Alternate aircraft codename systems?

This is another esoteric subject I haven't seen covered.;)

NATO's system is standardized, obviously. What would happen in a world without NATO? How would military a/c be classified?

Would they need to be grouped by prop, turbine, pulsejet, & ramjet (if they all existed)? If so, how? The NATO system of one syllable for prop & two for jet makes sense when there are only two types, but not when there are more... (My thought was, given they're pursuits, you get Pull {piston}, Pulley {jet}, Pulserate {ramjet}, & Pulpit {pulsejet}...)

Would they be listed as fighters, pursuits, or scouts? And how would lighter-than-air be distinguished from liaison (given "zep" isn't an option...)?

Any thoughts?
 
Anything or everything could happen.

Before the current system of ASCC reporting names was introduced, Soviet aircraft were listed by Type numbers. For instance, the Tu-16 was the Type 39, then became the BADGER.

Japanese aircraft in WW2 were given names based on type. Fighters and single-engined reconnaissance aircraft got men's names. Bombers and twin-engined reconnaissance aircraft got women's names. Trainers were named for trees, gliders were named for birds, and transport aircraft got names beginning with 'T'.

So far as I can tell, no such system was ever adopted in WW2 for German aircraft, because the original designations were widely known and easily distinguished - Fw 190 is, for instance, much easier to say than 'Type 97 Carrier Fighter'. If that's the case more generally, then reporting names may not be widely used.
 
The US applied NATOesque names to Japanese aircraft in WW2 as the actual names were usually either not known or were odd collections of numbers/letters.
 
RLBH said:
Japanese aircraft in WW2 were given names based on type.
That I knew about.
RLBH said:
because the original designations were widely known and easily distinguished ... If that's the case more generally, then reporting names may not be widely used.
You think that's necessarily true? I'm wondering if there's not a simplicity factor at play: remembering Fishbed may be easier than MiG-21. I'm also wondering how widely-known the official (or correct) designator might need to be outside the operator's country: if they're closely held (but not secret) outside the country, wouldn't a popular name (or codename) make sense?

That said, I don't disagree, it's likely the actual manufacturer or operator name is the one that gets used, absent countries with secrecy like the SU.
 

jahenders

Banned
You might not have a standard naming convention based on engine type or whatever. However, standard names for things would eventually emerge. For instance, if the Russians unveil a new plane, the US, UK, Germany, etc might all initially have different names for it. However, once one of them really gets the name out their in the press and in intel reports, that might become the defacto standard for that plane. Given the post-WWII power structure, that name might usually be from the US, but sometimes it'd be from elsewhere if, say, the Brits detected it first and sent out intel reports (and press reports) to others.

This is another esoteric subject I haven't seen covered.;)

NATO's system is standardized, obviously. What would happen in a world without NATO? How would military a/c be classified?

Would they need to be grouped by prop, turbine, pulsejet, & ramjet (if they all existed)? If so, how? The NATO system of one syllable for prop & two for jet makes sense when there are only two types, but not when there are more... (My thought was, given they're pursuits, you get Pull {piston}, Pulley {jet}, Pulserate {ramjet}, & Pulpit {pulsejet}...)

Would they be listed as fighters, pursuits, or scouts? And how would lighter-than-air be distinguished from liaison (given "zep" isn't an option...)?

Any thoughts?
 
I look back to the days when USAF Sabres flew off to Fagot Alley to do battle. And I can't remember many occasions when MiG-21s were correctly reported. Floggers might have been commonly used because of variant suffixes.

Zekes were commonly called Zeroes, but so were Oscars, often enough.

Funny, I never heard Odd Rods called anything but Odd Rods, an apt name.

Flanker was originally Ram-K to the west, after Ramenskoye, and was thought to be much flatter than it proved to be.
 
Last edited:
jahenders said:
You might not have a standard naming convention based on engine type or whatever. However, standard names for things would eventually emerge. For instance, if the Russians unveil a new plane, the US, UK, Germany, etc might all initially have different names for it. However, once one of them really gets the name out their in the press and in intel reports, that might become the defacto standard for that plane. Given the post-WWII power structure, that name might usually be from the US, but sometimes it'd be from elsewhere if, say, the Brits detected it first and sent out intel reports (and press reports) to others.
That's perfectly credible.

It crosses my mind there might be brevity code issues. Even if the true name of the Mustang (frex) was known, would the name (necessarily) be used in action?

More important, given a different history (let's get outside OTL a moment;)), would other organizations (necessarily) use a NATO-like system?
 

Delta Force

Banned
The English speaking world would likely have one standard because of how closely related the major naval, aerospace, and military publications of the two countries are.
 
Top