name for f-35

The F-35 should be called the The Awesomeness, The Extream machine, or just called The Thing.
*curly*

Why not......................Airazor

Do we really need another F-35 name thread?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

And I can add a few names to that list, especially for the sake of the Marines and Royal Navy.
How about the F-35 'Klutz'?
'DeathTrap'?
Maybe 'POS'?
Or 'Lemon'?
'Recall'?
'Fragile'?
'SNAFU'?
'Explorer'?
'Flying Nightmare'? (to the men who fly it, not fight it)
'Hanger Queen'?
'Suicide'?
I can keep going, you know....

[edit on 3-6-2006 by TSR2005]

I was told yesterday, by someone who isn't particularly privy to official sources but is in the RAF, that whatever name is selected by the US doesn't matter to us as the RAF want to call it the Tempest.

I'd be happy with that.

Originally posted by waynos
I was told yesterday, by someone who isn't particularly privy to official sources but is in the RAF, that whatever name is selected by the US doesn't matter to us as the RAF want to call it the Tempest.

I'd be happy with that.

Tempest is a good name... but I've never heard of a nation that changes the name of a plane...???

Happens all the time FIN, examples;

Grumman Wildcat >>>Grumman Martlet
Grumman Avenger |>>> Grumman Tarpon
North American Texan >>> North American Harvard

Modern day=

Raytheon T-6 Texan II >>> Raytheon Harvard II

AgustaWestland EH101 Merlin >>> Lockheed VH-71 Kestrel

Sepecat Jaguar >>> HAL Shamser

HS Gnat >>> HAL Ajeet


There are many more

I see... I really didn't know that... Still I think it's a bit unethical to change a name just because it's an other country... And correct me if I'am wrong it's more usual to use the original name...?? referring too Fighting Falcon, Hornet, Harrier...

Tempest still sounds nice...

I don't know about you guys, but I don't think the F-35 will make it too well. It was designed to be basic, affordable multirole. Is it basic or affordable? Hell no. What has the costs spiralled to?

Well, the 'Short List'-

www.f-16.net...

Now apparently includes the following:

1. Lightning II
2. Spitfire II
3. Black Mamba
4. Piasa
5. Cyclone
6. Reaper

Here's my view:

The Lightning.
As a historical legacy, this references A TWIN ENGINE air superiority interceptor designed for high rate climb to altitude. Also the fastest fighter of it's day with a speed over 400mph in the prototypes. The first prototype of which crashed, thanks to worthless Army Air Corps showboat stunt of 'a race across America'. The factory was transfered from California to Texas I think it was early in the program, crippling production rates at the start of WWII. Production remained low due to 'two of everything' complexities throughout the conflict. Problems with cockpit heating, fuel, spark plugs and particularly the turbo system ruined it's air superiority performance over Europe though it was a fair to middling long range interdictor and fighter sweep platform in the Med and SWAPR.

EXCEPT FOR THE LAST. The F-35 has less (next to nothing) in common with the Lightning than the F-22 does. Either by role or performance.

The Spitfire.
Shortrange Point Defense Interceptor. Outclassed at altitude by virtually every threat platform for much of the crucial years of the war. Outclassed at low and medium level by the FW-190 for virtually the entire war. Made it's name as the 'Defender of Britain' in 1940 during which (BOBian) campaign, 2 out of every 3 enemy aircraft downed were attributable to the Hurricane. Basically a non player thereafter because the Brits refused to integrate a strong enough power plant to carry the aft fuselage tank needed to get it deep into Europe. A sparkling aerobatics and generally 'sweet' (well balanced) aircraft up to about the Mk.IX, with the integration of the Griffon, it became a monster that was unruly and hard to handle. Due to a lack of appropriate weapons pylons, it _never was_ a successful interdictor. And while 'adopted' (coopted, shanghai'd) to naval roles, it's terrible boarding rate and generally incompatible (narrow track gear, poor propline clearance, louse view over the nose, susceptibility to spine breaks) design made it one of the reasons why the Brits moved to the Martlet/Hellcat/Corsair late in the war.

Black Mamba.
Two word names for fighters are bad luck and excessively egotistical. If you can't say it in one, you're covering up for 'inadequacies elsewhere' by trying to make it sound better with more. The Mamba is a lethal snake. But it is not one indigenous to any of the developing countries. Furthermore, the /Black/ is simply the adult color variation of the _Green_ which is FAR more dangerous to humans, both because it is more toxic when young and because, while still small, they like to nest in the grass roofs of human habitations to stay out of the reach of predators. Humans don't like snakes, they are sneaky, nasty, kill-you-for-no-cause (can't eat you, dumb animal) 'accidental assassins'. While stealth is, perhaps, in accord with such an unseen (avoidable) attack mode, it is more deliberate in it's militance, at least I'd like to think so. Perhaps most damning, the Mamba in all forms is a slender, graceful, predator. The only way the JSF gets there is if you feed said reptile an anvil.

Piasa.
I'll let someone else describe this one-

>>
"The picture was cut into the rock a half inch or more, and was originally painted red, black, and blue. It had the head of a bear, large disproportioned teeth, the horns of an elk, the scaly body of a large fish, and a bear's legs ending with eagle's claws. The tail was at least fifty feet long, wound three times around the body, and tipped with a spearhead thrust backward through its hind legs.

"The upper horns were painted red, the lower portion and head were painted black. The wings expanded to the right and left of its head, and the Piasa's body was at least sixteen feet long. Its head and neck were covered with a whiskery mane, and its body...covered with the three colours... In 1820, Captain Gideon Spencer came up the Mississippi River and saw the same picture on the rock. He asked the nearby Indians what it was. They told him it was the Stormbird or Thunderer, and that it had been carved there by an Indian tribe long ago."
>>

www.indians.org...

While such a Chimaera'd creature is nothing if not ludicrous, and thus **Highly Appropriate** for a 'bird of many beasts' waste of money such as the F-35, I doubt if it will make much of an impression on the USAF who like their animals to be adept predators. It should further be noted that the literal translation of 'Destroyer' is one which also connotes the German Me-110 as a Zerstorer and one of the _least_ effective day fighter and attack aircraft classes known (a mission specialty to which the Lightning belongs btw.). While having little or no equivalent U.S. aviation heritage.

5. Cyclone/Tempest.
Is actually a Hurricane in the Indian Ocean or Bay Of Bengal but merely a low pressure system (counterclockwise rotation weather cell) over the Northern Hemisphere. i.e. 'A Storm'. I'm sure the Brits would love to have a Hurricane again but we have given only limited association of weather patterns to aircraft historically (duuuuh, planes crash in bad weather) and besides the UK'ers should be satisfied with 'Typhoon' equivalent. IMO, the British don't deserve the honor of having the aircraft named after one of their previous ones. They may pretend they wear the pants in this program as 'senior associate partner' but this is still a U.S. platform, not a 'Tempest'. The bitter irony being that we would be doing them a favor by not giving it this name as the Tempest was again, a very fast, capable, air to air fighter while the Typhoon was a fair tank killer, thanks to it's compression problems on the tail, thick airfoil and poor control harmonies (none of which should be wished on a U.S. fighter). Only the UK could find satisfaction in doing things backwards so as to attribute to the Flubber the role of A2G while making the F-35 into something it is not and never will be.

6. Reaper.
Mandy And Billy will be /so/ pleased. Seriously, in the U.S. all armed forces have, since the early/mid 1980's, been forced to live with a naming convention that precludes the use of anything bearing even the slightest demonic affiliation. And the Reaper, unless you mean a plastic fishing lure or a harvesting machine, is unfortunately connotative of a demonic 'reaper of souls' rather than the pre-Greek harvest god of fertility which the scythe at least truly represents. Death as represented by a skeleton not coming into popularity until the 14th century when the Great Plague left so many corpses with consumptive like thinning of the flesh on the bones unburied and leaching out in the sun as to make their skeletal forms obvious. The scythe and cloak (and hourglass) coming yet later. I'm not sure the military wants to have their image associated with the Black Death or The Grim Reaper, if only because their presence is already seen as a plague upon many regions and the image presented is all too similar to specifically foreign symbols which ARE demonic. 'Shaba" being one of the Arab equivalents already applied to the F-117.

CONCLUSION:
None of these are terribly inspired names. Because they denote nothing special about what the plane /does/ (stealthy night intruder as much as fighter) nor what it _looks like_ (from above, some kind of short broad sword or dagger, both of which have prior GD associations as well as multiple 'interpretations' in other languages). Even animals could be better chosen. Mantis or Crane for the long legs and 'necked' forebody. Badger or Bear for the pudgy lines. Even exotics like Broadhead, Bolt (including Fire, Sky and Thunder) as arrow types. And Pike or Crossbow as early precision/standoff weapons which destroyed their enemy from a distance.

IF we are stuck with yet another WWII retread, I would go with the Mustang (because of it's range and heavy fuel load). Or the Thunderbolt (because of it's status as the heaviest single engine piston fighter of the period and it's principal success as a ground attack platform). LONG before I would choose the Lightning.

My Picks:

The RICO (Act)
The Armed Robbery
The ENRON
The V-3 (Vae Victis Vickers)
The ELTA (Export LO to Anybody)
The WOMBIT (Waste Of Money, Built In Texas)
The RAPEDA (Rape Of The Deficiency Act)
The Hubris (Never have So Many paid So Much for the benefit of So Few)
The Gold Plate Special
The U-5 (5 UCAVs for the price of one Fighter Pilot)
The JSF (Just So Bleeped)

And LASTLY (rolling rasberry please): "LASER BAIT!"

Originally posted by Darkpr0
I don't know about you guys, but I don't think the F-35 will make it too well. It was designed to be basic, affordable multirole. Is it basic or affordable? Hell no. What has the costs spiralled to?

^^designed by Skunk Works... failure isn't an option...

well i think the british will name the f-35 different to what the americans name it, names like:-

eagle, hawk, thunderbolt, tigershark, thunderdragon

all sound TOO american for the royal navy and airforce... personally i think we would have been better going with the rafale or navalised eurofighter (or even better) just wait for the ucavs!!

out of all 5th generation aircraft in possible development:-

f-22, f-35, indian stalma, shenyang J-XX, Su-47 Berkut, Mikoyan Project 1.44, Sukhoi PAK FA.

the f-35 appears to be the most costly and $hittyist one... 2014 britain will have to wait for the f-35... ucav's will be in operation/development by then, 10 years after that manned aircraft will have gone the same way as the dinosaurs




[edit on 4-6-2006 by Sepiroth]

Originally posted by Sepiroth
the f-35 appears to be the most costly and $hittyist one

How much is the F-35 going for now? It's not more than the F-22A, is it?

10 years after that manned aircraft will have gone the same way as the dinosaurs

Not sure if you were being sarcastic, but I highly doubt manned aircraft will ever go away.

Originally posted by Sepiroth
out of all 5th generation aircraft in possible development:-

f-22, f-35, indian stalma, shenyang J-XX, Su-47 Berkut, Mikoyan Project 1.44, Sukhoi PAK FA.

Just for the record the STALMA will never be produced because it is completely fictional, just the brainchild of someone with a good CG package. Check this thread.

Also in my opinion the Su-47 is just a tech demonstrator and will never go into production.... sadly.

The spitfire is a name only the brits should be allowed to use.

I wonder if I made a third thread on the F-35 if it would be locked...

Yes I think I will do that, if it warrants two, then it must warant even more.

To ch1466: kudos on your final name list.
As for the RAF, or Air Force, or Navy, they can call their aircraft what ever they want, since they'll be getting the version that will ACTUALLY WORK.
Fury sounds good, though...