It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F-35 official roll-out

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Yes, what snoogans said. Also murcielago, and anyone else thinking similarly, don't let yourself be confused by two different systems operating here, whether the Lightning in the picture was an F.6 or a T.5 doesn't really matter in this respect. I labelled the picture of it 'TWO' to signify that it was the second frontline fighter called Lightning, making the F-35 the third such aircraft, making a bit of a mockery of naming it Lightning II.

To explain what I meant by two different systems it would be easiest to imagine a single type of aircraft that served with both the USAF and RAF in identical versions. Although there have been many shared types, such as the Phantom, Hercules, C-17 etc, none has shared an identical evolution so for this explanation I will use the F-15 as the simplest example that anyone unfamiliar with the UK system can follow. If you stick with me I hope it will become clear why I chose this. I know the RAF never used the type, it is just to illustrate the point.

The RAF uses a role letter and a mark number to denote a variant where the USAF uses a type letter & number ID followed by a mark letter. For example If the RAF had bought the F-15A for its new fighter in the 70's it would have gone into service as the 'Eagle F.1' denoting the first model in service as a fighter version.

The F-15B trainer would then become the 'Eagle T.2' meaning 'second version, trainer'. This would make the upgraded F-15C the 'Eagle F.3' and its associated trainer version the 'Eagle T.4'. The switch to ground attack for the F-15E would bring a change in letter as it is neither a trainer nor a fighter variant so it would become the 'Eagle GR.5', denoting 'ground attack and reconnaissance' but the 5 denotes the fifth variant in use, the mark number progresses in sequence for every new variant regardless of role. This shows how the US and UK system work in relation to each other so the number on a UK aircraft has no bearing on whether it is the first or second *type* of aircraft to bear the name but only which serving version it is of a single type.

In fact the UK does not use the I or II at all in its designations, the Typhoon, for instance is not the Typhoon II. The original Harrier was a 1920's biplane but the Harrier II designation for the jump jet was not used until the AV-8B version was created, and even then only in the USA, the UK version of the AV-8B entering service simply as the Harrier GR.5 (with the AV-8A being the GR.1, the GR.3 had no US equivalent).

If the UK retains the 'Lightning' name for the F-35B then it will simply drop the II from it and apply a mark number. If the F-35B is the only version we buy (likely but not definitely decided yet) it will become simply the 'Lightning GR.1' (which somehow looks completely wrong), with some A2A capability built in this becomes 'Lightning FGR.1' OR 'FG.1' instead, it depends on the role it enters UK service in.

*IF* the RN subsequently bought the F-35C instead then it would probabl become the Lightning FA.2 and any other versions going into use would get a role letter and mark number in sequence. Neither 'Lightning II' nor 'F-35' will see use in the UK as official designators.

That turned out to be a much longer explanation than I intended, apologies to anyone who got this far and either felt it was not worth it or learned nothing new.




[edit on 8-7-2006 by waynos]




posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos


Mustang II would have been appropriate though given the US/UK link on the F-35 and the fact that the Mustang was designed to meet a British specification in the first place




I agree with you, Mustang II would be a perfect name



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Thanks for the explaination waynos...I didn't know thats how they name them...interesting. And I think it should be called FGR, since it will do them all.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   
You're most welcome, I'm glad it was useful to you.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
You read my mind waynos.
I was thinking about asking you this exact question, but as I started to type it, I realized I was almost late for work so had to run out the door. Imagine my surprise to read it when I got home.
Thanks!



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   
F-35 Wyvern. I kind of like that, it sounds menacing... for those who know what a wyvern is.

It's actually pretty fitting if you think about it, not gonna say it's the prettiest plane around, but it looks frightening to face.

I'm not a fan of dubbing it the Lightning II.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 02:30 AM
link   
It wouldn't be politically correct calling it after a plane from a Playstation game, dontcha think, Shattered? the USAF will be accused that war is regarded as a game. It's still a good name thogh



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Pazo, maybe you never heard of the Westland Wyvern strike fighter? The only turboprop powered strike fighter ever to see action.





[edit on 11-7-2006 by waynos]



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   
You caught me here.


That's a very cool looking plane, will make sure to research it a bit. Where did it see action, Folklands? Very impressive indeed.

This said, I think ShatteredSkies was thinking more of the PS game than the real thing. I might be wrong, but judging from his name he is a fan of the game.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Only Shattered can answer that one (as well as "why register all over again as shattered 2?")


The Wyvern saw action in the Suez campaign of 1956. It was originally flown during WW2 with a Rolls Royce Eagle piston engine but that version never reached service.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Although I am a fan of the game, the reason I would name it a Wyvern is not because of the X-02, but because a Wyvern is a two legged winged dragon that breathes fire and has the tail of a lizard. That's menacing, it's the only reason why I would suggest Wyvern.


Shattered OUT...



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 02:23 AM
link   
OK Shattered, I believe you and as I said Wyvern would have been a really cool name.
Waynos thanks for the info, I found about the piston engine and the Suez campaign with a quick google search (but unfortunately after I wrote the nonsence about the Folklands
)
What can I say, the thing looked too advanced to be a WWII design.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Well I was forced to re-register, as for some unknown reason my password stopped working and I couldn't retrieve my password, so I had to get a new account. Sad really.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Nice to this baby being rolled out, both Lockheed martin and BAE systems should be well proud of this kickass plane, when this baby is fully in service with the US and UK along with the new euro fighter typhoon.

Both our airforce will be kicking ass and taking names anything they decides to fight them.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Hey Shattered check out this thread, U2U Skeptic so you can get your old account back.

Link



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   
They rolled out the RIGHT airplane...though the choice of name sucks. 'Lightning' doesn't fit the F-35, especially after applying it to such memorable aircraft as the P-38 and E.E. Lightning. The name would have worked better had they stuck to the plan and attached the name to the F-22 as originally proposed. The F-35 needs something different. Not a recycled name. It's tacky.


[edit on 14-7-2006 by TSR2005]

[edit on 14-7-2006 by TSR2005]



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duby78

Originally posted by waynos


Mustang II would have been appropriate though given the US/UK link on the F-35 and the fact that the Mustang was designed to meet a British specification in the first place




I agree with you, Mustang II would be a perfect name



Well, it couldn't be worse than 'Lightning II' (how shockingly unoriginal eh whot!?).

Yet the P-51 sucked raw buttermilk as a ground attack airframe. You put hole in the radiator/intercooler at the right place and it's going to sieze up and act like a heartshot moose as it just //flopped// into the dirt. Obviously the F-35 is not subject to th same laws of trashfire vulnerability. But since it IS a ground attack aircraft, by design...

The latter of which of course has direct reference to the 'both AMRAAM today I tell'ya!' OCA factor which means JSF had better hunt in packs or it's ability to survive in a combined air and ground threat arena will be decidedly low.

Since there are going to be all of 10 jets on each carrier and 1,200 vs. the 2,400 originally desired for each AEF commitment, the question becomes how the CMIC collective think they are going to increase mutual support with fewer jets, each of which costs (now, it's getting worse) well over FOUR TIMES what the F-16 did.

If your answer is LRAAM from afar and netcentric ADAAM tactics then the question must be equally asked, "Why manned?". Because if it's just a dumb shooter for an AIM-120D or AIM-160B, _any weapons bay will do_. And the UCAVs are actually better designed for multiple ordnance types anyway.

As usual pilot-corps uber alles (better to be laze'n'blazed off your warhorse like a two bit Don Quixote than to send in a cart pony with smar bombs alone and trade bullets for DEW sites) is the only believable answer.

In collusion with legislative/industrial greed as a three way MIC circle jerk, just like Eisenhower warned us of.

Ain't that just so damn 'patriotic' as to make'ya wanna puke?


KPl.

[edit on 15-7-2006 by ch1466]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join