Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I think somebody left out a decimal point. Logical successor to B2.0 would be B2.1. Typo, anyone? It looks the part.
Should have been designated as B-3.I like the idea of naming it the Raider, after Doolittle's men.
Should have been designated as B-3.
That comes after B-1 and B-2.
We don't talk about the B-3 through B-20. We just don't talk about them. Shhhhh!Should have been designated as B-3.
It really when off the rails when they prototypes for the F-32 and F-35 were designated X-32 and X-35 rather than XF.The US designation system went out the window with theF-25...err F-35
And there is the F/A-22. But "A" by itself may be done in the USAF, maybe the USN as well. Note that the F-117 pilots trained on the A-7D but the airplane was still designated "F" even though it had no known air-to-air capability.There is the F/A-18...
Same goes for the USN - with the advent of the multi-role F-35, it's not very likely that there will ever be another "A" type dedicated ground attack aircraft after the F/A-18 is retired.
"Q" is the core of the UAV designation for the AF, like RQ or MQ. So far, "MQ" stands for "Multi-Mission" and "RQ" stands for the various recon types.... or if there is another one, it will be a "DA" designation -- "drone attack". Once AI is capable, unmanned, non-suicide attack drones will, repeat will, be a thing, I think.
"Q" is the core of the UAV designation for the AF, like RQ or MQ. So far, "MQ" stands for "Multi-Mission" and "RQ" stands for the various recon types.
I'd imagine if they employed a dedicated attack type, it would be something like "AQ" designated.
The USN currently follows the "Q" designation, too.
Those designations were because they were officially "technology demonstrators, NOT prototypes for the eventual production aircraft".We don't talk about the B-3 through B-20. We just don't talk about them. Shhhhh!
It really when off the rails when they prototypes for the F-32 and F-35 were designated X-32 and X-35 rather than XF.
[...] while Boeing was just trying to get SOMETHING to fly the way they predicted it would).
And so it was for the X-33, despite the fact that its was proposed to serve as a prototype for a radical new reusable launch vehicle, none of the three X-33 designs offered could even attain orbit, even without a payload. Fortunately the USAF got the assignment to develop a new expendable booster using existing technology and that resulted in the Delta IV and Atlas V, FINALLY giving us space boosters that were not based on 1st generation ICBM technology. The X-33 was to be the subscale prototype of a fully reusable RLV but NASA made enormous error of using the same mission requirements as the Space Shuttle and ended up canceling the program before anything actually flew because they figured it would never meet the requirements. Trying to build an "X" vehicle that is halfway between a pure X research vehicle and an X prototype of a production vehicle seems to have at best a checkered history.Those designations were because they were officially "technology demonstrators, NOT prototypes for the eventual production aircraft".
I thought it was already known as "Monica"I mean come on man, the F-35 is called Fat Amy, and it is positively svelt looking compared to this. Can you imagine what nickname the X-32 would have ended up with?
T!
I love Boeing and Boeing related accessories but the X-32 does look like it should be filter feeding krill.