Jump to content

Talk:F-19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

F-19

[edit]

I recall that Jane's Information Group was even taken in by the F-19 myth. I've heard that in one of their aircraft books in the mid-80s has a listing for the F-19, along with a picture of the model. --YoungFreud 12:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The article says: "At one point, a USAF spokesman claimed that it was to avoid confusion with the MiG-19, but this seems never to have interfered with the use of 17, 21, and 23 for instance."

But I find this a somewhat thin argument that it wouldn't interfere; there has never been an F-17, an F-21 or an F-23! The closest resemblance so far has been the YF-17, which later became the F/A-18 (the YF designation only applied to one or two airframes), the F-21 has never existed, at least not as far as I could find, and there was an YF-23, but this one lost in competition with the YF-22, so the argument that confusion would reign if the F-19 designation were used is a bit thin as I see it. Other thoughts from anyone else? bjelleklang 00:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK...when the USDoD designates a prototype or pre-production aircraft, like YF-17 and YF-23, they do not go back afterwards and designate another aircraft the same number without the "Y". How confusing would that be? My answer would be 'highly confusing' at the very least. The F/A-18 was developed from the YF-17 after being reworked and Northrop teaming up with MDC. And your question regarding the F-21, here is the answer: In the 1980's, the USN and USMC leased in several IAI Kfir fighters from Israel to act in agressor and dissimilar tactics training. Upon arrival, they were given normal US aircraft designations. I don't think the USA still operates the F-21, but of course, there won't be (or at least shouldn't be) any future fighter designated F-17, F-21, or F-23. Courtesy of Jimmy Red 20:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just my point; the argument is that naming an aircraft F-19 would confuse people is not valid, considering that no other aircraft (eg. F-15, YF-17, F-35) seems to confuse anyone.Bjelleklang 20:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Addition: Just came over this: [1], and it provides a good theory for the missing designations F-112-116. The theory is basically that this was used to conceal the testing of Soviet aircraft, by refering to them by a US model scheme. But still doesn't explain the missing F-19... Bjelleklang 21:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Secrecy

[edit]

If there was a top-secret F-19, would they really have been so silly as to leave a hole indicating its existence, rather than give it a totally different name? Morwen - Talk 12:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who once worked in the byzantine bowels of the military-industrial complex, I can say that silliness is entirely possible as an explanation. But it could just as easily have been a deliberate fraud, making the Rooskies spend millions trying to track down info on a nonexistent project. Stan 16:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Shouldn't this article be linked to the articles on the alleged U.S. Air Force "Aurora" aircraft? I've thought for years that Testor actually got lucky and was speculating on the Aurora which forced the Air Force to reveal the F-117A in order to deflect the discovery.

Evidence that F-19 was skipped

[edit]

According to http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/missing-mds.html, the designation F-19 was definitely skipped. The evidence for this comes from the information below:

The facts are documented by several letters exchanged between various USAF/DOD offices during the process of requesting and assigning the F-20A designator to Northrop. On 28 October 1982, HQ Aeronautical Systems Divison, USAF (apparently handling the F-5G program for the Air Force) wrote a letter to the USAF Standards Branch to request a new model number for the F-5G on behalf of Northrop Corporation. To quote the relevant part (remarks in [brackets] are by me):

1. In mid 1981, Northrop Corporation's Intermediate Export Fighter candidate was designated the F-5G. Since that time, the F-5G has incorporated substantial changes in structure, engine and aircraft systems. Northrop Corporation believes these changes would be best reflected by a model designation change from F-5G to F-20A, "Tigershark". Northrop's reason for specifically requesting the model 20 designation is that being an even number series [sic], it would be unique in the foreign market which typically sees odd numbered threat designators (MIG 19; MIG 21; MIG 23).

On 1 November 1982, this request was in turn forwarded by the Standards Branch to USAF HQ in the Pentagon for approval. However, it was clearly stated that the designation should be "F-19A" instead, to follow existing regulations:

1. The attached request [see quote above] is forwarded for your consideration and approval of a new Mission-Design-Series (MDS) designator.

2. MDS designator F-5G was approved for Northrop's Intermediate Export Fighter candidate in May 1981. Based on the information contained in the subject letter, the aircraft has been changed sufficiently from the original F-5G configuration to warrant assignment of a new MDS as requested.

3. Our records indicate that -19 is the next number available for assignment in the "F" series and to comply with AFR 82-1 paragraph 3f we feel that F-19A should be assigned to this aircraft.

4. The popular name "Tigershark" has not been approved at this time and should not be listed in DODL 4120.15 [DOD's official listing of approved aerospace vehicle designations] until an MDS has been assigned to this aircraft. We will take action to obtain approval of the popular name when an MDS has been established.

5. Our recommendations for entry into DODL 4120.15 are as follows:

a. [MDS] F-19A b. [Manufacturer] Northrop c. [Popular Name] unassigned [...]

(The copy of the letter has a hand-written note at the bottom, saying "Dissapproved [sic] See F-20A folder".)

On 17 November 1982, HQ USAF approved the F-20A designation (but not yet the Tigershark name), apparently ignoring the Standards Branch's advice, and introduced the misleading "confusion with MiG-19" phrase:

1. Redesignation of the Northrop Corporation's intermediate export fighter from F-5G to F-20A is approved. Substantial changes in design and capability warrant a different basic design number. Northrop's concern for potential confusion with the MIG-19 in their foreign markets is a sound basis for bypassing that number.

2. The assignment of the popular name "Tigershark" is being worked through public affairs channels. [...]

3. Please advise ASD and Northrop of the F-20A designation and the status of the popular name request.

Major cleanup mar 2007

[edit]

I cleaned up the article, removing speculation and other stuff that did not belong. This includes links to peoples' modeling sites which don't belong in an article like this. --Chuck Sirloin 14:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F-19

[edit]

I was told that the designation "F-19" was temporarily used for the F-111 Aardvaark during it's development.

I was also told that had the X-13 Vertijet gone into production, it would have been the F-13 Fighter.

I heard that the F-21 Aggressor designation was for the IAI Kfir, a modded French Mirage fighter.

The YF-23 Black Widow was supposed to become the F-23 Stealth Advanced Technology Fighter.

I heard the US Navy did not want the number F-17 because it was considered bad luck.

The Ancient Romans believed it to be unlucky like 13 is now.

Supercool Dude 13:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason there was no f-17 was because the YF-17 never went into production -G4raider

National Geographic

[edit]

I recall an issue of National Geographic from early '80 or '81 where they published 'blueprints' of the design that later became the Testors F-19 model. I no longer have the issue in question, and I cannot recall if mention is made about where that design originated, but it might be worth tracking down to add to this article.Rickremember (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to deletion, Sep 2015

[edit]

The explanation (MiG-29) to placate society was present in previous versions of the article. For example: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=F-19&oldid=98010824

Quite strange proposition to delete. These words don't change the subject of F-19 presence in society and its mass reaction in 1980s.

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from [[{{{1}}}]], which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:F-19/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Is tagged for cleanup, and the fact that the aircraft does not exist may keep it from growing in size, but add refs and clean it up and it can be a B or more. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 04:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 14:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on F-19. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that model, but it does differ from the Testor design, considerably.... however, the article is about the F-19, and although the Testor design in probably more recognized, this version is relevant to article... i have a toy, very similar to the Testor design, but I am not sure how to add images and information to an article, and I need to take a better picture of it.... but I did upload a snapshot.... this is the link to the 800px

toy F-19 stealth fighter
a toy F-19 similar to the Testor's design, released by ERTL.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/F-19_ERTL_diecast_toy.jpg/800px-F-19_ERTL_diecast_toy.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:F-19&oldid=1207164439"