&w=3840&q=100)
Did US really name fighter jet F-47 after Trump?
In March this year, US President Donald Trump announced 'the world's first sixth-generation fighter jet, F-47. Many thought the number honoured Trump, but there is more to the story. read more
On March 21, 2025, US President Donald Trump announced from the Oval Office that he had directed the American Air Force to move forward with the development of 'the world's first sixth-generation fighter jet .' He was flanked by US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth, who went on to boast about the fighter jet's 'speed, manoeuvrability and payload.'
Hegseth said that the fighter jet promises to be something 'the likes of which nobody has seen before.' Trump went on to interject his defence secretary, pointing to the name 'F-47' for the fighter jet. 'Nothing in the world comes even close to it,' Trump said. 'It'll be known as the F-47. The generals picked the title. It's a beautiful number.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The announcement of the fighter jet's name came as a surprise since it was supposed to succeed the F-22 aircraft. Many soon started to wonder if the fighter jet was named F-47 to honour the 47th President of the United States, Donald J Trump. Well, the assessment might be partially true, but there is more to the story. To understand the reason why number 47 was chosen for the new line of fighter jets, let's first see how the United States names its weapon systems and aircraft.
How do they get the names?
It is pertinent to note that the US military has a longstanding naming protocol for its aircraft. The rules of the game are governed by something called the 'Mission Design Series', established by the Defence Department in the 1960s. 'This system uses letters and numbers to symbolise identifying characteristics of military aerospace vehicles of direct interest to the DoD,' an Air Force memo obtained by Bloomberg read.
The first letter depicts the basic mission of the aircraft. For example, the letter 'B' denotes that it is a bomber and the letter 'P' denotes that it will be used for patrolling. Then there is a dash, which is followed by a number, called the 'design number'.
According to an article by the US Naval Institute, this number conveys that the 'aircraft is a specific design of that particular type or basic mission.' The number tends to follow a sequential pattern. However, the article made it clear that 'there are many gaps and numerous exceptions to these sequences.' there are many gaps and numerous exceptions to these sequences.' Since the F-47 is succeeding the F-22, the fighter jet would fall in the exception category.
Honouring history or Trump
When a journalist from Bloomberg filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the US Air Force, he received the real reason behind the naming of the aircraft. The records from the Air Force showed that the name F-47 had its roots in an iconic World War II fighter plane, and the generals also found it an interesting way to honour the current US President.
The records showed that General David Allvin, the Air Force's chief of staff, had an 'urgent' request for information about a World War 2 aircraft. A few hours later, Air Force researchers sent a two-page description of the P-47 aircraft, popularly known as 'Thunderbolt'.
Airmen adopted their moniker for the P-47, calling it 'Juggernaut.' Over time, since the jet looked like a glass milk bottle, it was soon referred to as 'Jug'. In the memo obtained by Bloomberg, the US Air Force described the P-47 as 'probably the best ground-attack aircraft fielded by the United States. From D-Day, the invasion of Europe launched on June 8, 1944, until VE Day on May 7, 1945, pilots flying the Thunderbolt destroyed the following enemy equipment: 86,000 railway cars, 9,000 locomotives, 6,000 armoured fighting vehicles, 68,000 trucks.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
How the Air Force was left by surprise by Trump's announcement
When Trump announced the F-47 jet, neither he nor Hegseth mentioned the legacy of the P-47. Bloomberg's assessment showed that there is a possibility that the Air Force may have been caught off guard or were just unprepared when the president said the new fighter jet would be called F-47.
It is pertinent to note that Trump's press conference took place at around 11:30 am (local time). The email obtained by the news outlet showed that they were sent soon after the presser. 'Sir, Request coordination with SECDEF office,' an Air Force public affairs official wrote in an email sent to Lieutenant General Dale White, the military deputy in the Air Force's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
However, General Allvin's team dismissed the claim that the decision to honour P-47 was taken after Trump's announcement. At least one reporter pressed an Air Force spokesperson for more details about the 'designation for the F-47.' 'The nomenclature system exists to maintain an orderly, non-chaotic process of naming systems,' the reporter asked. 'Why was it abandoned in this case? And who decided to do that?' the reporter asked.
Ann Stefanek, the Air Force spokesperson, did not share additional details on the matter and just remarked: 'General Allvin made the decision.' It will now remain unclear exactly when the decision to honour the aircraft was taken.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
With inputs from agencies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
12 minutes ago
- Mint
India must watch out as the world's security architecture shudders and shifts
Gift this article The annual meeting of Nato, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, took place in The Hague last week against the backdrop of a world moving towards a new and fluid security architecture. Thirty of Nato's 32 current members are European, with the US and Canada being its two North American members. The annual meeting of Nato, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, took place in The Hague last week against the backdrop of a world moving towards a new and fluid security architecture. Thirty of Nato's 32 current members are European, with the US and Canada being its two North American members. Born in 1949 soon after World War II, the original raison d'être of Nato was containment of the Soviet Union and its role as a hedge against the remilitarization of Germany. Once West Germany joined in 1955, the second objective was dropped. After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, Germany was reunited in 1990 and the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Nato's purpose was lost for nearly two decades. With Vladimir Putin's rise in Russia at the beginning of the 21st century and particularly after Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, Nato members found common cause again, and the alliance regained some of its mojo. The Ukrainian conflict that began in 2022 united Nato again. Finland and Sweden, which had remained outside for seven decades, have joined the alliance since. Also Read: Geopolitics: Brace for a global shake-up now that Trump has rattled Nato Beginning with Donald Trump's first US presidency in 2017 and continuing into his second one now, Washington has been indifferent towards Ukraine and shown an unexplained sympathy for Russia's position. President Trump has also publicly declared his ambivalence towards Article 5 of Nato, its 'collective defense" clause that states that an attack against any member requires all members to come to its aid. Whether Trump's disposition is just a threat aimed at making European members increase their contributions to Nato remains unclear. Nato is resourced through the direct and indirect national contributions of its members. Nato's common funds are composed of direct contributions to collective budgets and programmes. National contributions, the largest component of Nato funding, include the forces and capabilities held by each member country that can be provided to Nato for deterrence and defence activities and military operations. Direct funds enable Nato to maintain its capabilities and run the entirety of the organization and its military commands. Nato has three principal common-funded budgets: the civil budget (funding the Nato headquarters), military budget (funding the Nato Command Structure) and the Nato Security Investment Programme (funding military infrastructure and capabilities). For 2025, its direct funds amount to about $5.4 billion, of which the US contributes about 16% (an identical amount is contributed by Germany). If all 30 European countries were to do it, annual defence spending would double from $380 billion today to about $750 billion. The latter number is just a bit lower than the current US defence spending and comparable to China's unofficial level. The summit ended with a firm commitment from Nato allies to spend 5% of GDP, up from today's 2% floor. Whether or not America officially quits Nato, even if it psychologically 'checks out,' the security architecture of Europe would change dramatically without an assured American backstop. At the same time, there are tensions among European Nato members, with Hungary publicly supporting Russia and Turkey playing a nuanced ménage-à-trois game. The new nationalist president of Poland is also likely to hold a more matrix-determined position than his predecessor. Also Read: Nato's endgame on Ukraine will need regime change in Moscow While there are other multi-country strategic groupings like the Quad, made up of the US, India, Japan and Australia, and Aukus, made up of Australia, the US and UK, no other multi-country alliance has shown the commitment and staying power of Nato (till Trump came along). Even traditional alliances have become more situation-dependent in recent times. China has generally supported Pakistan and Russia has supported India since Cold War times. At the same time, China has supported Russia on the Ukraine War. During the recent Operation Sindoor, both Russia and the US were ambivalent in their support of India. Turkey, while pursuing its own calculus, has held positions that are inimical to Indian interests in recent years. Even more recently, Iran must have been surprised that Russia did not come to its defence more publicly during its 12-day conflict with Israel. Also Read: Mint Explainer: Sweden set to join NATO after Turkey backs off Alert to the possibility that a US commitment to their security is no longer reliable (and that the US may even turn hostile), countries from Japan and South Korea to Germany are re-arming themselves. In addition to nuclear-equipped France and the UK, Nato's nuclear sharing arrangements extend to Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. Beyond Nato, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) promulgated in 1969, with 191 current members, is likely to lose some members over the coming years. India is entering a phase where it will have to become far more self-reliant, even as it partners with Russia, the US and others on a context-specific basis. When India purchases defence systems, it will have to insist on technology transfers, source-code access and the interoperability of these platforms with locally developed missile systems. P.S: 'If you have one true friend, then you have more than your share," said clergyman Thomas Fuller. The author is chairman, InKlude Labs. Read Narayan's Mint columns at Topics You May Be Interested In
Mint
14 minutes ago
- Mint
Judges rule against human rights groups claim that the UK is illegally arming Israel
LONDON — Human rights groups lost their legal challenge Monday to the British government's decision to supply Israel with parts for F-35 fighter jets and other military equipment. The Palestinian group Al-Haq and the U.K.-based Global Legal Action Network alleged that the government broke domestic and international law and was complicit in atrocities against Palestinians by allowing essential components for the warplanes to be supplied to Israel. The government last year suspended about 30 of 350 existing export licenses for equipment deemed to be for use in the conflict in Gaza because of a 'clear risk' the items could be used to violate international humanitarian law. Equipment included parts for helicopters and drones. But an exemption was made for some licenses related to components of F-35 fighter jets, which are indirectly supplied to Israel through the global spare parts supply chain and have been linked to bombing the Gaza Strip. While rights groups argued the U.K. shouldn't continue to export parts through what they call a 'deliberate loophole' given the government's own assessment of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law, the government said the parts were distributed to a collaboration involving the U.S. and six other partners to produce the jets. Components manufactured in the U.K. are sent to assembly lines in the U.S., Italy and Japan that supply partners — including Israel — with jets and spare parts, the court said. Two High Court judges ruled that the issue was one of national security because the parts were considered vital to the defense collaboration and the U.K.'s security and international peace. They said it wasn't up to the courts to tell the government to withdraw from the group because of the possibility the parts would be supplied to Israel and used to violate international humanitarian law in Gaza. 'Under our constitution that acutely sensitive and political issue is a matter for the executive, which is democratically accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts," Justices Stephen Males and Karen Steyn wrote in a 72-page judgment. Compared with major arms suppliers such as the U.S. and Germany, British firms sell a relatively small amount of weapons and components to Israel. The Campaign Against Arms Trade nonprofit group estimates that the U.K. supplies about 15% of the components in the F-35 stealth combat aircraft, including its laser targeting system.
Time of India
14 minutes ago
- Time of India
India hardens stance on farm sector concessions as India-US trade talks stretch
India-US trade deal (Representative AI image) NEW DELHI: As India-US trade talks stretch into a new week with both sides chasing the July 9 deadline, government has hardened its stance on offering concessions in the farm sector. 'The Indian team may stay longer as crucial talks are continuing, but we don't just want to open up whatever is the demand (from the US) on agriculture as lives of millions of farmers are involved,' said a government source. Last week, India's chief negotiator Rajesh Agarwal and other officials had gone to the US on a two-day visit, but the talks have stretched as the US is also keen to conclude some deals before the pause on reciprocal tariffs – 26% in India's case -- ends in. In fact, on Thursday, US president Donald Trump had announced that a 'very big deal' with India is likely – the seventh time that he had announced an agreement. The Indian industry is also being prepared for dealing with reciprocal tariffs, in case the early tranche of the proposed bilateral trade deal does not work out. For India, a key concern is allowing lower duty import on agricultural products like maize, soybean and dairy products, which is being demanded by the US side. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 2025 Top Trending Local Enterprise Accounting Software [Click Here] Accounting ERP Click Here Undo Privately, several industry representatives have met commerce department brass and suggested that India should agree to the demands from the Trump administration, but government is keen to ensure that it is not a one-sided deal. Officials also conveyed to exporters on Monday that the limited deal, if it works out, will cover only a limited set of products with more tranches likely in the coming months. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
