Hc-144

[tigercat2]

In the Jan 22 issue of Aviation Week, on page 16, there is an article about the HC-144 multi-mission transport aircraft for the US Coast Guard.  This is a derivative of the EADS CASA CN-235.  


Is this designation, HC-144, a throwback to the pre-1962 designation scheme?  I thought that the current "cargo" designations were in the high 40s, low 50s.  The -144 looks like a follow on to the series that produced the C-141 and XC-142.


Wes W.

[Jschmus]

I found the following blurb on the EADS website:

EADS News: HC-144A

Edit:

I did some prowling around the Designation Systems site, and I came up with the following:

The C-143A is a single Challenger 604 aircraft, which was acquired by the Coast Guard in December 2005 as its new Medium Range Command and Control Aircraft (MRC2A). The number 143 was selected to continue the "old" (pre-1962) USAF C-series, where the last actually allocated number was 142. Unofficial information indicates that there has been some DOD-internal confusion if C-42 (the nominal next number in the post-1962 C-series) was really available for allocation. The result was the continuation of the older C-series, because the C-143 slot was definitely available.

It then follows:

The HC-144A is the EADS-CASA CN-235-300CG, which was selected by the U.S. Coast Guard for its MRS MPA (Medium Range Surveillance Maritime Patrol Aircraft) program.

Apparently, the confusion over the use of C-42 stems from this being the next number of the current series that is available, and this number was supposedly allocated for the so-called KC-767 tanker.

I hope that clears things up a little.

[Shasper]

Well the GC does operated HC-130s, and I imagine the Army's replacement for the Sherpa will be in the 1xx range as well.


Shas B)

[tigercat2]

Thanks so much for this info.  Bottom line seems to be that the services can use any designation that they want!!!


Wes W.

[Jennings]

Not to put it too bluntly, the U.S. military's Mission-Design-Series system (MDS) is fecked beyond hope.  The system worked just great from 1962 until politics started getting into it.  Now we have "official" designations like "KC-767" that make my blood positively boil.  

If we're going to have a system, and then just simply ignore it to suit our own purposes, why even bother having the system?

Oh, that's right... it's kind of like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution...  They're more like guidelines that we don't have to follow if we don't feel like it or if we find them uncomfortable.

J