"B-for-Bomber" designations on missiles?

[gatoraptor]

Many years ago, Lloyd Jones' book "U.S. Bombers" was the first place I ever saw the use of "B-for-Bomber" designations used for guided missiles. However, even though the book was revised as late as 1980, the last such designation in Jones' book was the B-68/SM-68 Titan.

The new Bill Yenne book "U.S. Guided Missiles", though, lists "B-for-Bomber" designations on missiles as high as 92, and I wonder if anyone here agrees with that listing. Two of the designations on the list are 70 and 71, which conflict with aircraft that received those numbers.

Admittedly, none of the missiles after the Titan were ever actually assigned a "B" designation, but Yenne implies that the numbers were in the same series as the bombers.

Here is his complete list from 70 onwards. The later designations, where applicable, are listed in parentheses:

IM-70 (RIM-8) Talos
GAM-71 Buck Duck
GAM-72 (ADM-20) Quail
SM-73 Bull Goose
SM-75 (PGM-17) Thor
TM-76 (MGM-13) Mace
GAM-77 (AGM-28) Hound Dog
SM-78 (PGM-19) Jupiter
GAM-79 White Lance
SM-80 (LGM-30) Minuteman
RM-81 Agena
RM-82 Loki Dart
GAM-83 (AGM-12) Bullpup
RM-84 Aerobee-Hi
RM-85 Nike-Cajun
RM-86 Exos
GAM-87 (AGM-48) Skybolt
SRM-88 Rocksonde
RM-89 Blue Scout I
RM-90 Blue Scout II
RM-91 Blue Scout Junior
RM-92 Blue Scout Junior

 

[Jos Heyman]

This is indeed a contentious issue and has been subject to many discussions and opinions in many forums.
Here is what I think about it:
From March 1951 the B series was also used for a number of missiles which, initially, performed a typical ‘bomber mission’. When, at a later date, it was decided to use more specific letters in the designation of missiles, the numerical series established by these earlier missiles, was continued although none of the later missiles were ever assigned a ‘B’ designation and were, often, not equipped to perform ‘bomber missions’. Nevertheless, these missiles retain the numerical sequence established by the B series. There are a few ‘overlaps’.

Similarly in the F = Fighter series you will find the F-98 and F-99 position being occupied by missiles (Hughes Falcon and Boeing Bomarc).

I think the problem - like all designation problems - started when the military personnel responsible for designation had to come up with a quick solution. They found one, but did not take into account that there were 'designation fanatics' (like myself) who would analyse these things for he next fifty years or so.

Hope this helps.

 

[Stargazer]

A few remarks about this list:

• You missed out the little-known Convair XSM-74, a swept-wing, vee-tail decoy SSM design with a fuselage partially made of non-metallic composites. It was submitted for MX-2223 and lost out to XSM-73. It would seem that the designation may not have been approved in the end, hence its being left out from most lists.
• The GAM-72 was initially called the Green Quail. The "Green" part was then dropped, just like Buck Duck became plain Duck and Bull Goose became plain Goose.
• The RM-82, RM-84, RM-85, RM-86 and RM-88 were redesignated as PWN-1A to PWN-5A.
• The RM-91 was redesignated as SLV-1A.
• I have the RM-92 under the name Air Force Scout or Air Force Junior.
• There was also apparently an allocation of the out-of-sequence M-101 designation to the Raytheon Sparrow III at some point.

Allow me to recapitulate the first M-series in more detail:

XB-61	Martin	Matador	XSSM-A-1
YB-61	Martin	Matador	YSSM-A-1
B-61A	Martin	Matador	TM-61A
TM-61A	Martin	Matador	B-61A
TM-61B	Martin	Matador	YTM-76, MGM-13A
TM-61C	Martin	Matador	MGM-1C
XB-62	Northrop N-25	Snark	XSSM-A-3, XSM-62
XSM-62	Northrop N-25	Snark	XB-62, XSSM-A-3
XRB-62	Northrop N-124	Snark	XRSM-62
XRSM-62	Northrop N-124	Snark	XRB-62
XSM-62A	Northrop N-69	Snark
SM-62A	Northrop N-69	Snark
XB-63	Bell Model 56	Rascal	XGAM-63
XGAM-63	Bell Model 62	Rascal	XB-63
B-63	Bell Model 66	Rascal	ASM-A-2, GAM-63
GAM-63	Bell Model 66	Rascal	ASM-A-2, B-63
B-63A	Bell Model 66	Rascal	GAM-63A
GAM-63A	Bell Model 66	Rascal	B-63A
XB-64	North American G-26	Navaho II	XSSM-A-4, XSM-64
XSM-64	North American G-26	Navaho II	XSSM-A-4, XB-64
XB-64A	North American G-38	Navaho III	XSSM-A-6, XSM-64A
XSM-64A	North American G-38	Navaho III	XSSM-A-6, XB-64A
XB-65	Convair Model 7	Atlas	SM-65
XB-65A	Convair	Atlas	XSM-65A
SM-65	Convair	Atlas	B-65
XSM-65A	Convair	Atlas	CGM-16D
XSM-65B	Convair	Atlas	CTM-16D
XSM-65C	Convair	Atlas	CGM-16E
XSM-65D	Convair	Atlas	CTM-16E
SM-65D	Convair Model 27	Atlas	HGM-16F
USM-65D	Convair Model 27	Atlas
SM-65E	Convair Model 27	Atlas
USM-65E	Convair Model 27	Atlas
SM-65F	Convair Model 27	Atlas
M-66	not assigned
XB-67	Radioplane	Crossbow	XGAM-67
XGAM-67	Radioplane	Crossbow	XB-67
GAM-67	Radioplane	Crossbow
XSM-68	Martin	Titan I
SM-68	Martin	Titan I	HGM-25A
SM-68A	Martin	Titan I
USM-68A	Martin	Titan Trainer	HTM-25B
XSM-68B	Martin	Titan II	XLGM-25C
SM-68B	Martin	Titan II	LGM-25C
IM-69	Boeing Model 621	Bomarc	designation originally reserved for IM-99 but not used at Boeing's request
XIM-70A	NOTC / Bendix	Talos	SAM-N-6b1, RIM-8C
XIM-70C	NOTC / Bendix	Talos	SAM-N-6bW1, RIM-8D
XGAM-71	Convair	Buck Duck (Duck)
XGAM-72	McDonnell Model 107A	Green Quail (Quail)
GAM-72	McDonnell Model 107A	Green Quail (Quail)	ADM-20A
GAM-72A	McDonnell Model 107A	Quail
GAM-72B	McDonnell Model 107A	Quail
GAM-72C	McDonnell Model 107G	Quail	[WS-122A]
GAM-72D	McDonnell Model 107H	Quail
XSM-73	Fairchild	Bull Goose (Goose)
XSM-74*	Convair		[MX-2223] *allocation not approved
XSM-75	Douglas DM-18	Thor	XPGM-17A
SM-75	Douglas DM-18	Thor	PGM-17A
USM-75	Douglas DM-18	Thor	PTM-17A
YTM-76	Martin	Mace	TM-61B
TM-76	Martin	Mace	MGM-13A
YTM-76A	Martin	Mace	MGM-13B,A
TM-76B	Martin	Mace	CGM-13C,B
(X)GAM-77	North American (Rockwell)	Hound Dog	AGM-28A
GAM-77A	North American (Rockwell)	Hound Dog	AGM-28B
SM-78	Chrysler	Jupiter	PGM-19A
GAM-79	Martin	White Lance
XSM-80	Boeing Model 823	Minuteman I
HSM-80A	Boeing Model 871?	Minuteman I	LGM-30A
HSM-80B	Boeing Model 871?	Minuteman I	LGM-30B
HSM-80F	Boeing Model 872?	Minuteman II	LGM-30F
XRM-81	Lockheed/Bell	Agena
RM-81	Lockheed	Agena
SRM-81	Lockheed	Agena
SRM-81A	Lockheed	Agena
XRM-82	JPL	Loki-Dart	PWN-1A
GAM-83	Martin	Bullpup	AGM-12A
TGAM-83	Martin	Bullpup Trainer
GAM-83A	Martin	Bullpup
GAM-83B	Martin	Bullpup
XRM-84	Aerojet General Model 150	Aerobee-Hi	PWN-2A
XRM-85	University of Michigan/NACA	Nike-Cajun	PWN-3A
XRM-86	University of Michigan	Exos	PWN-4A
GAM-87	Douglas DM-20	Skybolt
XGAM-87A	Douglas DM-20	Skybolt	XAGM-48A
GAM-87A	Douglas DM-20	Skybolt	AGM-48A
XRM-88	Cooper Development	Rocksonde 200	PWN-5A
XRM-89	Ford Aeronutronics	Blue Scout I
XRM-90	Ford Aeronutronics	Blue Scout II
XRM-91	Ford Aeronutronics	Blue Scout Junior	SLV-1A
XRM-92	Ford Aeronutronics	Air Force Scout	also known as the 'Air Force Junior'
Out of sequence:
IM-99/A	Boeing Model 621	Bomarc	XF-99
AIM-101	Raytheon	Sparrow III	AIM-7D

 

[gatoraptor]

So, effectively, Jones' book was correct, since no number after 68 actually appeared on a missile with a "B" in front of it. His book probably omitted the SR-71 for the same reason; it was never a B-71. 66 was obviously skipped for missiles since the Douglas B-66 already had taken the number. And his "U.S. Fighters" book does show the missile usage for the F-98 and F-99.

It is interesting that 70 and 71 thus had dual usage. So the numbers from 70 onward really were a continuation of the "B-for-Bomber" numbering system, even though they were never actually used with the letter "B". Some of those missiles were offensive weapons that could theoretically be thought of as unmanned bombers (like the Matador, Snark, Atlas and Titan) but a lot of them were not. Most interesting.....

 

[Stargazer]

Up to the B-67 the numbers were not reallocated to aircraft (I'm not counting B-66 because, as you said it yourself, it was never allocated to a missile in the first place).
B-67 was the last of the "B-" missiles.

From that point onwards, the B- and M- series were continued in parallel, both starting at number "68."

Just for the record:

• B-68 was never allocated to a missile. It was directly allocated to the Martin Model 316 bomber project.
  It is pure coincidence that the (S)M-68 designation was also allocated to a Martin project.
• B-69 was allocated to an Air Force variant of the Lockheed P2V-7 Neptune.
• B-70 briefly became the RS-70 ("Reconnaissance Strike") but this was never used and B-70 somehow stuck.
• B-71 seems to have been given at a very early stage on paper to what became the Lockheed Blackbird.
  It briefly became the RS-71 but legend has it that the RS- prefix died out when a government official goofed and called it an SR-71 instead (leading to the invention of the "Strategic Reconnaissance" category to justify the mistake).

[Thanks to Andreas Parsch for fixing the mistakes!]

 

[Jos Heyman]

I did not know about the AIM-101 Sparrow designation. Perhaps this designation was not 'out of sequence' in the B=Bomber series but 'in sequence' in the F=Fighter series - we perhaps have not yet discovered the M-100? Just a stray thought frommyt part........

 

[nugo]

Hi All!
Marin Matador---Model 233
Martin Bullpup---Model 293
Martin Titan I---Model 327


Boeing BOMARC---XIM-99/Model 621, IM-99A/Model 624, IM-99B/Model 631
Fairchild XSM-73---Model 230

 

[Stargazer]

Hi All!
Marin Matador---Model 233
Martin Bullpup---Model 293
Martin Titan I---Model 327


Boeing BOMARC---XIM-99/Model 621, IM-99A/Model 624, IM-99B/Model 631
Fairchild XSM-73---Model 230

Thanks a lot nugo, I'd forgotten to update these in my own list. Two remarks here:

• Do you have a source for the Martin 233 designation?
• I have the Martin Model 327 designation also quoted for a WS-107A fighter-bomber project... Which is right?

 

[nugo]

My Friend Stargazer2006!
Martin Aircraft Model Designations, Built and Unbuilt:
233--Unassigned----proposal of the Matador of 1945/46 year and Model 233 also proposal of 1945/46 year, and maybee Matador...or ?.
327--WS-107A - Fighter bomber, Air Force Canceled-----maybee error or ?
328 - - Fighter bomber, Air Force Canceled-----has a true.
WS-107A---is a Titan I missile program (WS-107A-2)

 

[Stargazer]

233--Unassigned----proposal of the Matador of 1945/46 year and Model 233 also proposal of 1945/46 year, and maybee Matador...or ?.

What do you mean here by "unassigned"?
As for the year, the designation "233" would be more compatible with 1948.

WS-107A---is a Titan I missile program (WS-107A-2)

Ah, okay... I guess the "fighter-bomber" mention for "327" must have been a mistake and it was Titan I alright.

 

[gatoraptor]

I did not know about the AIM-101 Sparrow designation. Perhaps this designation was not 'out of sequence' in the B=Bomber series but 'in sequence' in the F=Fighter series - we perhaps have not yet discovered the M-100? Just a stray thought frommyt part........

To me, it makes more sense that it would have been in the "F-for-Fighter" numbering sequence. Maybe the Sidewinder also once had a short-lived "AIM-10X" number?

 

[nugo]

Hi All!

My Friend Stargazer2006.


Model 234---XA-45 proposal. In February of 1946, a design competition was announced.
Model 235---USN OS-106(XF7U-1) specification. Late in 1945-in early 1946 a design competition was announced.
Model 236---Competitor of Boeing Model 462(XB-52). On February 13, 1946, new bomber project was submitted to the aviation industry.
Model 237---XP5M-1. The BUAER issued a contract for the XP5M-1 to the Martin Company on 26 June 1946.
..and do so on.

...and Model 233---proposal of 1945/46 years, but not 1948 year.

 

[Stargazer]

Model 234---XA-45 proposal. In February of 1946, a design competition was announced.
Model 235---USN OS-106(XF7U-1) specification. Late in 1945-in early 1946 a design competition was announced.
Model 236---Competitor of Boeing Model 462(XB-52). On February 13, 1946, new bomber project was submitted to the aviation industry.
Model 237---XP5M-1. The BUAER issued a contract for the XP5M-1 to the Martin Company on 26 June 1946.
..and do so on.

...and Model 233---proposal of 1945/46 years, but not 1948 year.

Thanks nugo. I know where my mistake came from. I used the flight dates instead of the design dates! :-[

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Ah, one of of my pet subjects . A lot of wrong or misleading information has been published on the "Missiles in the B-series subject". But the facts are quite simple:

• Between 1951 and 1955, some tactical and strategic missiles received B-for-Bomber designations, sharing the sequence with manned aircraft. This led to the assignment of B-numbers 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 and 67 to missiles.
• In early 1955, a new designation system for guided missiles was established. Existing missiles had their prefix changed from B to SM, TM or GAM.
• After the new missile designation system had been introduced, both the B-series (for manned bombers) and the _M-series (for guided missiles) continued in parallel(!) with #68!
• It's pure coincidence, that the number 68 was alloacated to a Martin project in both B and M series! The XB-68 was a tactical bomber project, and the XSM-68 Titan missile was never designated as XB-68.
• The B-series reached -70, and the M-series -92.

B-68A Martin Titan I

No. See above. But I just had to say it again : There was never a B-68 Titan missile!

Only B-68 and B-69 were allocated twice to totally different programs:

Neither B-68 nor B-69 were "allocated twice", because the missiles #68 and #69 never had a B designation.

Stargazers missile designation list appears very complete and correct, except for two minor typos:

• XGAM-71 (and not XIM-71)
• XRM-82 (and not plain M-82)

 

[Andreas Parsch]

I did not know about the AIM-101 Sparrow designation. Perhaps this designation was not 'out of sequence' in the B=Bomber series but 'in sequence' in the F=Fighter series - we perhaps have not yet discovered the M-100? Just a stray thought frommyt part........

AIM-101 is indeed still a mystery. I have a bit of semi-educated speculation about it on my website:

http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/old-missiles.html#_USAF_1961

 

[Andreas Parsch]

I did not know about the AIM-101 Sparrow designation. Perhaps this designation was not 'out of sequence' in the B=Bomber series but 'in sequence' in the F=Fighter series - we perhaps have not yet discovered the M-100? Just a stray thought frommyt part........

To me, it makes more sense that it would have been in the "F-for-Fighter" numbering sequence.

The placement of interceptor missiles into the F-series stopped in 1955, way before the Sparrow III missile came around. The last F-designation for a missile was XF-104, a short-lived designation for a Falcon variant, which was soon changed to XF-98A (and the F-104 slot reused, obviously ).

Maybe the Sidewinder also once had a short-lived "AIM-10X" number?

Almost certainly not. All official USAF/DOD documents covering the redesignation of missiles in 1963 list the pre-1963 designation of the USAF Sidewinder as GAR-8.

 

[Stargazer]

The XB-68 was a tactical bomber project, and the XSM-68 Titan missile was never designated as XB-68.

But I just had to say it again : There was never a B-68 Titan missile!

Neither B-68 nor B-69 were "allocated twice", because the missiles #68 and #69 never had a B designation.

Awfully sorry for repeating a common mistake here... Thanks a lot Andreas for correcting me. I will edit my list accordingly.

Stargazers missile designation list appears very complete and correct

Phew! At least it wasn't all useless! ;D

except for two minor typos:

• XGAM-71 (and not XIM-71)
• XRM-82 (and not plain M-82)

Ah well... Nobody's perfect! LOL

The placement of interceptor missiles into the F-series stopped in 1955, way before the Sparrow III missile came around. The last F-designation for a missile was XF-104, a short-lived designation for a Falcon variant, which was soon changed to XF-98A (and the F-104 slot reused, obviously ).

Does there exist a list of all the initial allocations that were replaced later on? I can also remember "XF-106" for what became the XF-84H...

 

[Sea Skimmer]

Is it certain AIM-101 was ever actually used by the air force, and not just some company marketing blurb like F-106X was? On a side note, the also kind of mysterious RIM-101 really does appear to be duel mode Redeye.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Does there exist a list of all the initial allocations that were replaced later on? I can also remember "XF-106" for what became the XF-84H...

A complete list? Probably not . Jos Heyman and I have collected some designation re-uses here: http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/duplications.html .

 

[Vahe Demirjian]

I did not know about the AIM-101 Sparrow designation. Perhaps this designation was not 'out of sequence' in the B=Bomber series but 'in sequence' in the F=Fighter series - we perhaps have not yet discovered the M-100? Just a stray thought frommyt part........

Andreas Parsch years ago learned of a little-known Air Force designation system used from 1961-1963 for missiles, spacecraft, and rockets (http://designation-systems.net/usmilav/old-missiles.html#_USAF_1961), and AIM-101 seems to be the only currently unclassified missile designation allocated under that system because "AIM" fits within the confines of the designation system (means "Aircraft-launched, Intercept, Missile").