>>29176132
>Implying military vehicle designations ever made sense.

Because the Pentagon thinks if its the "21st century bomber" the program has higher chance of actually succeeding, and not getting killed like every other US military program in the last 20 years (B2, Zumwalt, F22, Seawolf etc.)

>>29176132
Because they gave up on a logical system decades ago.

>>29176174
Nah, they gave up on it when they made the XF-35 into the F-35 instead of the F-24

>>29176132
Because the name is totally arbitrary, there is no special system logic to comfort autists.

Think of it as the B2.1 if that helps.

>>29176206
Don't forget the F-13, F-19, F-21, etc.

>>29176249
F-21 was the Israeli IAI Kfir, they were used in DACT by the USN and the YF-19 supposedly never got out of black projects.

>>29176206
Don't forget
>F-117 is a fighter
>F-111 is a fighter
>F-105 is a fighter

>>29176336
The only one of those that doesn't fall into place is the F-117 as it came after the 1962 designation system

>>29176336
>>F-117 is a fighter
Due to secret squirrel bullshit
>>F-111 is a fighter
But it was
>>F-105 is a fighter
But it was. Not a good one of course, but it was a fighter bomber.

>>29176132
because it's not b4 1962

:3 ?

>>29176336
Everything F-112 and above was reserved for captured Soviet aircraft, which is why the F-117 is designated as it is

>>29176174
>>29176206
>>29176249

I'm not asking for a 100% consistent system. That ship left port a long time ago. I'm just asking: why didn't they name the LRSB the B-3? Why intentionally make it more confusing than it already is?

>>29177267

But the F-117 wasn't a captured soviet aircraft.

>>29176326
>supposedly

>>29177327
thats wat u think

Why was it the YF-22/23 but then the X-32/35?

>>29178231
Because the X-32 and 35 were experimental planes that used novel lift systems, which are revolutionary (as opposed to evolutionary) technology and therefore get the X designation. The YF-22/23 both only used evolutionary technologies.