Official MDS database listing — current official DoD aircraft designations

[Stargazer]

Quoted from Andreas Parsch in another topic:

Just in case someone asks about the mentioned "MDS database": It's not classified, but there is no public access to it. In May 2014, I FOIA-requested a full excerpt. and got a PDF:
http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/original-docs/Tab_1_A8_PDF_MDS_listing_20140509.pdf
There are very few "weird" entries (like A-14A), but mostly it's just a somewhat nerdy reference

.

I'm starting this topic so we can discuss the "weird" entries... and then some. Feel free to comment, ask questions, and so forth!

 

[Stargazer]

Embraer A-14A: Single engine turbo-prop, low-wing, all metal, two-seat, pressurized light attack aircraft; USN; one PT-6A-68C engine.
Embraer A-29B: Light attack aircraft, which is a single-engine turboprop, low-wing, all-metal, two-seat, pressurized light attack aircraft; USN; one PT6A-68 engine.


These two entries obviously refer to one and the same type, a Brazilian Tucano as listed under a standard DoD designation (A-14A, next slot available after the cancelled A-12A Avenger II) and A-29B (a Brazilian Navy designation reused "as is"). There is no indication that these could be two different variants, and since "A-14A" has never been seen in use anywhere else than this list, one can rightfully assume that it was to be the official designation before the original designation "A-29B" stuck.

However, an interesting hypothesis can be seen on the Military Aircraft Designations Yahoo! group as follows:

I have a feeling A-14A is the designation for the EMB-314 aircraft leased for the Imminent Fury/Combat Dragon II program. A-29A is the designation for the EMB-314 aircraft that Embraer had marketed under the AT-29 designation, which was selected for the Light Air Support (LAS) program.

Please note however that the PDF doesn't list an "A-29A" at all, just an A-29B.

More about "Imminent Fury", from a 2009 web page of the Neptunus Lex site that is no longer online:

The US Navy is apparently eying a new strike aircraft – one that’s “not invented here,” probably won’t costs $83 million per copy, and won’t land on an aircraft carrier:
The U.S. Navy’s new Irregular Warfare office has been looking at an agile Brazilian observation and ground-attack turboprop to provide an “organic” close air support aircraft for special operations forces.
Under the classified “Imminent Fury” program, the Navy has already leased, tested and armed at least one Embraer EMB-314 Super Tucano, according to Capt. Mark Mullins, a naval special warfare officer serving as the deputy director of the Navy Irregular Warfare Office at the Pentagon.
“This is a close air support, manned aircraft with a pilot and sensor operator. The idea here is that SOF needs an organic capability that can stick with them while they’re doing their mission,” Mullins said. “We’re not buying them; we’re leasing them right now. That’s an important point.”

I have attached a photo of the "Imminent Fury" aircraft for reference. If anyone knows what the black stallion on the nose is supposed to represent (a squadron?) please let us know.

 

[Stargazer]

KC-145A (manufacturer to be determined): Replacement for the KC-135 Stratotanker family of aerial refueling tankers. Will also have a receptacle to allow its own refueling. Secondary missions include passenger, cargo, and aero-medical avacuees (sic); USAF; 2 engines to be determined.


A weird entry to say the least... First of all, it appears squeezed between the C-12 and C-14 (which is totally illogical). Secondly, it duplicates the C-145A designation already applied to the PZL Mielec M28 Skytruck used by the US Air Force!! It could be a typo, as even this document is not devoid of them (for instance: TAMAMO instead of TACAMO for the E-6A!)

 

[Stargazer]

ZRQ-21A (manufacturer to be determined): UAV that will provide situational awareness by providing ISR capability from 3,000-ft of 1-meter size objects; USN/USMC; single engine to be determined.


Other sources (see attached PDF) clearly give the RQ-21A as the InSitu Blackjack (formerly known as the Integrator) a Multimission mini-UAV for STUAS (Small Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System) requirement...

 

[tigercat2]

Thanks very much for posting this list; it is indeed rather strange. It looks as if it was put together by someone with no knowledge or interest in aviation, aircraft history or accuracy.


Many aircraft listed have been out of the inventory for over 30 years, such as the RA-5C and EB-57E, and many other entries are just plain wrong, like the YF-7F (should be the YA-7F Strikefighter).


Wes W.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

KC-145A (manufacturer to be determined): Replacement for the KC-135 Stratotanker family of aerial refueling tankers. Will also have a receptacle to allow its own refueling. Secondary missions include passenger, cargo, and aero-medical avacuees (sic); USAF; 2 engines to be determined.


A weird entry to say the least... First of all, it appears squeezed between the C-12 and C-14 (which is totally illogical). Secondly, it duplicates the C-145A designation already applied to the PZL Mielec M28 Skytruck used by the US Air Force!! It could be a typo, as even this document is not devoid of them (for instance: TAMAMO instead of TACAMO for the E-6A!)

This entry is clearly a typo for KC-45A (just as YF-7F should be YA-7F). I think we can assume that a typo in this list doesn't make the mistyped MDS an official one .

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Thanks very much for posting this list; it is indeed rather strange. It looks as if it was put together by someone with no knowledge or interest in aviation, aircraft history or accuracy.

The list is the result of 50 years of bureaucracy, where presumably very few of the people who were responsible for it at one time or the other had lots of interest in aviation history.

Many aircraft listed have been out of the inventory for over 30 years, such as the RA-5C and EB-57E,

The DOD office maintaining the list does not delete entries by themselves. An entry is removed if the military office responsible for an aircraft program issues a proper request to delete an MDS. This involves paperwork etc. which probably nobody likes to do. And who cares about an obsolete MDS, which has no effect on the assignments and uses of current designations? In fact, I sometimes wonder why many older MDS have been deleted at all.

What also makes me wonder is the apparently random selection of a few "historical" entries (e.g. some old bomber designations). To me, this looks like they had maybe an intern around 2004, who was given the task to enter historical designations into the database. When the internship ended, so did the effort to add historical designations, and the result are the oddball entries we see today .

 

[Stargazer]

KC-145A (manufacturer to be determined): Replacement for the KC-135 Stratotanker family of aerial refueling tankers. Will also have a receptacle to allow its own refueling. Secondary missions include passenger, cargo, and aero-medical avacuees (sic); USAF; 2 engines to be determined.


A weird entry to say the least... First of all, it appears squeezed between the C-12 and C-14 (which is totally illogical). Secondly, it duplicates the C-145A designation already applied to the PZL Mielec M28 Skytruck used by the US Air Force!! It could be a typo, as even this document is not devoid of them (for instance: TAMAMO instead of TACAMO for the E-6A!)

This entry is clearly a typo for KC-45A (just as YF-7F should be YA-7F). I think we can assume that a typo in this list doesn't make the mistyped MDS an official one .

Quite right! What misled me here is that this is supposed to be an up-to-date 2014 list and so it's obvious that the KC-45A is NOT to be since it's the KC-46A Pegasus that took its place! (plus the KC-45A is already listed there in its proper place!)

 

[quellish]

Received today through USAF FOIA request 2022-06005-F , supposedly current as of October 2022. Sadly this copy is just a list of designations without any other information.

 

[aim9xray]

Wow. Malicious compliance at its finest.


Press on, my friend.

 

[Stargazer]

Wow. Malicious compliance at its finest.

They didn't even care to insert the additions in their proper place along the way. I wonder if it's malice, laziness or just incompetence, of which there seems to be plenty of around these days...

 

[CiTrus90]

No YF-117D for Tacit Blue, no YF-118G for Boeing/McDD Bird of Prey, no Northrop YF-23...
And yet there are the YF-22A, the YF-117A, a YF-7F (that I suppose is meant to be the YA-7F?), etc.

 

[Stargazer]

a YF-7F (that I suppose is meant to be the YA-7F?), etc.

Yep, I actually commented as much a few posts above, about an earlier release of the same list.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

a YF-7F (that I suppose is meant to be the YA-7F?)

There are several typos in this list. For some of them, one can make a reasonable guess for the correct designation:
- AMH-130R: Some C-130 variant, maybe AMC-130R
- MIM-147A: Almost certainly MIM-174A, for the land-based SM-6

What makes me really wonder is "W-2A". It has to be a typo (there is no "W" primary mission or vehicle type letter), but I cannot imagine any real designation "close" to it.

 

[quellish]

No YF-117D for Tacit Blue, no YF-118G for Boeing/McDD Bird of Prey

Those designations, if they’re considered official, are probably maintained by another organization

 

[TomS]

There are several typos in this list. For some of them, one can make a reasonable guess for the correct designation:
- AMH-130R: Some C-130 variant, maybe AMC-130R
- MIM-147A: Almost certainly MIM-174A, for the land-based SM-6

What makes me really wonder is "W-2A". It has to be a typo (there is no "W" primary mission or vehicle type letter), but I cannot imagine any real designation "close" to it.

My guess would be E-2A, which otherwise appears to be missing. Presumably based on screwing up the conversion from W2F-1 to E-2A? (Or possibly just because E and W are next to each other on a keyboard. )

 

[Scott Kenny]

My guess would be E-2A, which otherwise appears to be missing. Presumably based on screwing up the conversion from W2F-1 to E-2A? (Or possibly just because E and W are next to each other on a keyboard. )

Seconded.

 

[CiTrus90]

Yep, I actually commented as much a few posts above, about an earlier release of the same list.

My bad, I jumped at it immediately before carefully reading the whole thread.

What makes me really wonder is "W-2A". It has to be a typo (there is no "W" primary mission or vehicle type letter), but I cannot imagine any real designation "close" to it.

Agree on the typos explanation as the most logical, but I believe the W designation would denote a weather/atmospheric research vehicle (think for example WB-57F, WP-3D, etc.).
Maybe, at some point, NASA's ER-2 received the designation of W-2A but that didn't stick? A bit like the FA-22A vs F-22A story.

BTW speaking of F-22s, there is also a F-22B on that list...

Those designations, if they’re considered official, are probably maintained by another organization

Interesting. Could that also explain why they do not follow the proper Mission Design Series' rules? As in the YF-117D which, despite sporting the F- designation, would clearly not be a prototype for a fighter? Same with the YF-117A, that might have retained it in the official MDS as being "ported over" from the "other" organization's list?
Plus the complete lack of MDS for all foreign exploitation types as well.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Agree on the typos explanation as the most logical, but I believe the W designation would denote a weather/atmospheric research vehicle (think for example WB-57F, WP-3D, etc.).

The W prefix is a Modified Mission Letter, which cannot stand on its own. Similar e.g. to K-for-Tanker, which is also only a prefix.

Interesting. Could that also explain why they do not follow the proper Mission Design Series' rules? As in the YF-117D which, despite sporting the F- designation, would clearly not be a prototype for a fighter? Same with the YF-117A, that might have retained it in the official MDS as being "ported over" from the "other" organization's list?
Plus the complete lack of MDS for all foreign exploitation types as well.

I have tried to summarize the historical background of these designations here:

https://designation-systems.net/usmilav/coverdesignations.html

 

[Stargazer]

The W prefix is a Modified Mission Letter, which cannot stand on its own. Similar e.g. to K-for-Tanker, which is also only a prefix.

Except "K" as a standalone prefix was officially assigned, but never used, wasn't it?

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Except "K" as a standalone prefix was officially assigned, but never used, wasn't it?

Correct. But it was removed from the MDS regulation decades ago (late 70s or early 80s).

 

[DWG]

BTW speaking of F-22s, there is also a F-22B on that list...

F-22B was planned as the two seat trainer, then cancelled quite late on. Entirely predictable there'd be an MDS assigned before the cancellation.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Received today through USAF FOIA request 2022-06005-F , supposedly current as of October 2022. Sadly this copy is just a list of designations without any other information.

I can now offer some more information, although it's still frustratingly incomplete.

After more than 4 years, I received the response to my FOIA request for a full excerpt of the MDS database. I attached the XLS file "as is".
- Good news: The data was apparently generated in February 2024, so it's quite current.
- Bad news: For whatever reason (most likely just carelessness), they cut off all columns after "Approval Date". Unfortunately, one of the victims is the "Description", which often (but luckily not always) is crucial to make the link between the designation and the aerospace vehicle behind it.

The data contains a lot of oddities, incl. plain and silly typos. The overall impression is that whoever is entering the data here, is rather careless when copying data from MDS request and confirmation letters to the storage database. This can make the assessment, whether a particularly strange MDS was really assigned or has only been garbled in the database, quite difficult in a few cases.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Some follow-up to older remarks, based on the list I shared in the preceding post ...

There are several typos in this list. For some of them, one can make a reasonable guess for the correct designation:
- AMH-130R: Some C-130 variant, maybe AMC-130R
- MIM-147A: Almost certainly MIM-174A, for the land-based SM-6

Turns out that I couldn't have been more wrong on these two !

AMH-130R data from the file:
- Manufacturer: Special Operations Forces Support Activity
- Name: Cayuse (MELB)
- Engine: 1 Rolls-Royce 250-C30R/3M7
- Department: USSOCOM

So the actual MDS is quite obviously AMH-6R, which has been announced a while ago as the designation for the latest A/MH-6 iteration. The immediately preceding entry in the MDS file is GMC-130P, so apparently the design number was accidentally copied-and-pasted into the AMH-6R entry.

MIM-147A data from the file:
- Manufacturer: Rafael
- Name: (none)
- Engine: 1 Rocket Motor with 34 Kg of HTPB/AP/AL/RDX Class 1.3C & Igniter BPN 12gr. Class 1.3Gn
- Department: USN/USMC

So it's not a typo for MIM-174, but I cannot make an immediate connection to a specific Rafael missile here. Maybe someone has an idea? And of course, the number 147 is yet another hopelessly out-of-sequence (and re-used) one.

What makes me really wonder is "W-2A". It has to be a typo (there is no "W" primary mission or vehicle type letter), but I cannot imagine any real designation "close" to it.

W-2A data from the file:
- Manufacturer: Boeing
- Name: USSF EWS-G1 , Formerly NOAA GOES-13
- Department: USSF

Ok, the identification couldn't be more clear then this. But the MDS itself is obviously a typo: The prefix for a weather monitoring satellite is WS and not W. So could it be WS-2A? In principle yes, because even if it would be out-of-sequence, the original WS-2A designation has long been retired and removed from the list. But it could just as well be WS-20A or WS-22A, because slots 20 and 22 in the S-for-Satellite sequence are so far unaccounted for. Unfortunately, while the USSF is apparently using MDS designations internally (otherwise, they wouldn't have requested the ES-19A, -21A and -23A designations for comsats taken over from the Navy), they don't use them in any public documents (like fact sheets etc.).

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Another "oddity" from the list:

QUH-101A
- Manufacturer: QinetiQ
- Name: (none)
- Engine: 1 Zanzottera MZ202
- Department: Army

From the QUH designation, and the engine (which was developed for ultra-light planes), it must be a relatively small rotary wing target drone, for which QinetiQ can act as a prime contractor in the US.

After some googling all around the web, my best guess is the "Mosquito UHV-T" (Unmanned Helicopter Vehicle Target). It was originally developed by Meggitt Target Systems, which was acquired by QinetiQ some years ago, and manned "Mosquito" variants seem to use Zanzottera engines.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

MIM-147A data from the file:
- Manufacturer: Rafael
- Name: (none)
- Engine: 1 Rocket Motor with 34 Kg of HTPB/AP/AL/RDX Class 1.3C & Igniter BPN 12gr. Class 1.3Gn
- Department: USN/USMC

So it's not a typo for MIM-174, but I cannot make an immediate connection to a specific Rafael missile here. Maybe someone has an idea? And of course, the number 147 is yet another hopelessly out-of-sequence (and re-used) one.

... and after some quick "research" (= Google ), I think the "Iron Dome" system's missile ("Tamir") is a valid guess here. The propellant weight is in the ballpark for a missile of that size, and the USMC plans to field several "Iron Dome" batteries.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

MDS Updates for 2024

6 weeks ago, I filed another FOIA request for the latest official MDS allocations, expecting that it will take again a very long time. Quite surprisingly, I received the reply already today. The bad news is, that the "Description" field of the MDS record was (again) not included, this time with an explanation: It's classified! Kind of, at least. To quote the letter from the FOIA office:

Per FOIA exemption 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) we are not providing the description column in the interest of national defense.

FOIA Exemption 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1), protects from disclosure information that has been deemed classified “under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy” and is “in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) Additionally, courts have recognized protection for information using a “mosaic theory” approach that considers the consequences of piecing together unclassified information maintained by the government with information in the public domain. See, ACLU v. DOJ, 681 F.3d 61, 71 (2d Cir. 2012) (finding protection of information necessary “even if the redacted information seems innocuous in the context of what is already known by the public”).

To me, this seems to say, that the MDS "description" is not necessarily classified per se, but information from it, together with information from elsewhere in the public domain, may lead to insights which TPTB would rather not give to the public.

Anyway, so what I got is a list of MDS, the allocation date, the manufacturer, the requesting service branch, data about the aircraft/missile's engines (sometimes) and the aircraft's official "popular name" (rarely). I present the new allocations from 2024 with the available data (+ a comment from me)...

XV-25A
Date: 27 March 2024
Service: Air Force / Army
Manufacturer: Piasecki
Name: ARES (Aerial Reconfigurable Embedded System)
Engine(s): 2x Honeywell 900-2-1D turboshaft

Comment: Great, the name entry leaves no doubt about this item .


AGM-88J
Date: 10 April 2024
Service: Air Force
Manufacturer: Northrop Grumman
Engine(s): 1x Solid Rocket Motor

Comment: This is SiAW (Stand-in Attack Weapons). For once, a designation, which could be expected.


AGR-20F
Date: 25 April 2024
Service: Air Force
Manufacturer: Multiple
Engine(s): 1x Solid Rocket Motor

Comment: Yet another APKWS II rocket variant, I assume.


ME-11B
Date: 25 April 2024
Service: Air Force
Manufacturer: Bombardier
Engine(s): 2x Rolls-Riyce BR700-710D5-21

Comment: I vaguely remember to have read about an E-11 variation, but I can't pin it down. Can someone help here?


AIM-174B
Date: 26 April 2024
Service: Navy

Comment: No data given, but not needed. The AIM-174B has been discussed all over the internet


C-40D
Date: 22 July 2024
Service: Air Force
Manufacturer: Boeing
Engine(s): 2x High-bupass turbofan CFM LEAP-1B

Comment: A planned C-40 variant as VIP transport


E-4C
Date: 22 July 2024
Service: Air Force
Manufacturer: Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC)
Name: Survivable Airborne Operations Center (SAOC)
Engine(s): 4x General Electric Genx-2B

Comment: The name says it all (replacement for E-4B)


ML-1A
Date: 29 August 2024
Service: Space Force
Manufacturer: BAE Systems Inc.

Comment: WTF ?? So far, "L" was for "Laser Armament". But in that series, L-1 was already used. Also, in the table, the "L" is in the "Vehicle Type", and not the "Basic Mission" column. Never saw an "L" vehicle type. And finally, it's for the Space Force - so far, the USSF only used satellite MDSs. All said, I don't have the slightest clue what this is about.


E-130J
Date: 8 October 2024
Service: Navy
Manufacturer: Lockheed Martin
Engine(s): 4x Rolls-Royce AE2100D3

Comment: Strange, but already known, designation for the Navy's TACAMO aircraft


AGM-181A
Date: 25 November 2024
Service: Air Force
Manufacturer: Raytheon
Engine(s): 1x F107-WI-106

Comment: This just drops the "Y" prefix from the MDS of the LRSO missile. And the engine data is new.


YMV-75A
Date: 25 November 2024
Service: Army
Manufacturer: Bell Textron, Inc.
Engine(s): 2x AE 1107F

Comment: So it seems the FLRAA / Bell V-280 Valor has finally got an official designation. 75 is of course wildly out of sequence, but I guess it's now standard practice to get a "special" number for the more important systems .


YRQ-10A
Date: 27 December 2024
Service: Army
Manufacturer: Textron Systems
Engine(s): 1x Lycoming EO-101

Comment: Q-series numbering is apparently out of control . Also, I have no immediate idea to which UAS this refers. Google doesn't even find an "EO-101" engine. Ideas, anyone?


YRQ-11A
Date: 27 December 2024
Service: Army
Manufacturer: Griffon
Engine(s): 1x HFE DA-215 EFI Hybrid Generator

Comment: Same as for YRQ-10A - except, that at least a "DA-215" engine seems to exist. OTOH, the Q-number duplication is even weirder, because the RQ-11 Raven is still in use. Also, the Griffon website doesn't seem to list an UAV with a DAI-215 engine.



That's all for now. Comments are of course welcome, especially ideas on the ID of the various "unknown" aircraft.

 

[Stargazer]

ME-11B
ML-1A
YMV-75A

Isn't the "M" mission modifier letter supposed to indicate U.S. Marines platforms?

E-4C
Date: 22 July 2024
Service: Air Force
Manufacturer: Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC)
Name: Survivable Airborne Operations Center (SAOC)
Engine(s): 4x General Electric Genx-2B

Comment: The name says it all (replacement for E-4B)

Replacement? The designation suggests a variant of the Boeing E-4 done by someone else than something new entirely.

ML-1A
Date: 29 August 2024
Service: Space Force
Manufacturer: BAE Systems Inc.

Comment: WTF ?? So far, "L" was for "Laser Armament". But in that series, L-1 was already used. Also, in the table, the "L" is in the "Vehicle Type", and not the "Basic Mission" column. Never saw an "L" vehicle type. And finally, it's for the Space Force - so far, the USSF only used satellite MDSs. All said, I don't have the slightest clue what this is about.

Moon Lander??

YMV-75A
Date: 25 November 2024
Service: Army
Manufacturer: Bell Textron, Inc.
Engine(s): 2x AE 1107F

Comment: So it seems the FLRAA / Bell V-280 Valor has finally got an official designation. 75 is of course wildly out of sequence, but I guess it's now standard practice to get a "special" number for the more important systems .

Still doesn't explain why "75" would be chosen, and not simply YMV-280A, given the DoD's recent habit of not following number sequences anymore... Unless they've used the slot from the "H-" series, which would be about right at 75 by now.

 

[Stargazer]

After more than 4 years, I received the response to my FOIA request for a full excerpt of the MDS database. I attached the XLS file "as is".
The data contains a lot of oddities, incl. plain and silly typos. The overall impression is that whoever is entering the data here, is rather careless when copying data from MDS request and confirmation letters to the storage database. This can make the assessment, whether a particularly strange MDS was really assigned or has only been garbled in the database, quite difficult in a few cases.

Just a few things that struck me:

• Presence of A-18A (no F/A or FA) as a separate designation;
• X-32A/B/C, X-35A/B/C and X-38A are still marked as "TBD", as if the manufacturers were unknown!

Strange stuff still in the list:

• A-12A;
• YC-14A and YC-15A;
• XFV-12A:
• AV-16A.

Other programs that have long been cancelled are still in the list, so why keep those??

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Isn't the "M" mission modifier letter supposed to indicate U.S. Marines platforms?

No, M means "Multi-Mission".

Replacement? The designation suggests a variant of the Boeing E-4 done by someone else than something new entirely.

Of course it's not "something new entirely". It will be a highly modified 747, just like the E-4B.
I heard that Wikipedia is frowned upon on this forum, but the article still gives a good overview (and lists a lot of sources):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNC_E-4C_Survivable_Airborne_Operations_Center

Still doesn't explain why "75" would be chosen, and not simply YMV-280A, given the DoD's recent habit of not following number sequences anymore... Unless they've used the slot from the "H-" series, which would be about right at 75 by now.

Sure, in the H-series #75 would be only 1 off. Anyway, I expect that the MV-75 designation will be publicly announced some day, and then the Army might explain why they chose the number.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Strange stuff still in the list:

• A-12A;
• YC-14A and YC-15A;
• XFV-12A:
• AV-16A.

Other programs that have long been cancelled are still in the list, so why keep those??

Why not? A few extra records in a database are of zero consequence. Also, removing an MDS from list is only done, if the service, for which the MDS was allocated in the first place, explicitly requests the removal. Which needs paperwork. Which nobody wants to do, especially not for something as trivial as a few bits of historical data.

 

[Scott Kenny]

XV-25A
Date: 27 March 2024
Service: Air Force / Army
Manufacturer: Piasecki
Name: ARES (Aerial Reconfigurable Embedded System)
Engine(s): 2x Honeywell 900-2-1D turboshaft

Comment: Great, the name entry leaves no doubt about this item .

Medevac ducted-tilt-rotor UAV. Weird.

ME-11B
Date: 25 April 2024
Service: Air Force
Manufacturer: Bombardier
Engine(s): 2x Rolls-Riyce BR700-710D5-21

Comment: I vaguely remember to have read about an E-11 variation, but I can't pin it down. Can someone help here?

The E-11 is the BACN "comms translator node" aircraft.

ML-1A
Date: 29 August 2024
Service: Space Force
Manufacturer: BAE Systems Inc.

Comment: WTF ?? So far, "L" was for "Laser Armament". But in that series, L-1 was already used. Also, in the table, the "L" is in the "Vehicle Type", and not the "Basic Mission" column. Never saw an "L" vehicle type. And finally, it's for the Space Force - so far, the USSF only used satellite MDSs. All said, I don't have the slightest clue what this is about.

Weird...

YMV-75A

Date: 25 November 2024
Service: Army
Manufacturer: Bell Textron, Inc.
Engine(s): 2x AE 1107F

Comment: So it seems the FLRAA / Bell V-280 Valor has finally got an official designation. 75 is of course wildly out of sequence, but I guess it's now standard practice to get a "special" number for the more important systems .

Looks like they grabbed the next Helicopter number for this (Wiki has up to H-73, but I'm sure there's an H-74 lurking somewhere that hasn't been announced yet), not the next V-number for some strange reason.

Was the FARA program supposed to be H-74?

YRQ-10A

Date: 27 December 2024
Service: Army
Manufacturer: Textron Systems
Engine(s): 1x Lycoming EO-101

Comment: Q-series numbering is apparently out of control . Also, I have no immediate idea to which UAS this refers. Google doesn't even find an "EO-101" engine. Ideas, anyone?

EO-101 suggests an electronic-injected, horizontally-opposed engine of 101 cubic inch/1.4L displacement.

And that size engine is roughly what the existing CQ-10 Snow Goose uses (turbo 1.2L, Rotax 914).

Trick is that the Rotax 914 is a turbo, while nothing in the Lycoming/FAA designation suggests a turbo on the EO-101. Typically, Lycoming would use "TIO" for "turbocharged, (mechanically) injected, opposed".

Also, the Snow Goose can fly for ~9-11 hours with a 200lb load, so it'd be a viable recon platform in that sense.

YRQ-11A

Date: 27 December 2024
Service: Army
Manufacturer: Griffon
Engine(s): 1x HFE DA-215 EFI Hybrid Generator

Comment: Same as for YRQ-10A - except, that at least a "DA-215" engine seems to exist. OTOH, the Q-number duplication is even weirder, because the RQ-11 Raven is still in use. Also, the Griffon website doesn't seem to list an UAV with a DAI-215 engine.

I mean, it is a Y-series, so a prototype Q-11 Raven fitted with a diesel-electric setup? Except the DA-215 engine is kinda big for that airframe, the engine alone is 5.6kg. Plus a generator, plus the electric motor to power the airframe...

 

[aim9xray]

ME-11B
Date: 25 April 2024
Service: Air Force
Manufacturer: Bombardier
Engine(s): 2x Rolls-Riyce BR700-710D5-21

The E-11 is the BACN "comms translator node" aircraft.

Base aircraft is a Bombardier Global derivative. Could this be an allocation for the Army ATHENA (version of Global) that's been in the news lately? (other than the pesky attribution of service to "Air Force")

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/us-army-athena-bombardier-global-6500-istar.42111/

 

[Andreas Parsch]

I mean, it is a Y-series, so a prototype Q-11 Raven fitted with a diesel-electric setup? Except the DA-215 engine is kinda big for that airframe, the engine alone is 5.6kg. Plus a generator, plus the electric motor to power the airframe...

There is no way to fit a "prototype Raven conversion" into the available data. As you say, the engine is much too big, and also the manufacturer doesn't match. Raven is an AeroVironment product, so why should Griffon Aerospace be listed for a Raven modification.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Base aircraft is a Bombardier Global derivative. Could this be an allocation for the Army ATHENA (version of Global) that's been in the news lately? (other than the pesky attribution of service to "Air Force")

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/us-army-athena-bombardier-global-6500-istar.42111/

Good catch. Maybe that was what I seemed to remember. Of course, "Air Force" doesn't fit, but OTOH this MDS list has its share of errors and typos, so who knows.

And if Air Force is correct: Maybe the USAF is implementing/planning significant capability upgrades of the E-11A, and have already reserved a new MDS for the upgraded aircraft?

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Looks like they grabbed the next Helicopter number for this (Wiki has up to H-73, but I'm sure there's an H-74 lurking somewhere that hasn't been announced yet), not the next V-number for some strange reason.

H-74 would have to lurk in a very deep cave then, because otherwise it would have shown up in the released MDS list we are discussing here .

 

[Yellow Palace]

Isn't the "M" mission modifier letter supposed to indicate U.S. Marines platforms?

AFAIK, the only 'M' modifier applied to a USMC aircraft is the MV-22. In the normal case of things, you'd have expected the CH-46 to be replaced by the CV-22, and the MH-53 to be replaced by the MV-22. The designations were reversed in this case explicitly to avoid confusion between an Osprey and an aircraft carrier, which doesn't seem terribly likely but stranger things have happened at sea.

Other than that, every 'M-for-Multimission' aircraft appears to have been a Special Operations job.

 

[Stargazer]

Medevac ducted-tilt-rotor UAV. Weird.

Why so? Piasecki has been working on such concepts for years.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Why so? Piasecki has been working on such concepts for years.

I was not expecting a medevac to be a UAV.

 

[Scott Kenny]

H-74 would have to lurk in a very deep cave then, because otherwise it would have shown up in the released MDS list we are discussing here .

Maybe it was supposed to be the FARA program that got canceled?