UK MQ-9 Reaper Designation?
At the recent EASA Annual Safety Conference, even the 'RPAS' (other acronyms are available) group admitted defeat and used the noun drone rather than some jumble of politically correct initialisation.
Clear as mud ...
I am indebted to Lynxman for his guidance with regards to current regulations ...
Oh how I wished I hadn't bothered. Life was so much more simple when we had rules.
Now we have 'guidance' and things that 'should' be done (not must be done)
If I have got this right ... we now have
Military Aviation Authority
Part of the Ministry of Defence (MOD), the MAA is an independent and autonomous organization responsible for the regulation, surveillance, inspection and assurance of the Defence Air operating and technical domains. It ensures the safe design and use of military air systems.
Military Aviation Authority Regulation 5307 (Identification of Materiel)
5307(1) A military aircraft shall beidentified by:
a. Name or designation.
b. A letter or group of letters to indicate the operational role(s).
c. Mark number.
5307(2) Mark or Model Numbers
A major change of design which affects the operational or functional value of materiel, or its interchangeability, shall be identified by the introduction of a new mark or model and NATO number.
Aircraft : Proposals for changes in role letters or mark numbers of Service aircraft should be submitted with full supporting details to the PTL.
(Project Team Leaders)
So we have a body which is 'independent ' but still a part of the MOD ... aye right.
We still have no authoritative list as to what things are supposed to be called. It looks as these guidelines are there in part to ensure NATO nations know their AN- designations are still in use.
Maybe we should invite the Joint Services Recognition Journal to come back and actually tell us all what things are called.
(I would still like someone to have a peek at QR's in the morning though)
Oh how I wished I hadn't bothered. Life was so much more simple when we had rules.
Now we have 'guidance' and things that 'should' be done (not must be done)
If I have got this right ... we now have
Military Aviation Authority
Part of the Ministry of Defence (MOD), the MAA is an independent and autonomous organization responsible for the regulation, surveillance, inspection and assurance of the Defence Air operating and technical domains. It ensures the safe design and use of military air systems.
Military Aviation Authority Regulation 5307 (Identification of Materiel)
5307(1) A military aircraft shall beidentified by:
a. Name or designation.
b. A letter or group of letters to indicate the operational role(s).
c. Mark number.
5307(2) Mark or Model Numbers
A major change of design which affects the operational or functional value of materiel, or its interchangeability, shall be identified by the introduction of a new mark or model and NATO number.
Aircraft : Proposals for changes in role letters or mark numbers of Service aircraft should be submitted with full supporting details to the PTL.
(Project Team Leaders)
So we have a body which is 'independent ' but still a part of the MOD ... aye right.
We still have no authoritative list as to what things are supposed to be called. It looks as these guidelines are there in part to ensure NATO nations know their AN- designations are still in use.
Maybe we should invite the Joint Services Recognition Journal to come back and actually tell us all what things are called.
(I would still like someone to have a peek at QR's in the morning though)
I was thinking more of how we combine letters with others - HAS, HAR, AH, etc.
"Earlier drones which were conversions from real aeroplanes, such as the Firefly, Meteor and Sea Vixen, had either 'U' (e.g. Firefly U.8) or 'D' (e.g. Sea Vixen D.3) designations. Whereas purpose built drones such as the Jindivik did not."
Ahhh, aircraft designators. Could talk about them till the cows come home. OK, one day I will get a life.
The UK designators are a good system, when properly used. As stated, the US system is different, but is also a joint designation system, simplified since 1962 to bring USN aircraft designation into the air force style in a joint system. However, there have been some strange deviations - such as "P-3C Update II" instead of going to P-3D, or P-3E, or the next available simple designation. Also the correct C-27B designator is rarely used, giving way to the marketing "C-27J" hype. Similarly, jumping from F-23 to F-35 bastardises a perfectly good working system.
The US tend, in the main, to refer to their aircraft by the designator, and not the nickname. Therefore, they will talk "F-16", "B-1", etc. But ironically, if a WIWOL talks of "the Lightning", to a Yank this will be the P-38, or its latest use as the F-35. And if a GR.4 mate talks about Tornado, perhaps a Yank might think "Goddam, I didn't know the limeys had B-45s" - and actually the RAF did at one stage!
The F-4J (UK) example is a good discussion point. With F-4K being the FG.1, and F-4M being the FGR.2, then logically the 74 Sqn F-4J should have become a Mark 3 of some type - perhaps FGR.3, or maybe more correctly the F.3, but of course that would have caused confusion with the ADV F.3.
Actually, Jindivik did have mark numbers, but not UK style designators.
Jindivik Mk 2 deliveries to UK were Mk 2BL and Mk 102BL - perhaps the "L" standing for Llanbedr?
Jindivik Mk 3A aircraft were Mk 203A for the RAN, Mk 303A for the USN, and Mk 103A for UK. Later Mk 3B Jindis for UK were Mk 103B, and were referred by their serial ranges as "600-series" aircraft (with A92-610/A92-674 serials).
UK Mk 103B aircraft were 700-series aircraft (A92-701/A92-740).
The Mk 4A for UK became the Mk 104AL (A92-802/A92-816), and improved UK Mk 104ALs were 900-series aircraft (A92-901/A92-918).
So adoption of the approved UK designation system of Jindivik U.2/U.3/U.4 would have been far simpler.
Incidently, in Oz the flare trailed by Jin was called "Tonic" - G&T, get it? Strange but true.
Back to the OP, MQ-9 Reaper GR.1 would seem reasonable. And I see no reason why not to adopt C-17A Globemaster C.1. Who knows, perhaps P-8B Poseidon MR.1 ?
When our USAF exchange guys came to Buccs and flew the Hunter, they loved regaling about flying the F.6 (but not necessarily the T.7 or T.8) - I always imagined they missed the subtleties of the UK designators and were referring to an "F-6" as designated by the US system, and therefore older than the F-16 !!
Ahhh, aircraft designators. Could talk about them till the cows come home. OK, one day I will get a life.
The UK designators are a good system, when properly used. As stated, the US system is different, but is also a joint designation system, simplified since 1962 to bring USN aircraft designation into the air force style in a joint system. However, there have been some strange deviations - such as "P-3C Update II" instead of going to P-3D, or P-3E, or the next available simple designation. Also the correct C-27B designator is rarely used, giving way to the marketing "C-27J" hype. Similarly, jumping from F-23 to F-35 bastardises a perfectly good working system.
The US tend, in the main, to refer to their aircraft by the designator, and not the nickname. Therefore, they will talk "F-16", "B-1", etc. But ironically, if a WIWOL talks of "the Lightning", to a Yank this will be the P-38, or its latest use as the F-35. And if a GR.4 mate talks about Tornado, perhaps a Yank might think "Goddam, I didn't know the limeys had B-45s" - and actually the RAF did at one stage!
The F-4J (UK) example is a good discussion point. With F-4K being the FG.1, and F-4M being the FGR.2, then logically the 74 Sqn F-4J should have become a Mark 3 of some type - perhaps FGR.3, or maybe more correctly the F.3, but of course that would have caused confusion with the ADV F.3.
Actually, Jindivik did have mark numbers, but not UK style designators.
Jindivik Mk 2 deliveries to UK were Mk 2BL and Mk 102BL - perhaps the "L" standing for Llanbedr?
Jindivik Mk 3A aircraft were Mk 203A for the RAN, Mk 303A for the USN, and Mk 103A for UK. Later Mk 3B Jindis for UK were Mk 103B, and were referred by their serial ranges as "600-series" aircraft (with A92-610/A92-674 serials).
UK Mk 103B aircraft were 700-series aircraft (A92-701/A92-740).
The Mk 4A for UK became the Mk 104AL (A92-802/A92-816), and improved UK Mk 104ALs were 900-series aircraft (A92-901/A92-918).
So adoption of the approved UK designation system of Jindivik U.2/U.3/U.4 would have been far simpler.
Incidently, in Oz the flare trailed by Jin was called "Tonic" - G&T, get it? Strange but true.
Back to the OP, MQ-9 Reaper GR.1 would seem reasonable. And I see no reason why not to adopt C-17A Globemaster C.1. Who knows, perhaps P-8B Poseidon MR.1 ?
When our USAF exchange guys came to Buccs and flew the Hunter, they loved regaling about flying the F.6 (but not necessarily the T.7 or T.8) - I always imagined they missed the subtleties of the UK designators and were referring to an "F-6" as designated by the US system, and therefore older than the F-16 !!
Last edited by BBadanov; 27th Oct 2014 at 03:57. Reason: sp
