1962 United States Tri-Service Aircraft-Designation System

[Jos Heyman]

Thanks for this information, it adds to my database. Of course these three aircraft would have been redesignated as A-2B which still leaves us with the A-2A (ex AJ-1).
It is also interesting to note that the redesignation list of 18 September 1962 (AFR 66-11, BUWEPS Instruction 13100-7) only includes the A-2A designation, not A-2B. May be these three aircraft were "discovered' at a later date.

 

[aim9xray]

Well, some further digging finds images of XAJ-1 Buno 121460 on the ramp at Pensacola... in 1977(!) No, not a mis-mark - a F-14A is visible behind it. It is missing cowlings and outer wing panels and has a nose-tow landing gear. Ginter's book says that it "finished out its days on bailment to Grumman for nose gear testing" [presumably in the early sixties]. It has the inscription on the tail: NAEL-SI - Naval Aviation Engineering Laboratory - any ideas on the "SI"?

I can imagine the "X" being removed from the designation and the remaining "AJ-1" being converted to "A-2A".

But here's a twist. All the Savages do appear to have been stricken from the list of Naval Aircraft by 1960 or so. But being stricken does not necessarily mean that the aircraft vanishes into thin air (Flight 19 excepted). It is simply removed from the list that enumerates the Navy's legally authorized end strength of combat and support aircraft regardless of the physical disposition (crash, salvage, sale etc.)

The airframe remains accountable government property after it is stricken, particularly if it is bailed to another Government agency or especially a contractor. As accountable property, you have to use the proper nomenclature to inventory it. And working backwards, if it is on the list of accountable property, you would have to convert the designation to the Tri-Service designation... which appears to have happened.

(As a practical example, the China Lake has a number of stricken aircraft on hand for the Weapons Survivability Lab - each has a property number and tag.)

 

[Andreas Parsch]

It is also interesting to note that the redesignation list of 18 September 1962 (AFR 66-11, BUWEPS Instruction 13100-7) only includes the A-2A designation, not A-2B. May be these three aircraft were "discovered' at a later date.

The designation "A-2B" never appeared in the official MDS list. My best guess (which might well be not good enough ) is that the AJ-2s were truly gone for good by 1962, but that there was at least one AJ-1 left over in some remote corner of the Navy inventory. This specific AJ-1 remains to be identified, though.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

I was correct about Lycoming's AJ, but in Strike from the Sea, I stated that "All (AJs) were stricken as of October 1959." It didn't occur to me that statement didn't make sense if the AJ was included in the redesignation as the A-2. Good catch.

The Naval Aircraft Inventory Lists list a single AJ-1 under the heading "Bailment" in Table 8 ("Non-Program Aircraft by Model") until September 1962. In the October 1962 edition (which is the first one to use the new designations), this aircraft is no longer listed. To me the whole issue looks very similar to the F2Y/F-7 case - one aircraft of the type was still formally in the inventory and therefore had to be redesignated.

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

More helpful research. My guess is that this is the same as my guess re the F2Y: For some reason, the XAJ-1 that aim8xray identified wasn't formally disposed of. As a result, it got a designation from the DoD bureaucracy. This brought its existence to a Navy official's attention and he immediately directed that it be taken off the rolls. In this scenario, the NASA AJ-2s would probably have to have been formally transferred from the Navy rather than bailed. I'll try to remember to look up the aircraft history cards for these AJs when I get back to Washington to see what was recorded. However, in my experience a prototype didn't get an aircraft history card so that probably won't verify the XAJ situation.

 

[Stargazer]

Ever wondered why the DoD resorted to the old C-series for the USCG's C-143A and HC-144A, instead of the tri-service second series? Here is the explanation, according to the Coast Guard itself:

The number 143 was selected on 15 December 2005, reviving the pre-1962 USAF C-series, where the last actually allocated number was 142. Unofficial information indicates that there was some internal DOD confusion as to whether C-42, the nominal next number in the post-1962 C-series, was available for allocation. To avoid possible confusion the continuation of the older C-series was used because the C-143 slot was definitely available.

Source: http://uscgaviationhistory.aoptero.org/history05.html

I find it incredible that such confusion might still happen nowadays!

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Ever wondered why the DoD resorted to the old C-series for the USCG's C-143A and HC-144A, instead of the tri-service second series? Here is the explanation, according to the Coast Guard itself:

The number 143 was selected on 15 December 2005, reviving the pre-1962 USAF C-series, where the last actually allocated number was 142. Unofficial information indicates that there was some internal DOD confusion as to whether C-42, the nominal next number in the post-1962 C-series, was available for allocation. To avoid possible confusion the continuation of the older C-series was used because the C-143 slot was definitely available.

Source: http://uscgaviationhistory.aoptero.org/history05.html

The Coast Guard quote is a close to verbatim paraphrasing of what I wrote at that time on my website at http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/missing-mds.html (scroll down to section about C-143). My source of information was a personal e-mail exchange with the head of the USAF office at the Pentagon, which is responsible for final approval of MDS designators.

 

[Stargazer]

Thanks Andreas. Once again you were right on the spot!

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Thanks Andreas. Once again you were right on the spot!

Really? ???

Just to prevent any possible misunderstandings: When C-143 was allocated, I had no idea why, and I remember that my initial guess at that time was fairly off ;D ! But because of a lucky coincidence, I had a "direct e-mail line" to the USAF officer I mentioned in my previous posting, and the guy was really helpful with the occasional "unofficial" inside information. So I asked, and published the substance of the answer on my website. So "right on the spot" somehow doesn't quite match "had the luck to know the right person" .

BTW, before anyone asks: Said "direct contact" no longer exists, because personnel in the office has since changed.

 

[PNorwood]

At exactly what point in time were all of the F5D Skylancers transferred out of the Navy's inventory to NASA?

 

[aim9xray]

Desig Buno Loc Serial Transfer In Comments
F5D-1 139208 Ames NACA-212 20 Aug 1957 Later converted to Ogee wing research.
FRC NASA-212 15 Jun 1961 Edwards AFB
Ames NASA-708 4 Mar 1963 SST Studies retired April 1968
F5D-1 139209 Ames - 16 Jun 1958 Used for spare parts.
F5D-1 142349 Ames - 18 Jun 1958 Used for spare parts.
F5D-1 142350 Ames NACA-213 20 Aug 1957 Target for auto maneuver interception.
FRC NASA-213 16 Jun 1961 Dyna-Soar pad escape tests; chase plane.
FRC NASA-802 Retired to AFM 1970, held until Neil
Armstrong Museum completed.


Data: Flying the Frontiers; NACA and NASA Experimental Aircraft, by Arthur Pearcy
Naval Fighters 35: Douglas F5D-1 Skylancer, By Steve Ginter

 

[Stargazer]

According to this bit of information...

Ames NASA-708 4 Mar 1963

... and following the logic behind the post-1962 designation of the Savage as A-2, this particular Skylancer alone should have been given an F- designation in the new series. This didn't happen.

 

[aim9xray]

Because it was no longer in the Navy system at the time. If it was not under Army, Navy or Air Force accountability at the time, there was no need to redesignate it.

Since NASA owned it, they could call it *whatever* they wanted. NASA is not under the regulation of the Tri-Service system, hence the HL-10/20 and M2F1/2/3 designations.

 

[Stargazer]

I've edited this post. My mistake. :-X

 

[Andreas Parsch]

You failed to get my point. NASA got that aircraft in March 1963.

No, NASA received BuNo 139208 in 1957 ... as has been highlighted by aim9xray in his table ! After that, it was only transferred within NASA.

 

[Stargazer]

Doh. I can be such a fool at times... :-X I need my morning coffee alright. Let me edit that post and let's say nothing happened, okay? ;D

 

[PNorwood]

So, all of the F5D's were out of the USN's inventory by 1958?

 

[aim9xray]

Correct, transferred out just before the end of the Fiscal Year.

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

A baby step in combining the designation system as reported in the December 1952 issue of Naval Aviation News, page 28. Note that the T-34 designation was also common.

 

[Stargazer]

Very interesting confirmation of something I'd always wondered about but couldn't find a written explanation for... Indeed the T-28B and the T-34B were NEVER called the TJ and the TB... though I'll forever wonder why North American's Buckeye became a T2J and not a TJ, and whether "TJ" had actually been reserved at some point for the Trojan... (its forerunner being the SN2J, before the "N-for Trainer" class was changed to "T").

 

[Andreas Parsch]

though I'll forever wonder why North American's Buckeye became a T2J and not a TJ, and whether "TJ" had actually been reserved at some point for the Trojan...

The designation TJ-8 had been allocated for the production version of the SNJ-8. The TJ-8 was cancelled. but the "TJ" designation wasn't re-used.

 

[Stargazer]

Wow! Thanks Andreas, this is one major mystery that finally gets an explanation... It's been bugging me for 25 years!!!

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

Another oddity in the pre-1962 designations is that the Navy opted to change the designation of the UV-1L, which was a basic C-130B Hercules modified for Antarctica operations with skis, among other things, to the C-130BL. The L indicated winterization in Navy designation practice. (I'm not sure what the Air Force practice was. Similar Air Force C-130s, an earlier conversion from C-130As, were designated C-130D.) In the 1962 change, the modified mission code for an aircraft modified for cold weather operation was L, now a prefix, with the C-130BLs becoming LC-130Fs. Part of the oddity is that the Marine Corps Hercules retained their designation of GV-1 until the 1962 change, at which point they became KC-130Fs. My guess is that either the maintainers or the customers of the Antarctica Hercules asked for the change from UV-1L to simplify their lives and/or avoid confusion with the UC-1 Otter.

 

[PNorwood]

At this site, you find extensive tables of USN aircraft and their operational status. Open page 70 of the "June 1962" file, and you'll find "Table 8: Distribution of Non-Program Aircraft by Model". Under "Fighter", it has a line listing a single YF2Y-1 with status "Awaiting Decision or Strike". In the next issue (July 1962), the YF2Y-1 is gone. This single YF2Y-1 can be actually tracked back to the "September 1956" file - most of the time, it's in the "Board of Inspection and Survey" status class.

When was the earliest date in which the status of the YF2Y-1 was amended to "Awaiting Decision or Strike"?

 

[AM]

Hi All

from http://www.uswarplanes.net/

(Model 737-7ES) E-7A Wedgetail
2004, international AEW&C aircraft.
Produced 2002 - present
Boeing Renton, Washington

it's official designation: E-7A ???

 

[Andreas Parsch]

it's official designation: E-7A ???

Offcial - yes. Allocated by the U.S. Department of Defense - no.

This "E-7A" is an Australian designation. It was probably coordinated in some way with US authorities (e.g. to make sure that the skipped E-7 slot would not be allocated by DOD in the future), but it has not been entered into DOD's designation list (by end of September '12 at least).

 

[Jos Heyman]

I agree with Andreas - to a certain extent.
First of all, Australian aircraft do not have Australian designations (of course we happily use everybody else's designations). We do have something that looks like a designation in the serial numbers, A for aircraft + a number, engines having B. In the case of the Wedgetail this is A30, displayed with additional numbers to identify the individual aircraft.
The US Warplanes site is, IMHO, not a reliable source. If you go to http://www.aewa.org/Library/wedgetail-info.html you will find E-737 mentioned - probably equally unreliable.
Finally, in my records I have a mention that the E-7A designation was reserved from August 1981 to January 1982 for Boeing 707 aircraft which were eventually designated as EC-18B etc.

 

[Stargazer]

Finally, in my records I have a mention that the E-7A designation was reserved from August 1981 to January 1982 for Boeing 707 aircraft which were eventually designated as EC-18B etc.

Not quite. According to my files:

• The E-7A was supposed to be a modification of the C-18A (but was apparently cancelled).
• The E-8A was the former EC-18C redesignated.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

My short paragraph about E-7 on the page http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/missing-mds.html is essentially a verbatim copy of the information, which I received from a FOIA request about some "missing" MDS designations several years ago.

Anyway, there is no doubt that the E-7 slot was skipped in the 1980s, and that the Australians are currently calling their "Wedgetail" 707s the "E-7A". The only question is, if this "E-7A" designation will find its way into the official DOD list or not.

BTW, the Australian "KC-30B" designation für A330-based tankers also looks like a U.S. DOD designation, but is not actually one.

 

[gatoraptor]

Has anyone come up with why most helicopters since 1962 are still being numbered in the old pre-1962 system, and why some trainers (but not all) were also numbered in the old system?

 

[Jos Heyman]

Add to that the use of F = Fighter (like in F-117) and C = Transport (like in C-144 etc).

 

[gatoraptor]

Add to that the use of F = Fighter (like in F-117) and C = Transport (like in C-144 etc).

I think the F-117 was a special case, where they took one of the "unofficial" designations they assigned (mostly to MiGs) at Groom Lake (or similar sites) and made it official once the presence of the type was made public. All the other post-1962 fighters have stuck to the system, though with the unfortunate gap between F-23 and F-35!

But the C-143 thru C-146 are another legitimate "violation" of the post-1962 system.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Has anyone come up with why most helicopters since 1962 are still being numbered in the old pre-1962 system, and why some trainers (but not all) were also numbered in the old system?

Whether to continue the "old" or the "new" series was explicitly defined in the various regulations concerning the redesignations in 1962. Of all the letters, which were taken over from the old USAF system, B, C and F were restarted with -1, while H, T, U and X were to continue the "old" series. The rationale behind this seems clear to me: The basic idea was to (re-)start every series from -1, but the U-series had only reached U-5 anyway, and H, T, and X had relatively low numbered active designations, so that restarting at -1 could lead to conflicts in the near future. I don't know, why some redesignations for H and T used "low" numbers beginning from -1 anyway.

This scheme was followed for many years, until the USAF started to assign a few new "low" T-series numbers. The reasons for this are entirely unclear.

The biggest confusion is obviously in the C-series since the allocation of C-143A. At that time, I had e-mail contact to an officer in the DOD office which approved the MDS designators. I asked about the C-series, and was told that after the "new" series had reached C-41A, they ran into bureaucratic troubles (as I would call it ). There is a small sports plane called "Ikarus C-42", and it appears that DOD's "legal department" wanted to avoid a possible trademark violation. I know that this sounds a bit ridiculous, but that's what the DOD guy told me. Furthermore, he told me that at that time there were troubles with "classified designations" and they were not sure if some C-series numbers in the 40s were used by such "classified designations". He said that the easy way out of all this was to continue the "old" C-series for the next allocation - C-143A was definitely free for use. I don't think that my contact made all this up - it sounds like a genuine bureaucracy SNAFU. But it does not explain, why there were new designations in both "new" and "old" C-series afterwards. And unless someone here happens to know one of the current staff at DOD's MDS nomenclature office, we'll probably never know ...

And finally, the "old" F-series was never really continued in an "offical MDS" way. The various designations like YF-113A etc. (including F-117) were only cover designations, and (with the exception of F-117A) never part of the proper designation system.

 

[Stargazer]

Thanks Andreas for this.

A few remarks/questions of my own:
[list type=decimal]
[*]You say that U was to continue the "old" series and that the "U-for-Utility" series "had only reached U-5", which comes as a surprise to me since I thought the U- series was the post-1962 continuation of the pre-1962 "L-for-Liaison" series. Do you mean to imply that U-1 to U-5 were allocated BEFORE the tri-service system? And if so, how could that designator coexist with the L- series? All U- designations up to U-20 (U-2 and U-17 excepted) were redesignated from prior designation systems, many from the L- series, so I really would appreciate some explanation on that.

[*]Has any convincing explanation for the jump from U-11 to U-16 surfaced? The fact that U-16 was chosen because it was an easy substitute for the former SA-16 makes sense, but why did they not use the numbers in between?

[*]The designation RU-38A was derived from the manufacturer's model number, following common Coast Guard practice to designate aircraft out of the regular alphanumerical sequences, but does its official allocation by the DoD imply that the designations U-29 to U-37 will never be used?

[*]You say that H was also to continue the old series, yet the 1962 redesignations contained H-1 to H-6 from the start. However, since this list has not been carried on with since then, one can reasonably conclude it was discontinued.

[*]Such is not the case with the T- designator. Its use is especially weird, not just because the U.S. Navy redesignated its T2V and T2J as T-1 and T-2 instead of following from the old system, but also because USAF itself shifts from one system to the other in a seemingly random way: reusing T-1 for the Beechjet 400A, then jumping to T-3 for apparently no reason for the Slingsby Firefly, and then to T-6 for the Beech Texan II (as an evocation of the old Texan)... while continuing to designate other trainers as T-47 to T-53 in parallel.

[*]Considering the mess that is the H-1 slot, with two distinct families of helicopters (Hueys and Cobras) sharing the letters and sometimes reusing them, it is strange that no-one ever considered redesignating the Cobra under a completely separate number.

[*]Classified designations in the C- series? Apart from the YFC-36A (redesignated as the YAL-1A) what transport aircraft could possibly be secret enough for even its basic model number not to be released? A fighter I could understand... but a transport? Something to do with the Senior Citizen program, perhaps?

[*]gatoraptor mentioned "C-143 to C-146". I'm only aware of the first two. Do you have any information on C-145 and C-146, whatever they might be?
[/list]

 

[Andreas Parsch]

1. You say that U was to continue the "old" series and that the "U-for-Utility" series "had only reached U-5", which comes as a surprise to me since I thought the U- series was the post-1962 continuation of the pre-1962 "L-for-Liaison" series. Do you mean to imply that U-1 to U-5 were allocated BEFORE the tri-service system? And if so, how could that designator coexist with the L- series? All U- designations up to U-20 (U-2 and U-17 excepted) were redesignated from prior designation systems, many from the L- series, so I really would appreciate some explanation on that.

U was introduced in 1955 with the U-1A. The USAF redesignated their L-27 and L-26 aircraft as U-3 and U-4 at some time after the allocation of U-2, but definitely before 1962. I don't know why the other remaining USAF L-planes (L-20 and L-28) were not redesignated at the same time. U-5 was a new allocation in 1961 or 62, and the allocation of new numbers for the redesignation scheme started with U-6A (for the L-20A).

2. Has any convincing explanation for the jump from U-11 to U-16 surfaced? The fact that U-16 was chosen because it was an easy substitute for the former SA-16 makes sense, but why did they not use the numbers in between?

No idea, why U-12 to -15 were never assigned. DOD's nomenclature records apparently contain nothing whatsoever about these numbers.

3. The designation RU-38A was derived from the manufacturer's model number, following common Coast Guard practice to designate aircraft out of the regular alphanumerical sequences, but does its official allocation by the DoD imply that the designations U-29 to U-37 will never be used?

No. U-28A was allocated after RU-38A, so I assume the next U-number would be -29A.

4. You say that H was also to continue the old series, yet the 1962 redesignations contained H-1 to H-6 from the start. However, since this list has not been carried on with since then, one can reasonably conclude it was discontinued.

Yes. Until now at least - you never know what will happen in the future : .

5. Such is not the case with the T- designator. Its use is especially weird, not just because the U.S. Navy redesignated its T2V and T2J as T-1 and T-2 instead of following from the old system, but also because USAF itself shifts from one system to the other in a seemingly random way: reusing T-1 for the Beechjet 400A, then jumping to T-3 for apparently no reason for the Slingsby Firefly, and then to T-6 for the Beech Texan II (as an evocation of the old Texan)... while continuing to designate other trainers as T-47 to T-53 in parallel.

The weirdest thing here is the re-use of T-1A. If the USAF decides to continue with low numbers, why not use T-3 in the first place?

The later skip to T-3 is logical, because the T-2 designation was still active. And while T-6 was out of sequence, it was explicitly explained as a nod to the old T-6. After that, things simply returned to normal, and I think that for the time being, new T-designations will continue with the "old" series.

6. Considering the mess that is the H-1 slot, with two distinct families of helicopters (Hueys and Cobras) sharing the letters and sometimes reusing them, it is strange that no-one ever considered redesignating the Cobra under a completely separate number.

Even more so since they're running out of suffix letters ;D .

7. Classified designations in the C- series? Apart from the YFC-36A (redesignated as the YAL-1A) what transport aircraft could possibly be secret enough for even its basic model number not to be released? A fighter I could understand... but a transport? Something to do with the Senior Citizen program, perhaps?

Don't know (of course I don't know, otherwise it wouldn't be classified ;D ). But my contact mentioned "classified designations" in the context of the C-series confusion - I was surprised as well. I asked if he really meant that there are things like classified MDS designations, and he didn't deny it (without going into any details, of course).

8. gatoraptor mentioned "C-143 to C-146". I'm only aware of the first two. Do you have any information on C-145 and C-146, whatever they might be?

http://www.designation-systems.info/usmilav/412015-L%28addendum%29.html
C-145A is the PZL M28 Skytruck, and C-146A is the Dornier 328 - both in use by AFSOC.

 

[Stargazer]

Many thanks, Andreas! ;D

 

[gatoraptor]

I don't buy the argument that H and T continued to use the old system because they had "low numbered active designations". I believe the H series was up to at least the high 40s, and the original H-1 (actually R-1) and subsequent were all past history - I think even the last of the Sikorsky H-5s had been phased out well before 1962. And in the case of the T series, they were into the 30s, and all of the old trainers (renumbered from AT/BT/PT) were also past history - I think that any remaining T-6s were all in private hands.

And since they did use some of the new series, why did they stop and go back to the old series?

 

[Andreas Parsch]

I don't buy the argument that H and T continued to use the old system because they had "low numbered active designations". I believe the H series was up to at least the high 40s, and the original H-1 (actually R-1) and subsequent were all past history - I think even the last of the Sikorsky H-5s had been phased out well before 1962.

The lowest number still in use in 1962 was H-13 (followed by H-19, -21, -23 and -25). During the course of the redesignation process, 13 new H-numbers were allocated, either for redesignations or for new allocations during the transition: H-1 through H-6, and H-46 through H-52 (of which -49 was cancelled before the process had been finished). I.e., had they decided to start over from H-1 for all new designations, they would have immediately run into conflicts.

And in the case of the T series, they were into the 30s, and all of the old trainers (renumbered from AT/BT/PT) were also past history - I think that any remaining T-6s were all in private hands.

Ok, I have to step back in this case . I admit that I had the T-6 in mind - I thought that a few lingered on into the 60s, but didn't check. The lowest active designation in 1962 was apparently T-28. Furthermore, only 2 new numbers were needed for the redesignations, so there appears to be no compelling reasons why they couldn't have continued the T-series with -3 instead of -41.

And since they did use some of the new series, why did they stop and go back to the old series?

Valid question for T. For H, the question is more why they used some low numbers in the first place, when it must have been pretty clear that they would very quickly bump into existing numbers. Anyway, I have no idea for both questions. And since I also don't have the slightest idea, how the whole process was managed, I won't even begin to speculate .

 

[Stargazer]

Thanks folks. This whole redesignation thing shows a lot of goodwill but sometimes a solid lack of common sense...

For instance:

• If the H-13 alone was a problem, why not keep it as H-13 in the new system and allocate H-7 to H-12 and then jump to H-14?
  
• Why even "H-13" in the first place, since the number "13" was skipped from every other designation series after the war?
  
• With the plethora of C-130 versions, why not use the skipped C-30 of the new series for continuation of the Hercules versions?
  
• Creation of T-1 and T-2 for USN trainers made even less sense that the Navy had never given it's Trojan a USN designation, it had always been T-28B (in an early attempt at a standardized USAF/USN system), so T-41 and T-42 would have made perfect sense!
  
• Why stubbornly continue to list the main designator "K-" in official documents since 1955 when there has NEVER been ANY aircraft to receive a tanker-only designation?

 

[Jos Heyman]

I would suggest that the people who allocate designations really do not care too much about whether the designation makes sense in a designation series and follows the sequence neatly. Their objective seems to be to have some identification whatever that may be. Since 1962 there are many instances where designations were 'commercialised' to suit the aircraft builder. One example of the C-10 (Handley Page Jetstream and the tanker version of the DC-10) and I wonder if C-9 was influenced by the commercial designation DC-9. F-20 was used because that was a nice number that Northrop liked (F-19 was apparently skipped for that) and F-35 was used because Lockheed Martin wanted to continue on from X-35.
Why in the 'olden days' a sequence was so sacred instead of the almost free-for-all that takes place, is something I just don't know. Perhaps it has something to do with computerised records (no need to go through many hard copy documents, perhaps?????).
The same thing is going on with serials, in particular those of the USAF. Whilst a sequntial serial range was at one point in time essential, these days the USAF serial number can be anything - construction number, a number series that goes over various fiscal years, serial number that are, somehow, associated with the squadron to which the aircraft is assigned, just to mention a few weirdos. US Navy, so far, has respect for the preservation of a serial sequence.
So, in my honest opinion, I think we can expect more and more weird designations and serials that make no sense to us designation (and serials) freaks. But be honest, it keeps us in business....
Finally, whilst some of us freaks have been tinkering with designations for years (about 50 in my case), the folks that assign the designations are in the job for a short period before they move to another (possibly more exciting) job. So don't expect conformity: new person, new ideas etc. etc. And don't expect rational explanations for what was done in the past.....