The Air Force has issued the U.S. military’s first ever ‘fighter drone’ designations.

[sublight_]

'Fighter Drone' Designations Officially Assigned To Collaborative Combat Aircraft By USAF

General Atomics and Anduril's CCAs are officially designated YFQ-42A and YFQ-44A, the first aircraft with 'fighter drone' prefixes ever.

www.twz.com

YFQ-42A and YFQ-44A it is then.....

 

[southwestforests]

Curious use of a word, will have to look it up & I want to bring it up to our local creative writers group this coming Saturday,

as well as the ability to use the drones more indecently on their own missions, have also been discussed.

 

[Arjen]

If I gloss over indecently, the message appears to be that the designed use of a 'Fighter Drone' would be in cooperation with manned aircraft, while leaving open the possibility of employing it on drone-only missions.

I wonder what kind of mind would think of that as indecent.

 

[scautomoton]

perhaps its a typo and should "independently"?

 

[Archibald]

Idiots - they should have used the F-24 to F-34 empty slots, just adding a "Q" to them.

 

[Stargazer]

Idiots - they should have used the F-24 to F-34 empty slots, just adding a "Q" to them.

I thought so too at first, but on closer inspection, it is not the same. Adding a Q prefix to a Fighter makes it a simple target drone. Also, these aircraft are not manned fighters that are used in unmanned mode, they are UAV designs from the very start, which are specifically used here for combat, but could also be configured for other tasks.

 

[scautomoton]

I thought so too at first, but on closer inspection, it is not the same. Adding a Q prefix to a Fighter makes it a simple target drone. Also, these aircraft are not manned fighters that are used in unmanned mode, they are UAV designs from the very start, which are specifically used here for combat, but could also be configured for other tasks.

agreed, otherwise One could argue the clash of A-10 vs F-10 vs C-10 etc etc

 

[TomS]

I thought so too at first, but on closer inspection, it is not the same. Adding a Q prefix to a Fighter makes it a simple target drone. Also, these aircraft are not manned fighters that are used in unmanned mode, they are UAV designs from the very start, which are specifically used here for combat, but could also be configured for other tasks.

Yeah, I think the type and mission codes are correct for the current system.

They do seem to be continuing the "tradition" of pulling Q-series numbers out of thin air, however. Either that or there are a ton of undisclosed drones with MDS designations out there.

 

[Stargazer]

They do seem to be continuing the "tradition" of pulling Q-series numbers out of thin air, however. Either that or there are a ton of undisclosed drones with MDS designations out there.

I've commented upon that in the topic about out-of-sequence designations. My belief is that they've already all been allocated on paper, and will be revealed over the next few months.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/off-standard-us-dod-aircraft-designations-ea-37b-e-130j-etc.44612/post-762995

 

[scautomoton]

I've commented upon that in the topic about out-of-sequence designations. My belief is that they've already all been allocated on paper, and will be revealed over the next few months.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/off-standard-us-dod-aircraft-designations-ea-37b-e-130j-etc.44612/post-762995

This would entail a level of common sense and transparency that the military is not particularly renowned for. I suspect there's a far more illogical reason.

 

[TomS]

I've commented upon that in the topic about out-of-sequence designations. My belief is that they've already all been allocated on paper, and will be revealed over the next few months.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/off-standard-us-dod-aircraft-designations-ea-37b-e-130j-etc.44612/post-762995

I'm with Andreas on this. Even if they have all been allocated (unlikely given the latest MDS he got) I think they won't be unveiled all at once, and some may not be for decades.

 

[sferrin]

That's quite amazing given they haven't seemed to have cared much about following them for years. But it lets them get a headline. . .

 

[NMaude]

The people at Wikipedia have moved fast both designs now have their own wikipedia entry:

General Atomics YFQ-42
Anduril YFQ-44

Just looking at the designations made me realise they skipped 43, I wonder why?

 

[TomS]

The people at Wikipedia have moved fast both designs now have their own wikipedia entry:

General Atomics YFQ-42
Anduril YFQ-44

Just looking at the designations made me realise they skipped 43, I wonder why?

Possibly assigned on paper to one of the unsuccessful bidders.

 

[Desertfox]

MQ-28 perhaps?

 

[Stargazer]

South Korean magazine dated March 6 already had an article on the subject. These guys are fast!

 

[Stargazer]

Official USAF picture:


Source: https://www.12ftw.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2003655880/

 

[Dreamfighter]

Adding a Q prefix to a Fighter makes it a simple target drone. Also, these aircraft are not manned fighters that are used in unmanned mode, they are UAV designs from the very start, which are specifically used here for combat, but could also be configured for other tasks.

Maybe one day some of them will end up with a 'QFQ-42' and/or 'QFQ-44' (target) designation.

 

[MadRat]

Should have no visible intake to confuse the enemy.

And I was hoping it used more of a diamond shape with minimal stabilizers. At this point it nedds to be using vectoring bleed air to keep it simple, stupid.

 

[ncc81701]

The people at Wikipedia have moved fast both designs now have their own wikipedia entry:

General Atomics YFQ-42
Anduril YFQ-44

Just looking at the designations made me realise they skipped 43, I wonder why?

Based on “The Merge”’s USAF source it is because -1 and -3 are flight/element leads in a 4-ship formation. Since CCAs are loyal wingmen they were given 42 and 44 and so 43 is skipped because it implies a flight/element leader.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Based on “The Merge”’s USAF source it is because -1 and -3 are flight/element leads in a 4-ship formation. Since CCAs are loyal wingmen they were given 42 and 44 and so 43 is skipped because it implies a flight/element leader.

This is super weird , and I find it kind of hard to believe. Also, what does a pilot flying an F-22 say to this ?

 

[NMaude]

Also, what does a pilot flying an F-22 say to this ?

Does that mean an F-23 would be in the lead?

 

[Yellow Palace]

This is super weird , and I find it kind of hard to believe. Also, what does a pilot flying an F-22 say to this ?

Is it really any weirder than, say, F-35 or B-21?

If that is the basis for the designation, one might imagine NGAD being designated F-41. Which would be equally arbitrary, but we're through the looking glass now....

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Is it really any weirder than, say, F-35 or B-21?

Actually, while F-35 and B-21 didn't follow the sequence, the numbers are explained pretty well. F-35 = number taken from X-35, because of screw-up in public presentation; B-21 = "Bomber of the 21st century".

That FQ-42 is out of sequence again is not a big surprise (most new numbers are), and 42 itself is obviously always a good number . But the alleged explanation for skipping #43 is weird, even by the USAF's standards. "Callsign prefixes" - really??

<wild-speculation>
Maybe they just wanted to use even numbers, because some odd ones have been used for classified purposes? "YF-45D" is effectively confirmed, and there is even a rumor (but admittedly unconfirmed, and most likely false) about a "YF-43B".
</wild-speculation>

If that is the basis for the designation, one might imagine NGAD being designated F-41. Which would be equally arbitrary, but we're through the looking glass now....

Yes, why not. Or F-50, to begin yet another new "decade" in fighter numbers. Or "F-51 Mustang II".

 

[Stargazer]

That FQ-42 is out of sequence again is not a big surprise (most new numbers are), and 42 itself is obviously always a good number .

Don't panic!

But the alleged explanation for skipping #43 is weird, even by the USAF's standards. "Callsign prefixes" - really??

Totally silly, I agree!

Yes, why not. Or F-50, to begin yet another new "decade" in fighter numbers. Or "F-51 Mustang II".

I can totally see that happen. In fact, you may just have given the guys the idea!