym CACS ...could work ;)

F = Fighter

A = Attack

E = electronic countermeasures & recon (for example, EA-6B)

C = Cargo

T = Tanker or trainer

B = Bomber

and so on and so on.......