What's in a role? RAF style.

[Enzo the Magnificent]

It was the lIghtning, but the Tornado ADV was known as the F3 to distinguish it from the GR variant. So Tornado meant the bomber and F3 meant the interceptor

The Phantom F-4J(UK) became known very quickly as the "Yank Tomb".

[keefr22]

Ah but the Hunter was the FGA9!

Duncan B

Good point, well made...!!

[Rich G]

Air Cadet Publication no 34 being quoted now then..........

Long time since I read that book for my Air Training Corps exams, way back in the mid to late 80's. But still a very good source of information for questions like this.

I am also glad to see that what we learnt in the Air Cadets has actually become useful! I remember reading it back in the 90's for one of my early cadet exams.

Rich

[Flankerman]

The Phantom F-4J(UK) became known very quickly as the "Yank Tomb".

Are you sure it isn't 'Yank Toom' Enzo ???

I thought the Phantom had the nickname of 'Toom' - (as in Phantoom)

'Yank Tomb' seems to imply that it was regarded as a death trap.

My apologies if that's what you really mean.....

Ken

[Enzo the Magnificent]

Are you sure it isn't 'Yank Toom' Enzo ???

I thought the Phantom had the nickname of 'Toom' - (as in Phantoom)

'Yank Tomb' seems to imply that it was regarded as a death trap.

Toom/tomb... potato/potato

[sniperUK]

I am also glad to see that what we learnt in the Air Cadets has actually become useful! I remember reading it back in the 90's for one of my early cadet exams.

Rich

I only teach it

[Flankerman]

Toom = Shorthand for Phantoom

Tomb = Burial chamber

Ken

[Enzo the Magnificent]

Tomb = Burial chamber

<pedant>

Not necessarily. A tomb does not have to be underground. Ulysses S Grant lies in a tomb above ground. Hence the apparently strange situation that there is no one buried in Grant's Tomb...

</pedant>

[Roland Pulfrew]

And then we have the Typhoon... typically the first designated version of an aircraft should denote the primary role of that aircraft. Subsequent marks can designate additional roles. So the first version of the Lightning was the F.1. The trainer version was the T.4. So why was the first version of the Typhoon designated T.1????

Not so mental young Enzo. The first of type in the UK was the T1. For a change it was decided to bring the trainer variant in to service err... first! Thus the T1 followed by F2 (and subsequently T3 and FGR4). A much more logical way to introduce the trainer first when you think about it.

[Truro Model Builder]

TSR as in TSR.2 actually stood for Tactical Support and Reconnaissance. Quite why it was TSR.2 and not TSR.1 I do not know (and don't mention the Swordfish!). The F-4J(UK) Phantom remark regarding the F.3 designation is quite correct. And the Sea Harrier FRS.2 was changed to F/A.2 to denote its multi-role capabilities, and later still to FA.2 as I believe that the software would not accept the /.

There are many other oddities:

-the Hercules C.1 was stretched with the -30 fuselage plugs to become the C.3. So when the C-130J was ordered, why was the -30 variant the C.4 and the standard length aircraft the C.5 and not the other way around?

-why wasn't the Sea King AEW conversion designated AEW.6, which was the next available number at the time?

-the Chipmunk: T.10?

-remaining with Sea Kings, after the AEW.7 was redesignated ASaC.7, how come the RAF didn't do the same for the Sentry, as ASaC is much more indicative of its capabilities. Indeed, why wasn't the E-3D designated AWAC.1 from the start?

-why did the ex-BA Tristars all retain the same mark number as K.1s or KC.1s? Indeed as the first ones entered service purely as passenger transports, it should have been C.1, K.2 and KC.3 with the ex-PanAm aircraft also being C.1s.

And have you noticed that a lot of aircraft lately, particularly contractor-owned, haven't received mark numbers at all? The King Air (RAF and RN), Dauphin, the Agusta A.109 etc.

[Dave Fleming]

TSR as in TSR.2 actually stood for Tactical Support and Reconnaissance. Quite why it was TSR.2 and not TSR.1 I do not know (and don't mention the Swordfish!). The F-4J(UK) Phantom remark regarding the F.3 designation is quite correct. And the Sea Harrier FRS.2 was changed to F/A.2 to denote its multi-role capabilities, and later still to FA.2 as I believe that the software would not accept the /.

There are many other oddities:

-the Hercules C.1 was stretched with the -30 fuselage plugs to become the C.3. So when the C-130J was ordered, why was the -30 variant the C.4 and the standard length aircraft the C.5 and not the other way around?

-why wasn't the Sea King AEW conversion designated AEW.6, which was the next available number at the time?

-the Chipmunk: T.10?

-remaining with Sea Kings, after the AEW.7 was redesignated ASaC.7, how come the RAF didn't do the same for the Sentry, as ASaC is much more indicative of its capabilities. Indeed, why wasn't the E-3D designated AWAC.1 from the start?

-why did the ex-BA Tristars all retain the same mark number as K.1s or KC.1s? Indeed as the first ones entered service purely as passenger transports, it should have been C.1, K.2 and KC.3 with the ex-PanAm aircraft also being C.1s.

And have you noticed that a lot of aircraft lately, particularly contractor-owned, haven't received mark numbers at all? The King Air (RAF and RN), Dauphin, the Agusta A.109 etc.

Can't work out how to break these down and reply individually, so here goes!

Hercules C4/5 - the -30 was the first version to be ordered/ released for service, so it got C4.

Sea King AEW - from an engineering point of view, it was a mk 2, so all the mk 2 engineering manuals applied; There would also have had to be a much more extensive certification process for a new 'mark' (See also Lynx AH9A). As for the mk 7/Sentry, there would be no point in a whole new designator for an aircraft that had been in service for many years , especially not to make commonality with the Navy. And AWAC would be too American! :-)

Chipmnuk T10 - part of a seeming short-lived policy to start mark numbers at 10 for aircraft adapted from civil designs, or trainers depending on who you read (e.g. Miles Marathon T11)

Tristars - again, it's more to do with engineering than anything else - all the Mk1s were essentially the same (at least they started that way), whereas the mk 2s had a number of differences.

The Army Air Corps Dauphins at least have a designation - it's Dauphin (N3) AHmk1 (and I have seen documentation confimming that!)

The Contractor owned aircraft have a different engineering and release to service approval.

More info on the current process here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/military-aviation-authority-certification

Edited February 17, 2015 by Dave Fleming

[Roland Pulfrew]

I thought TSR was Tactical, Strike & Reconnaissance.

King Air in FAA service is, I believe, the Avenger T Mk 1.

The AEW mark followed on from the Shack AEW Mk 2 so the Sentry AEW Mk 1 made sense.

Also note that RAF Voyagers are KC2 and KC3 - what happened to the KC1?

[Dave Fleming]

Also note that RAF Voyagers are KC2 and KC3 - what happened to the KC1?

As you probably know, it's because the Australians use the KC-30A and the RAF aircraft were originally known as KC-30B and KC-30C, so B and C became 2 and 3. (Although I have heard that it's someone's idea of a quick waty to remember which has two refuelling points and which has three)

[keefr22]

I thought TSR was Tactical Strike & Reconnaissance.

Me too...

[Bobski]

And then we have the Typhoon... typically the first designated version of an aircraft should denote the primary role of that aircraft. Subsequent marks can designate additional roles. So the first version of the Lightning was the F.1. The trainer version was the T.4. So why was the first version of the Typhoon designated T.1????

Because the first version of the Typhoon was the twin-seat trainer, with the single-seat fighter following afterwards.

[tempestfan]

I knew 'Strike' meant nuclear, but it hadn't dawned on me before that it was only applied to ex-FAA types.

Did the SHar 1 really have nuclear capability ?

Incidentally, I'm just reading the book graced by your avatar pic.

(and don't mention the Swordfish!).

And the Sea Harrier FRS.2 was changed to F/A.2 to denote its multi-role capabilities,

-the Chipmunk: T.10?

Why not ? That would add "Spotter" to the number jungle...

Why exactly does Fighter Attack denote more capabilities than Fighter Recce Strike ? Note your fault, of course.

Not quite related to the Chipmunk, but I think all AOP types (incl. their trainer versions) were numbered consecutively, hence the Skeeter was AOP 10 - though if that is correct, it's more an AAC thing, probably.

[Giorgio N]

Did the SHar 1 really have nuclear capability ?

Yes, the type was nuclear capable. There are a number of threads discussing this in the modern section of this forum and there are pictures around of a WE.177 bomb under a Sea Harrier wing (starboard only IIRC)

Edited February 18, 2015 by Giorgio N

[Seahawk]

Why exactly does Fighter Attack denote more capabilities than Fighter Recce Strike ? Note your fault, of course.

It doesn't: nothing extra at all. I suspect this was a trendy designator dreamed up by analogy with F/A-18 to try and persuade our American cousins, who could be forgiven for not being too acquainted with our designation system, that the Sea Harrier Mk.2 was a multi-role airctaft and not just an air defence asset. That's no excuse for ASac though, which is ugly as well as impenetrable.

[Truro Model Builder]

The Sea Harrier FRS.1 was designed to carry buckets of sunshine in the shape of the WE.177A.

TSR.2 was definitely Tactical SUPPORT and Reconnaissance.

Get the point about the C-130J-30 being released to service sooner, but the designations had been allocated before then.

Royal Navy King Airs are not designated Avenger T.1. They are officially known as King Air 350s, or so the Senior Pilot of 750 NAS told me.

[Seahawk]

Why not ? That would add "Spotter" to the number jungle...

"Spotter" has never been a role prefix. By the time role prefixes came in, the naval spotter role was all but extinct. Though in the army cooperation role there was AOP.

[keefr22]

TSR.2 was definitely Tactical SUPPORT and Reconnaissance.

Where did you get that from, as it still confuses me?! I'd have thought Strike Command wouldn't be particularly happy having their shiny new toy labelled so as to sound like a transport....!!

Edit: whilst I know you can't believe everything you read on Wiki, this is what I've always believed TSR2 stood for;

"and in January 1959 the Minister of Supply announced that the TSR-2 would be built by Vickers-Armstrongs working with English Electric;[35] the initials coming from "Tactical Strike and Reconnaissance, Mach 2, the 'Strike' part of the designation specifically referring in RAF terminology to a nuclear weapons role."

[tempestfan]

"Spotter" has never been a role prefix. By the time role prefixes came in, the naval spotter role was all but extinct. Though in the army cooperation role there was AOP.

I know, I don't think ever having read about a Swordfish being referred to with a role prefix at all. But as the ball was dropped, I couldn't resist.

[charlie_c67]

Where did you get that from, as it still confuses me?! I'd have thought Strike Command wouldn't be particularly happy having their shiny new toy labelled so as to sound like a transport....!!Edit: whilst I know you can't believe everything you read on Wiki, this is what I've always believed TSR2 stood for

Add to that this article which states the same...

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/tsr2/history.php

[sloegin57]

It appears that, as is normal these days, someone, somewhere is attempting to re-write history in accordance with their own imagination. No doubt we will be seeing more of this from SAM under the new management.

The 'S' in TSR.2 stood for "Strike". The Air Ministry said so, Flight said so, Air Pictorial said so, BAC said so and for what its worth, so did the Daily Mirror :-

"S" also stood for "Strategic" as in Victor B/S.R. Mk.2. I know that we did a lot of Diplomatic Bag runs between UK and the US but that hardly classified us as "Support".

Dennis

[Enzo the Magnificent]

Not so mental young Enzo. The first of type in the UK was the T1. For a change it was decided to bring the trainer variant in to service err... first! Thus the T1 followed by F2 (and subsequently T3 and FGR4). A much more logical way to introduce the trainer first when you think about it.

The problem is that the Mk.1 version has always denoted the main role of the aircraft. The Hunter was a fighter and so the first version was the F.1. The Hawk was a trainer so the first version was the T.1. Why not do the logical think and designate the trainer version of the Typhoon as the T.2? There was nothing to stop them bringing tit into service first.