The numbers and letter markings on military jets are anything but mere identification—the preferences of the designers and pilots, their individualities, and in some cases, outdated superstitions. The U.S. military has evolved from a motley of service-specific name systems to greater standardization. Even the best-designed systems of names become confusing as technology develops.
In the early days, the Army Air Force and the Navy each used their own system, producing a mix of letters and numbers that only insiders could fully decode. To bring order to the chaos, the Department of Defense introduced the Tri-Service aircraft designation system in 1962.
The mission was straightforward: make aircraft designations uniform across the board—the Air Force, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard. Abbreviations such as “A” for attack, “B” for bomber, and “F” for fighter started to become routine. However, as aircraft assumed multiple roles, these designations started to become mixed. The F-35, e.g., walks the fighter-attack divide, and hence its designation is simpler than the term.
Even with standardization, the system has had its oddities. Some numbers were deliberately skipped, sometimes for superstitious reasons rather than practical ones. The F-13, for instance, was avoided because of the longstanding taboo against the number 13.
The F-19 never appeared either, reportedly reserved for secret projects or to avoid confusion with other aircraft. Prototypes, like the YF-17 that lost the F-16 competition, went on to become the Navy’s F/A-18 Hornet, showing how even experimental planes leave lasting marks on the designation system.
As technology advanced in aviation, unmanned vehicles were once designated by a “Q” prefix, largely applicable to target drones or spy platforms. The advent of combat-qualified drones saw it change completely. The Air Force in 2025 announced the first formal “fighter drone” designations of cooperative combat aircraft (CCAs).
Vendors such as Anduril and General Atomics produced vehicles that became the YFQ-42A and YFQ-44A and marked a significant change in the perception of unmanned vehicles from secondary platforms to full-fledged combatants.
Their naming provoked controversy. Some contended the Air Force might have re-allocated unused designations within the F-24 through F-34 range by merely substituting a “Q” to indicate unmanned status. Others noted that traditionally, the “Q” designation applied to non-combatants, never to purpose-designed fighters. These new unmanned drones are designed from scratch to fight and to multitask alongside manned platforms.
Even the unexpected YFQ-43A raised eyebrows. Some analysts speculate that in a four-drone squadron, certain numbers are reserved for flight leaders, reflecting the role of drones as loyal wingmen. Whether or not this is true, it underscores how complex—and sometimes opaque—military naming conventions can be.
What is certain is that designators such as YFQ-42A and YFQ-44A represent a threshold. Unmanned systems are no longer reconnaissance or target platforms by another name—They are accepted as combat aircraft in their own right. The system of naming aircraft, in all its idiosyncrasies and sometimes awkward inconsistencies, persists.
In a world in which the lines between manned and unmanned, fighter and attack become daily less distinct, these names are telling. Logical at times, cryptic at times, they are the epitome of the latest in present-day air war and the changing face of aircraft on the battlefield.
