Attack, defend, pursue—the Space Force’s new naming scheme foretells new era
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Pretty cool, enjoy having insight into what the designations mean. Thanks for more excellent reporting.
Upvote
76
(76
/
0)
Interesting that they decided to go back to P for Pursuit for satellite interceptors, and didn’t stick with the Air Force’s F designation (which remains unused). I wonder if the P designation would apply to the proposed “Golden Dome” space-based interceptors.
Maybe Space Force is planning to save F for something else.
Maybe Space Force is planning to save F for something else.
Upvote
25
(25
/
0)
Upvote
89
(89
/
0)
Probably because when everyone hears F they think Fighter. I'm sure they will use F eventually once something similar to a fighter exists.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
Yep It's Me
Ars Praetorian
I think they shouldn't have used S for surveillance.
I'd save S for Space vessel aka Ship, for manned assets. Then I'd use O for Observation Platform.
I'd save S for Space vessel aka Ship, for manned assets. Then I'd use O for Observation Platform.
Last edited:
Upvote
24
(26
/
-2)
RickRoyLeonPrisZhoraRacha
Ars Scholae Palatinae
We'll also need lunar and HEO orbiting satellites and Lagrange point satellite relays to basically monitor enemy that might have lunar-launch systems, along with GEO anti-satellite systems, along with ground launched ASM (AntiSatelliteMissile). Hi-energy beam to simple grab and go systems (think like Ian Fleming's rocket that snatches space object in Jame Bond films, or Quark, the Space Garbage Collector). It would be cheaper to have a platform that can 1) defend itself or assess threats, 2) remote deploy multiple anti-satellite or defensive drones to support, ID, assess and eliminate hostile targets, 3) space is cold and new cold war in orbit is coming so tech along with monitoring potential launches against means investing in ground, air, space and lunar threats. Even a CIA-listed enemy can supply a terrorist org with a small nuke to create airborn EMP to threaten a city or country's power grid, communications, transport (oh, your EVs are not RADHARD) and EMPs have to be air-burst. Ground-base doesn't work like in the movies.
I think a resolution to pass space rules will come. "We have a Space Treaty...blah blah" but who will enforce it? Look at what PRC did with space debris to damage ISS and other satellites! And yet no apology nor re-imbursement. Instead, China wants to go solo as though "we're better and since there is an "I" in China and not in team...."
This would all be unnecessary and well spent on improving humanity, if we had leaders that all just got along and weren't narcissist, petty, greedy, ego-maniacs. /s
Also, I would want to acquire all countries that are in/around equitorial launch geography and weather control. Can't wait a week for nice weather to launch against at threat. Oh, and a way to punish countries that through their fault, damage commericial birds.
I think a resolution to pass space rules will come. "We have a Space Treaty...blah blah" but who will enforce it? Look at what PRC did with space debris to damage ISS and other satellites! And yet no apology nor re-imbursement. Instead, China wants to go solo as though "we're better and since there is an "I" in China and not in team...."
This would all be unnecessary and well spent on improving humanity, if we had leaders that all just got along and weren't narcissist, petty, greedy, ego-maniacs. /s
Also, I would want to acquire all countries that are in/around equitorial launch geography and weather control. Can't wait a week for nice weather to launch against at threat. Oh, and a way to punish countries that through their fault, damage commericial birds.
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
Pursuit, while also being a throwback to the Army Air Corps days, is also a more ambiguous statement of intent. "Fighter" declares you're out to seek and destroy. "Pursuit" does not imply any particular action beyond maintaining contact.
There's a few reasons for "F-117" beyond the anecdote about recruiting fighter pilots.
First, the USAF never really liked or used the (A)ttack designation. To the Air Force, you're either a (F)ighter or a (B)omber. "Bomber", during the Cold War, implied a strategic nuclear bombing role. That meant decapitating the Warsaw Pact command, destroying the military-industrial base, and nuking the Soviet nukes before they could launch.
Most of the A series aircraft used by the Air Force were originally Navy programs (A-1, A-7). The few Air Force-commissioned attack aircraft (A-37, A-10) are all low-end battlefield support platforms.
The F-117 was nuclear capable, but that was not its main mission at all. If WW3 broke out, the F-117 was planned to be used extensively in the conventional stages of the war to disrupt communications, defense networks and supply chains. In other words, disrupt enemy activities that occur between the battlefield and the strategic homeland. This middle ground is called "interdiction" and has historically been given to F series aircraft like the F-111 Aardvark and F-15E Strike Eagle. If WW3 went nuclear, the plan was to use F-117 toss-bomb tactical nukes at airfields and other area targets. This is still more interdictor than bomber mission.
The real origin of the "F-117" designation is that the F series beyond F-111 were used for various deep black programs. They were given similar and confusing names to obscure things from foreign spies. The Northrop YF-117D "TACIT BLUE" (no relation to the YF-117A "SENIOR TREND" that was a prototype for F-117A) a battlefield surveillance aircraft that lead to both the B-2 and the E-8 J-STARS, wasn't even armed. YF-116 was a Soviet MiG-29 acquired by the Pentagon somehow.
The USAF elected to keep the F-117A designation when it went public with the stealth fighter. However, the other aircraft in the F-11x series were not publicly acknowledged until the Night Hawk was nearing retirement. One should be cautious of anecdotes from before this time. They may well be cover stories intended to draw attention away from other black projects.
It should also be noted that there are numerous designations between F-22, F-35 and F-47 that have been associated with black programs as well, including YF-24, YF-43 and YF-45.
Which, under the new scheme, would probably be redesignated PV-302. I can't think of a warmer invitation for jokes from the enlisted staff.
Last edited:
Upvote
49
(49
/
0)
This seems to leave out the ability to name different versions or models - after all, the F-16 isn’t the 16th fighter of the same model, it is a different fighter all together. NM-3F should be the new designation for GPS satellites until another generation appears, and that should be NM-4.
Upvote
3
(6
/
-3)
But here's the thing... they do have an F- designator. It's for Flight.
The DMSP weather satellites (Air Force... or at least were when I worked nearby) were S- (satellite) build number, F- (Flight) mission number and eventually Ops- (operations) Operational number.
As an aside, almost every operational constellation has a different designator on the ground vs once it's in the air. NOAA-N (N is the build letter) became NOAA-18 (18th in the operational series) once it was on orbit.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Exciting news yesterday about the new SG series. And it’s not a reboot. Finally. Don’t screw it up Amazon.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Upvote
9
(10
/
-1)
Upvote
-2
(3
/
-5)
It's good to know that our billions of dollars in spending are finally yielding something useful...
Nothing like a new nomenclature, to help win the next war.
Nothing like a new nomenclature, to help win the next war.
Upvote
-3
(5
/
-8)
Tongo 2025! Confront, evade, acquire, retreat -- now with three new new actions -- attack, defend, and pursue!
Upvote
-3
(0
/
-3)
Here's your fascinating conspiracy reading assignment for the day. Anyone remember the case of Bill McKinnon from about twenty years back. The British national hacked into NASA (?) computers and claims he discovered a file titled "Non-Terrestrial Officers." He claims it contained names and ranks of U.S. Air Force personnel who are not registered anywhere else. It also contained information about ship-to-ship transfers, of two ships not noted anywhere else; USSS LeMay and USSS Hillenkoetterbut. Ooohh, X-files stuff.
Upvote
-8
(1
/
-9)
That took me a second. At first, I thought you were making a joke about the Lockheed PV-2 (a Ventura derivative) and wasn’t getting it…
https://vintageaviationnews.com/warbird-articles/warbird-profile-lockheed-pv-2-harpoon.html
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
Trying to encode too much information into a brief name is a fool's errand. The panoply of craft, devices, and missions guarantees that there's going to be all sorts of weird one-offs and overlaps, and anyone who thinks "well I can tell you everything about RG-123 just based on the name alone" is deluding themselves.
Upvote
11
(12
/
-1)
And you can be sure there will be cases where a false designation will be assigned to some object to obscure what it's true purpose and location are from the enemy.
The problem is not doing that with MOST objects, and the temptation to do so will be very strong.
"But we are giving away what this object does, we must protect that information by using this other designation instead." This will be regularly heard I am sure.
The problem is not doing that with MOST objects, and the temptation to do so will be very strong.
"But we are giving away what this object does, we must protect that information by using this other designation instead." This will be regularly heard I am sure.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Seems redundant. For example, how is navigation warfare not just a specific form of electromagnetic warfare? I can easily imagine a satellite that serves electromagnetic, navigation, and defense functions, so then they have to arbitrarily pick a designation.
F- and B- is a super simple categorization, and even with that they can't apply it 100%. But simplicity is what makes it work.
F- and B- is a super simple categorization, and even with that they can't apply it 100%. But simplicity is what makes it work.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
FTFY
But seriously, I guess the days of keeping military space assets a mystery are gone. Just tell the world this is a new pursuit weapon for medium orbits, huh? Sure, why not.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Ah well. I was nervous it was gonna be worse, and result in names like "LoveTwitterOrYouAreACommieTraitor DisneyFordBoeingTrump WeHaveBigDix Extreme Mega Liberator Ww3bbqfordinner"
This is actually sorta logical but it feels more like it could have been a memo than all this press.
This is actually sorta logical but it feels more like it could have been a memo than all this press.
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
You can't really hide the part about what orbit it will be in, once it launches. The point about the function, well, yeah.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
These all appear to be uncrewed assets. I imagine they'll have a completely separate naming scheme for uncrewed assets. It'll be pretty hard to resist the urge to name their crewed spaceships "USS <name>" for example.
I mean, the first crewed carrier in space will almost certainly be named the USS Enterprise (ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise)
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
This is reminiscent of the standard JTEDS AN trigraph nomenclature which brings you things like the AN/AWG-9 radar (A for airborne, W for Weapon, G for Guidance). Or ARC-5 radios As I recall the platform (the first letter) P for pigeon has been discontinued, but I’m sure there was a AN/PSQ-1 or something. And I’ve worked on AN/UYK-20 ( a 70s vintage mini)
https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/2024/01/22/u-s-military-an-nomenclature-made-easy/
https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/2024/01/22/u-s-military-an-nomenclature-made-easy/
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
It was a memo, but Ars got a hold of it and decided to run a story about it. (I mean, why not? It's a news item.) And Ars running a story about this memo doesn't cost the Space Force any money or anything.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
One hopes that, by that time, sanity will have prevailed and the whole thing will have been handed over to the Navy, where it belongs.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
If sanity actually prevails then we collectively would agree to not militarize space to begin with.
Upvote
-1
(1
/
-2)