Allegedly a Chinese saying holds that the beginning of wisdom is calling things by their correct names. If so, there's precious little wisdom in DoD.

How else to explain the continuing string of irrational, illogical, and downright deceitful prefixes hung on military hardware? Attack airplanes masquerading as “fighters”; nonexistent capabilities; unexplained chasms in numerical sequences, and wholesale abuse of what used to be a well thought out system.

On the plus side there's the A-10, now alone in the “A for Attack” category. At least it continued the series beginning with Douglas' storied A-1, A-3, and A-4 series. Attackers through the AV-8 made sense (the Harrier was a “V” type assigned an “A” number), while Northrop's A-9 was never produced.

Bombers? Well, we went from the Huff-Daland B-1 (1923) to Convair B-58 (1955) in almost unbroken sequence over a 30-year period. The Hustler beat out the Boeing XB-59, and then we had the early cruise missiles such as the “B”-62 Snark. Excepting the Douglas B-66, the USAF bomber series leapt to XB-70 about the same time the Lockheed SR-71 materialized. What's that about? Insiders intimate that there was a “separate but equal” list of secret project numbers.

Then, for absolutely no reason at all, we retreated to the 1920s with the B-1 and B-2 again. What was that about?

Then there's the U-2. Now, by rights a “U” designates a utility airplane. Nobody would doubt the utility of the U-2, but how does it fit into the reconnaissance scheme of things? DeHavilland made the U-1 and Cessna the U-3, etc. Reportedly the Uncle prefix was chosen as “disinformation” to spoof the Soviets.

Meanwhile, the “T for trainer” series was doing just fine, thank you: in the high 40s when, for reasons never explained, the USAF regulators decided to call a new multi-engined trainer the T-1. They also named it the Jayhawk, ignoring that the name already was hung on the Coast Guard HH-60J. According to an insider, the blue suits then tried to call their next trainer the T-2, only to learn that the Navy had been flying Buckeyes since 19-ought-63. Thus we ended up with the T-3 Firefly but the Navy rebounded with the T-48 for the new NFO trainer.

Color us confused.

Fighters started all right but became a mess. F-14, -15, and –16. Great. Makes perfect sense, continuing the sequence from 1963 when the Air Force and Navy adopted one standard. The F-17 was Northrop's lightweight fighter that evolved into the F/A-18, which is fine. But: if you check the DoD aircraft designation manual, there's no provision for a slash. None. How did that happen?

Then there's the vast leap from the F-20 series of genuine fighters into Puzzle Palace hyperspace with the “F”-117, which isn't even a fighter. What's that about?

A thought for the day: the federal government requires truth in advertising. According to FTC rules:

Ads must be truthful and non-deceptive.

Ads must contain evidence to support their claims.

Ads cannot be unfair.

Undoubtedly there are plenty of people willing to hassle in Clintonian terms over the definition of “unfair.” So let's just consider the first two requirements.

“Truthful and non-deceptive.”

The “F”-117 is in no way, shape, or form a fighter. It carries no air-to-air weapons and cannot defend itself against interceptors. The Nighthawk, therefore, fails the “truthful and non-deceptive” requirement. It could not legally be advertised alongside automobiles or beer.

Compare that to the Grumman A-6 of honored memory. The Intruder never masqueraded as a fighter. Know why? Well, it was a “Type A” personality (as in Attack) and, like the “F”-117, it was a subsonic strike aircraft with no air-to-air mission (even if it could carry Sidewinders for self defense—something the “Stinkbug” cannot do).

“Evidence to back up their claims.”

In 2004 the Air Force chief of staff waved the waiver and declared the F-22 Raptor a multi-mission bird by dint of the “F/A” designation. Never mind that at the time the Raptor had not even entered service, or that the original models would have no ordnance capability. Once again, if the FTC licensed combat aircraft, Lockheed and the Air Force would be liable to prosecution.

While discussing fighter and/or attack airplanes, there's the F-35 strike fighter, which is intended to replace the venerable A-10 Warthog. We have no argument with the “F” designation, but since its prime role is attack, why isn't it the FA-35?

Furthermore, there's the sequential jump from F/A-18 to F-35. People who were in the room when SecAF announced selection of the Joint Strike Fighter recall that he obviously had given no thought to the service number. But because the Lockheed-Martin entry had been the X-35, Mr. Secretary (with whispered “help” from the Marine program manager) blurted out that it would be the F-35, never mind that there was nothing after the abortive F-23.

Naturally, nobody was going to correct a service secretary for so glaring a lapse.

We just wish someone had thought to invite an FTC representative to enforce truth in advertising.

However, there is some sign of adult supervision in DoD. In December the new Air Force chief of staff announced that the F/A-22A Raptor was going to be redesignated -- ta-daa ! -- the F-22A! He correctly stated that the OSD document covering the system clearly states that “F” types can also cover dual-role strike aircraft.

Unfortunately, he then stated that the Raptor can also perform the mission of the RC-135 Rivet Joint and EC-130 Compass Call. Therefore, we should be thankful that he didn't wind up calling it the F/AREC-22.

Come to think of it (as Noah Shachtman pointed out on the pages of DefenseTech.org a few weeks back) that designation would comprise the word “Farce.”

Could be a message there.