Commercial usage of "military" designations

[Stargazer]

Thank you so much Andreas for your ever so captivating explanations. I for one could read on without getting tired as the subject of US designations absolutely fascinates me...

In the same vein as Bell using F-109 commercially without any approval of either the designation or the type, I'm also thinking of the recent Lockheed T-50 trainer, which apparently has forced the USAF to skip that number and proceed directly to T-51... Sikorsky's efforts with H-76 and H-92 probably would lead to the same situation if these numbers weren't so far from today's mark (though H-76 is now getting pretty close).

 

[Andreas Parsch]

In the same vein as Bell using F-109 commercially without any approval of either the designation or the type, I'm also thinking of the recent Lockheed T-50 trainer, which apparently has forced the USAF to skip that number and proceed directly to T-51...

I don't think the T-50 label was used with the explicit intent to suggest an official DOD designation. Interestingly, DOD did not simply skip T-50, but actually reserved the official T-50A designation for the aircraft.

Sikorsky's efforts with H-76 and H-92 probably would lead to the same situation if these numbers weren't so far from today's mark (though H-76 is now getting pretty close).

H-76 is indeed pretty close, and it's possible (even likely) that DOD will skip it. And if "H-76" is registered as a trademark by Sikorsky, it might even be illegal for DOD to use the same label for a different helicopter.

In fact, one reason (possibly the primary one, and at least the only acknowledged one) for skipping C-42 is a conflict with a civilian "C-42" airplane. And that was an aircraft, which was neither a transport nor even remotely military!

 

[Stargazer]

If manufacturers start sueing the military for duplicate use of their designations, there's trouble ahead!

The USCG stays pretty clear from this risk by going for high number transports (C-143 and C-144) or reusing the company designations (MH-90, HV-911, etc.). Perhaps the future of military designations? I hope not!

 

[Vahe Demirjian]

If manufacturers start sueing the military for duplicate use of their designations, there's trouble ahead!

The USCG stays pretty clear from this risk by going for high number transports (C-143 and C-144) or reusing the company designations (MH-90, HV-911, etc.). Perhaps the future of military designations? I hope not!

H-76 remains unassigned, while C-145, C-146, and C-147 have been allocated to PZL Mielec, Fairchild Dornier, and Dash 8-300 planes in US service respectively. And note that HV-911 isn't an official designation, while H-76 is unassigned so far.