X-51A Waverider hits Mach 5.1 in final flight

[frigidmagi]

Cnet

The accomplishment marks the longest flight for the $300 million X-51A technology demonstration program and, according to the Air Force and Boeing, the longest scramjet-powered hypersonic flight ever.

The final flight of the U.S. Air Force's X-51A Waverider program wasn't a long one, but it was long enough.

The Air Force cheerfully announced Friday that the scramjet-powered X-51A flew for more than six minutes earlier this week. Of that total flight time, partner Boeing said, three and a half minutes was done on scramjet power and the vehicle reached a top speed of Mach 5.1, which pushed it into the hypersonic range that researchers had been hoping for.

The accomplishment marked the longest flight for the $300 million X-51A technology demonstration program and, the Air Force and Boeing said, the longest scramjet-powered hypersonic flight ever.

"It was a full mission success," said Charlie Brink, X-51A program manager for the Air Force Research Laboratory, in a statement. "I believe all we have learned from the X-51A Waverider will serve as the bedrock for future hypersonics research and ultimately the practical application of hypersonic flight."

That's in sharp contrast to the gloom that followed the previous flight of an X-51A technology demonstrator. In August of last year, a faulty control fin caused an X-51A to abruptly lose control and prematurely put an end to a bid to reach Mach 6 speeds.

This week's flight was the fourth for an X-51A, and the Air Force has now exhausted its total inventory of four of the experimental airframes. The first flight occurred in May 2010, when the debut X-51A hit "approximately" Mach 5 and was scramjet-powered for just over two minutes.

What sort of practical application might lie ahead for hypersonic flight? Eventually, perhaps, developments with scramjet engines might make for cheaper rocket launches into orbit for a future generation of space planes, or missiles that get to their targets much faster than today's cruise missiles. A scramjet engine makes use of atmospheric oxygen, so it wouldn't need to carry oxidizers as do today's rockets, or could get by with less fuel.
The Waverider nickname for the X-51A comes from an essential element of scramjet flight -- once the airframe is moving fast enough, it essentially surfs its own shockwave.

To get to the vicinity of that speed, the X-51A first hitches a ride from the ground tucked under the wing of a B-52 mothership.

Wednesday's flight started at Edwards Air Force Base in southern California. The X-51A was released at approximately 50,000 feet and, powered by a solid rocket booster, accelerated to Mach 4.8 in about 26 seconds. It then separated from the booster, the scramjet engine was ignited, and the vehicle accelerated to Mach 5.1, or around 4,000 mph, at 60,000 feet.

By design, the X-51A, which carried a 240-second (4-minute) fuel supply, ended its flight by crashing into the Pacific Ocean. In total, the experiment delivered 370 seconds (6 minutes, 10 seconds) of telemetry data. That six-minute flight covered more than 230 nautical miles.

"The successes of the X-51A," the Air Force said, "will pay dividends to the High Speed Strike Weapon program currently in its early formation phase with [the Air Force Research Lab]."

Cool.

[General Havoc]

Fascinating

[Josh]

Not to mention B-52s still earning their paychecks.

Talk about a plane that's earned the right to tell all the fast-mover babies to get off its tarmac.

[LadyTevar]

Not to mention B-52s still earning their paychecks.

Talk about a plane that's earned the right to tell all the fast-mover babies to get off its tarmac.

Amen. :)

Still, we've crashed all the test models, so now what?

[B4UTRUST]

Not to mention B-52s still earning their paychecks.

Talk about a plane that's earned the right to tell all the fast-mover babies to get off its tarmac.

Amen. :)

Still, we've crashed all the test models, so now what?

Well, that didn't seem to stop us with the V-22 so probably damn the torpedoes full speed ahead with production?

[Batman]

You build another one and continue testing?
And I can't help but wonder what could have been done with the money spent to keep a fleet of half a century old essentially useless nowadays bombers. Like, say, buy more B-1s. And I'd like a manual on how you people label your military aircraft. The switch from P to F for fighters I got, as the 1963 reset to one and rolling all planes into the same designation scheme...and then there's the F-117. I mean yeah, right, what?

[Josh]

You build another one and continue testing?
And I can't help but wonder what could have been done with the money spent to keep a fleet of half a century old essentially useless nowadays bombers. Like, say, buy more B-1s. And I'd like a manual on how you people label your military aircraft. The switch from P to F for fighters I got, as the 1963 reset to one and rolling all planes into the same designation scheme...and then there's the F-117. I mean yeah, right, what?

From what I understand the F-117 was deliberately given an odd and unappropriate label so as to keep the designator itself from giving a picture of the plane's design and intent. More appropriately it should've been given an A(numeral) designation, but you gotta keep the commies guessing.

As for the B-52, we've gotten more use out of those creaky old dogs than any other airframe in the history of the country and probably the entire world. The only one that I can think of that even came close was the old C-47, but those were almost all retired by the nineties. I don't know if the Israelis still have their squad of Goonie Birds running.

As for the prototype situation, given the massive scale of potential military/civilian applications for hypersonic aircraft I expect we'll keep the money faucet open for that one. Also it's a very PR-friendly project- the public loves fast-moving zoomie stuff that sets new records, and congress critters love the ability to make it rain in their districts as a consequence.

[B4UTRUST]

A - Ground Attack
B - Bomber
C - Transport
E - Special Electronic Mission
F - Fighter
H - Search and Rescue, Medevac
K - Tanker
L - Laser-Equipped
M - Multimission
O - Observation
P - Maritime Patrol
Q - Unmanned Drone
R - Reconnaissance
S - Antisubmarine Warfare
T - Trainer
U - Utility
V - Aircraft with STOL/VTOL capabilities
W- Weather Reconnaissance
X - Special Research

Not insanely difficult, though I do admit that there are some confusing examples like the F-117. I'll try to explain a few of them.

AV-8 Harrier
While the AV prefix is of course perfectly fine for the Harrier VTOL attack aircraft, the number 8 is not. The V-8 designator was originally allocated to the Ryan XV-8A Fleep, an experimental Army aircraft with some resemblance to today's "ultra-light" aircraft.

When the Harrier was selected for operational use by the U.S. Marines, it was originally designated as AV-6B. This was a logical designation, because the Harrier was a direct development of the Hawker-Siddeley Kestrel, which had been tested in the U.S. under the designation XV-6A. However, for unknown reasons, it was later decided to designate the Harrier in the attack series - the next available number was A-8. However, someone obviously was very "smart" and realized that the Harrier was still a VTOL aircraft, which are represented in the designation system by the "V" vehicle type symbol. So instead of A-8, it became the AV-8 ... and the fact that the next number in the V-series wasn't anywhere near 8 had been completely overlooked (or - more probable - ignored)!

The initial AV-6B was a logical choice, but if for some reason a new design number had been necessary, the Harrier should have become the AV-12 (the V-series had reached V-11 at the time). When later allocating a designation to a then proposed supersonic Harrier development, the Navy did a much better nomenclature finding job, and came up with the perfectly valid designation of AV-16A.

As a side note, available official documentation doesn't show any official reason for the redesignation. The official confirmation of the redesignation of AV-6B to AV-8A explicitly requested the cancellation of the XV-6A and XV-8A designations to avoid any further confusion. It also said that the AV-8A designation was orginally confirmed only orally, and adds that in the future the proper paths for MDS assignment and allocation should be used (implying that the oral confirmation was given prematurely) to avoid unnecessary confusion (thereby apparently referring to the reuse of the not-yet-cancelled V-8 designator).

It is possible that the U.S. Marine Corps wanted to avoid having both "A-6" and "AV-6" aircraft in the inventory. One interesting theory even says that AV-8 was chosen because it reads as "aviate."

CC-130J Hercules

This one gets really damned confusing. And no, the 2nd C does not indicate it's Canadian. Why the hell anyone has ever thought that I will never know. But basically the C-130J was modified at one point in time to be stretched to increase multimission support. Rather than use the designation that was designed for it (C-130J-30) we went with the CC-130J to distinguish it from the non-stretched versions of the C-130J. Why would we not use the C-130J-30 you ask? Well, because for some reason our AF documentation structure does not support that designation. How stupid is that, you point out? Very. Especially given the fact that if you look at the designations for the variants of the F-16 it does the exact same thing. F-16C/D Block 30/32 were the first under the Alternative Fighter Engine project where we had two possible engine types for the craft. Block 30s were the new General Electric engines while the Block 32s were the traditional Pratt & Whitneys. Then you have the Block 40s and 50s, the F-16E/F had the block 60s, the A/B had Blocks 5 - 20. Their designation in our documentation has always been F-16C-30 with no problem.

As of 2004, officially the CC-130J has been changed back to C-130J in our MDS (Mission Design, Series) designation set under AFI 16-401I

The F/A-18 Hornet

The oddball: The '/'

This one comes about due to the fact that originally there were going to be two separate aircraft with two different roles. The A-18 for ground attacks and the F-18 as a fighter aircraft. The projects were later combined and became what is now the F/A-18. What is interesting in this one is the use of the '/' in the designation as slashes and other 'special characters' are not allowed. Letters, numbers and dashes are pretty much it.

The explanation is actually pretty simple - sort of. And a little silly in my opinion, but I'm not a pilot(thank god) so I guess I don't get my panties in a twist over these things. When it was put out that the air-to-air and ground-to-ground roles of the aircraft were being combined, the naval 'attack community' threw a hissy fit. They refused to fly the aircraft with an 'F' designation and vice-versa with their 'fighter community'. The AF designation that would have been used was absolutely perfectly valid, but to the 'Attack community' it made it look like a modified fighter(which it is). And the 'fighter community' threw their hissy because that would mean the 'A' came first in the designation. The only acceptable designation to the two groups was the F/A designation. And people wonder why I dislike pilots so much.

The F-35

A wonderfully mis-numbered aircraft. The JSF competition came down to Boeing's X-32 and Lockheed's X-35. The X-35 was chosen as the winner. When asked about the designation for the aircraft, USD ATL (Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions, Technology and Logistics) Edward Aldridge mentioned the X-35 designation, had a few brief words with JSF Program Manager Major General Hough and announced it would be the F-35. That's it. This was in October of 2001

It was pushed through from the USAF Nomenclature Office to HQ USAF/XPPE for approval in April of 2002. That's a fairly long delay for this sort of thing. Theory is that the delay was caused by speculation over the actual use of the F-35 designation due to the wrong numbering of sequence and why it should actually be used(also known as trying to come up with a valid reason other than some high-ranking moron said it was). In fact the Nomenclature Office included a paragraph concerning it which boiled down to 'The last fighter was the designated YF-23A. We recommend the F-35 be designated as the F-24A as designations are to be issued in numerical sequential order in accorance with AFJI 16-401. In June of 02 USAF/XPPE officially designated it as the F-35 without further comment.

An interesting side note: In 06 the official bio of Col. Joseph Lanni listed several prototype aircraft he flew, one of which was the YF-24. This means the designation was used semi-officially somewhere, but did not state what year. So this aircraft may have been prior to the JSF competition ending and to avoid confusion with people who were cleared for the project. They could have used F-25 but that would have raised questions about the missing F-24 aircraft(same thing happened with the F-19). So by allowing the F-35 designation it would have removed any confusions or questions about missing aircraft designations. Yes, our military minds really think like this.

The FB-111 Ardvark

This is the strategic bomber variant of the F-111 fighter. As it is modified from a fighter to a bomber role it should be a BF-111. There is no official ruling on using the B as a modifier it's mostly because it's just never been used rather than a rule against it so no reason not to. There is no real identifiable reason that I'm aware of for this designation. A theory is that SAC(Strategic Air Command) refused to fly its missions with a strictly fighter designated aircraft. Makes not a damned bit of sense but hey. Another is that it can be conveniently read as Fighter-bomber. So who knows.

The F-117 Nighthawk

Another one that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But here it goes.

Although it is commonly called the Stealth Fighter, The Nighthawk should have received an "A" designation. It has no air-to-air role whatsoever, and the "A-for-Attack" designator is in fact prefectly made for tactical ground-attack aircraft like the F-117. It comes down to only two real solid theories and one of my own.
1) For the U.S. Air Force, all dedicated combat aircraft are either "fighters" or "bombers". E.g., A-10s are deployed in Tactical Fighter Wings - there is no such thing as an "Attack Squadron" in USAF. While the A-10 escaped this fate, there was no reason (for the USAF) not to call the F-117 a "fighter". After all, there have been fighters with marginal or non-existing air-to-air capabilities in the Air Force before - F-105 and F-111, respectively.
2) The "F" prefix was part of the classified designation, directly connected to the number 117.

Why 117? There are several theories about the origin of the number 117 in the Nighthawk's designation, ranging from the plausible to the bizarre.

Although not officially acknowledged, it is known that aircraft (mostly Soviet/Russian ones, but also including U.S. "black" prototypes) used in secret testing at Groom Lake or Tonopah AFB have designations assigned that look like continuations of the pre-1962 "century series" designators. Examples given include YF-110 for MiG-21s and YF-113 for MiG-23s. Suffix letters (as in YF-113E or YF-113G) are also used. The YF-113G designator actually refers to a completely different aircraft type (a U.S.-built stealth testbed) than YF-113 designations with other suffixes. It is de facto known that all of these "designations" use a "YF" prefix (for simplicity and/or secrecy), even if they don't refer to fighter aircraft. Now the most "popular" theory about the Nighthawk's designation says that the aircraft (then known as SENIOR TREND) acquired the YF-117A designation in this scheme. When the aircraft was prepared for operational service, flight manuals etc. had to be printed, and these were labeled with F-117A, either on purpose or because of some intra-service communication problem. Because nobody wanted to re-label all documentation and manuals for the aircraft, the designation was kept even after the Nighthawk went public.

As to why exactly "117" (and not, say, 116 or 118) was selected for the SENIOR TREND aircraft, no really convincing ideas have come forward. Therefore the most plausible explanation is that it was simply arbitrarily selected - one number is as good as the other. It should be noted that the SENIOR TREND hadn't reserved the 117 for exclusive use. There are reports about a YF-117D (said to be the code for the Northrop TACIT BLUE aircraft) and a YF-117E, both unrelated to the Nighthawk.

One really bizarre theory about the F-117A designation, which has been floating around the internet for some time, is that the old pre-1962 F-series was really continued. I.e., all the "official" post-1962 designations (like F-15, F-16, ...) are "just for show" and the services internally continue to use their respective pre-1962 systems. This results in things like the F-5 being the F-112, the F-14 being the F14F(Navy designation), the F-15 being the F-114 and the F-16 being the F-115, The F-17 being the F-116, The F-18 being the F5H(Navy) among others. This theory would indicate that the USAF didn't use the public/private numbering system and just used the internal numbering system for the public. Yeah, this is one of those theories that has no basis in reality. At all.

My personal theory? At the time the staffing of the Nomenclature office and HQ was heavily manned with fighter jocks who couldn't stand the though of the latest and greatest most high tech toy not being a fighter when it was so close to being one. So they said fuck it and made it a fighter. Yes, I really do believe USAF officers/pilots are that petty. Rarely have I seen proof to the contrary.

So why no F-19? We have the F-18 and the F-20. There's the official line and the unofficial line and a blurring of the two in the middle. Officially it was to avoid confusion with the MiG-19. Yes, that was the official line. To avoid confusing the F-19 with the MiG-19(which was obsolete at the time anyway). The unofficial line was that the F-19 was the F-117(which made total sense) but wasn't used and skipped when it was released as the 117 instead. Also there was the unofficial bit where Northrop specifically requested that the F-19 not be used as a designation due to the impending release of their F5G Tigershark. They wanted the 'next generation' of fighters to start on an even number and a new series(the 20 series). The Tigershark was released as the F-20 after the request was approved. So there is a blurring there between the unofficial and official and a little truth in both. It was more Northrop not wanting any confusion with the MiG-19 and wanting their aircraft, which was next on the production list to start off the new series. So there you have it.

There are a bunch of other 'missing' aircraft designations but going through each of them and why is...tedious.

The AL-1A

This designation is reserved for Boeing's planned 747 laser equipped anti-missile aircraft. Up until this point the designation was based on mission role, not on on a weapon mounted on the aircraft. This would be the same if they suddenly starting to add N as a designation for 'Nuclear equipped' aircraft. But they decided that the laser was so amaze-balls special that it could only be shown to its full potential under a brand new shiny designation. And then it was also given the A designation. Which makes not a bit of goddamned sense since there is no way in hell that it is ever going to be a ground attack aircraft. Most common is the idea that this is suppose to be used as some sort of acronym for Airborne Laser. Which is not what the designation system is suppose to be used for.

Correct naming(if that even really applies here) should have been FE-4 or FC-25. Adding a fighter modifier designation to an electronics or transport aircraft looks wrong but there is no rule against it.

The SR-71

The SR-71 designator is actually a continuation of the pre-1962 bomber series, which ended with the B-70 Valkyrie. Late in its career, the B-70 was proposed for the reconnaissance/strike role, with an RS-70 designation. The "RS" prefix (sometimes written as "R/S") was actually allowed as an explicit "special case" in the orignal 1962 issue of the designation regulations. When it was clear that Lockheed's A-12 aircraft (then used by the CIA) had much greater performance potential, it was decided to "push" a USAF version of that one instead of the RS-70. This USAF version was to become the RS-71.

"Conventional" wisdom now says that then president Lyndon B. Johnson messed up the designation in his public announcement and called it the SR-71 - and nobody wanted to correct the president. Because the strike mission had been cancelled anyway, "SR" was quickly reinterpreted as "Strategic Reconnaissance". However, a first-hand witness of those events revealed in Aviation Week & Space Technology, that LBJ did not misread anything. In fact, then USAF Chief of Staff LeMay simply didn't like the "RS" designator - he already objected it when the RS-70 was discussed, preferring "SR-70". When the RS-71 was to be announced, he wanted to make sure it would be called SR-71 instead. He managed to have LBJ's speech script altered to show "SR-71" in all places. Using archived copies of LBJ's speech, it can actually be verified that it reads SR-71 both in the script and on the tape recording. However, the official transcript of the speech, created from the stenographic records and handed to the press afterwards, shows "RS-71" in three places. It seems that not the president but a stenographer did accidentally switch the letters, and thus create a famous aviation "urban legend".

Anyway, the correct designation for the SR-71 would have been simply R-1A. There is an R-for-Reconnaissance mission letter in the designation system and it doesn't make any distinction between strategic, tactical or other reconnaissance.

Lockheed TR-1
The second production batch of the U-2R was initially designated TR-1A (and TR-1B for the two-seat trainer). This was purely for political reasons, to emphasize the reconnaissance role of the aircraft. While the "R" primary mission letter and the design number 1 are text book examples for correct use of the designation system, the "T" prefix letter is not! In the TR-1, it stands for "Tactical", apparently to contrast it from the "SR - Strategic Reconnaissance" designator of the SR-71. In 1991, when the Cold War and the need for such "diplomatically correct" designations had ended, the TR-1A/B was redesignated as U-2R/TU-2R.

KC-767
In September 2002, KC-767A was officially approved as the designation for the projected Boeing 767 tanker conversions to be leased by the U.S. Air Force. Instead of using the next number in the C-series and designating the aircraft as KC-42A, the manufacturer's design number was used.

The MDS request from the CDARA (Commercial Derivative Air Refuelling Aircraft) program office to the USAF Nomenclature Office, dated 6 August 2002, says:
"The CDARA Team requests approval for the model designation of KC-767A for the subject aircraft. We understand the next available MDS designator for this type of aircraft is KC-42A. However, Air Mobility Command, the using command, has requested an out of sequence designator of KC-767A for this aircraft."

As usual (nowadays), the Nomenclature Office stated their objection when forwarding the request to HQ USAF, and included the paragraph:
According to AFJI 16-401, KC-767A is a nonstandard designator. This aircraft should be assigned the MDS of KC-42A.

Also as usual, HQ USAF/XPPE ignored the objection, and confirmed the KC-767A designation on 18 September 2002 with the words:
As approving authority for Mission Design Series (MDS) designators, we approve MDS designator KC-767A.

The special reference to the "approving authority for MDS designators" is unusual for these confirmation memos, and may indicate that XPPE wanted to make clear just who is actually in charge.



Hopefully this clears up a few things.

Josh - I reference to you the C-130. The BUFF(Big Ugly Fat Fuck) 52's are a workhorse to be sure. No questions. I've worked on them. They're worth it. But the C-130 and variants made from it have gotten huge amounts of use. You've got the ACs, CCs, DCs, ECs, GCs, HCs, JCs, KCs, LCs, MCs, PCs, RCs, SCs, TCs, VCs, and WCs. The A, E, H, and Ms all have multiple sub-variants. I've personally worked on the AC-130H and U, the MC-130E, H and P, and the EC-130H. The B-52 is a good workhorse and has years under its belt. But the 130 is simply more useful due to the vast modifications its capable of taking. So I have to disagree with your statement. There's just too many variants of the 130.

Edit: To throw some more numbers in there: There are over 2300 C-130s manufactured as of 2009 vs 744 B-52s, the last being produced in 62. The B-52 is used only by the USAF(a few are used by NASA) while the 130 is used by around 75 different countries across the world. The 52's first flight was in 1952 and the 130 had its first flight in 54. The 52 officially entered service in 1954 and the 130 entered service in 1959. So technically the 52 has 2 years of flight time of testing over the 130 and 5 years of service. However at 3x the number of 130s to 52s and sheer number of countries using them, I'm fairly confident the 130 has far more overall flight hours and overall usefulness.

[Josh]

C-130, should've mentioned that one. It was probably just off-putting that every C-130 crew I've ever come across was so in love with their damn plane that I swear they do indecent things in the dark with it, so I sort of blotted it out of my mind.

I do love watching them do JATOs, though.

[B4UTRUST]

Well, to be fair the plane, despite its age, is a really well put together machine. It's well built and pretty damned reliable. There's a reason it's such a huge part of our fleet. As far as the flight crew being in love with it? It's a cargo plane. With a few exceptions(AC-130, EC-130, etc) it's a cargo plane. It hauls equipment and troops from A to B. It is not a glamorous assignment by any stretch of the imagination. So to compensate for the fact that the plane really kinda sucks from a cool factor perspective they have to act 200% enthused about it at all times. Otherwise the fighter jocks win. And fuck those guys. Though having flown in both, the old jokes are very true. In a fighter I'm strapped in with almost zero leg room and stuck in one spot. God help you if you have to piss. Of course depending on the pilot that pat will be taken care of for you as you lose bladder control from them trying to fuck with you on an incentive flight. Bastards. Again, fuck those guys. In a 130? I can get up, stretch my legs, grab a cup of coffee, nuke a burrito and take a piss in an actual toilet. Hell on the flight deck I can fold down a bed and take a nap. But when you get down to it, it's a cargo plane. And nowhere near as cool as a fighter(some exceptions, of course). So everyone has to tell themselves it's totally awesome and waaaay better than any fighter. Or else they realize their lives are rather sad. So yeah, fuck pilots and flight crew.

[LadyTevar]

Well, to be fair the plane, despite its age, is a really well put together machine. It's well built and pretty damned reliable. There's a reason it's such a huge part of our fleet. As far as the flight crew being in love with it? It's a cargo plane. With a few exceptions(AC-130, EC-130, etc) it's a cargo plane. It hauls equipment and troops from A to B. It is not a glamorous assignment by any stretch of the imagination. So to compensate for the fact that the plane really kinda sucks from a cool factor perspective they have to act 200% enthused about it at all times. Otherwise the fighter jocks win. And fuck those guys. Though having flown in both, the old jokes are very true. In a fighter I'm strapped in with almost zero leg room and stuck in one spot. God help you if you have to piss. Of course depending on the pilot that pat will be taken care of for you as you lose bladder control from them trying to fuck with you on an incentive flight. Bastards. Again, fuck those guys. In a 130? I can get up, stretch my legs, grab a cup of coffee, nuke a burrito and take a piss in an actual toilet. Hell on the flight deck I can fold down a bed and take a nap. But when you get down to it, it's a cargo plane. And nowhere near as cool as a fighter(some exceptions, of course). So everyone has to tell themselves it's totally awesome and waaaay better than any fighter. Or else they realize their lives are rather sad. So yeah, fuck pilots and flight crew.

Of course, there's the old joke about the C-130 lumbering along as a fighter jet was flying escort. The fighter jock was bored, pulled a lot of Dumb Pilot Tricks, and annoyed the C-130 crew bragging about his jet's abilities. So the C-130 bet there was something they could do his jet couldn't. The jet-jock took the bait, and the C-130 shut down two engines and kept flying.

Love that joke.

[Batman]

Valen I love that one.
And yes, the Herkybird is not a fighter. Has your precious fighter ever been armed with a 105 mm howitzer? Well curiously enough, the Herc has. Is your precious fighter still in production? Guess what, the Herc is. It's a plane that did was it was designed for, and a lot of things it wasn't, and it's done so for half a century. Give the bird some respect.

[B4UTRUST]

Batman, you're trying to apply logic to a pissing match/dick waving contest between types of pilots. It just doesn't work that way. A C-130, no matter how big of a gun you stick on the side of it, no matter how many MOABs you drop out of the back of it, no matter how many precision guided hellfire missiles you fire from it, it's a cargo plane in a lot of peoples eyes.

But hopefully my huge datadump above helped straighten out some of the confusion regarding aircraft designations for you.

[Batman]

B4 I'm doing so on the internet so yeah, the chances of me making real world US military people change their minds are pretty slim. Gosh. That comes as a surprise.