N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6576 posts, RR: 3 Posted (9 years 9 hours ago) and read 8281 times:
In a nod to both the Lockheed P-38 and English Electric fighter:
WASHINGTON, July 7 (Reuters) - The stealthy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter being developed by the United States and eight other countries is to be named the "Lightning II," in homage to two earlier fighters.
The supersonic F-35 is being built by a team led by Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) at a cost of $276 billion. It is the costliest U.S. weapons program ever.
Areopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1377 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 hours ago) and read 8247 times:
The YF-22 was called Lightning II. Wikipedia says: The name "Lightning II" persisted until the mid-1990s, and for a short while, the plane was also dubbed "Rapier". The F-22 became the "Raptor" when the first production-representative plane was unveiled on April 9, 1997, at Lockheed-Georgia Co., Marietta, Georgia.
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 5125 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 hours ago) and read 8184 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 1):
Was the F-22 ever considered for this name or was this just the computer sim company calling it the Lightning?
According to Flightglobal, Lightning II was one of the names originally suggested for the F-22. http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...'s+F-35+JSF+the+Lightning+II.html
I believe they've chosen a most fitting name, since Lockheed made the P-38 and the UK, the only Level 1 partner in the JSF, had the EE version. Would this mean the end of naming new fighters after birds of prey, and the revival of WWII legends?
Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 5): Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 4):
The Lightning name was much better suited to the F-22 than to this new flying frog.
What is your problem with the F-35 anyway?
Let him have his fun. He's just found a way to get even for the Whalejet.
AirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 hours ago) and read 8135 times:
I can't agree with the name Lightning, or can think of any historic name for this aircraft. As it really does not have a link to the past, it might as well be called the Jug (or Thunderbolt II which may be most appropriate), or Corsair II, Skyhawk doesn't cut it, Thunderchief II is to "60s".
To bad we did'nt have a poll to name it, that may have been fun though I might have missed it if there were.
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 hours ago) and read 8127 times:
Quoting AirSpare (Reply 12): I can't agree with the name Lightning, or can think of any historic name for this aircraft. As it really does not have a link to the past, it might as well be called the Jug (or Thunderbolt II which may be most appropriate), or Corsair II, Skyhawk doesn't cut it, Thunderchief II is to "60s".
I am one who was very disappointed F-22 was named for a dinosaur instead of Lightning II, so I accept F-35 as second-best.
FYI... Corsair II was the name of the A-7. Republic Aviation is dead and gone, and with it, most likely, the "Thunder-" names (P-47, F-84, F-84F, RF-84F, XF-84H, F-105, A-10) Thunderbolt II is the official name of the A-10, the end of the road for Republic.
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6576 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (9 years ago) and read 8021 times:
Quoting Thorny (Reply 14): FYI... Corsair II was the name of the A-7. Republic Aviation is dead and gone, and with it, most likely, the "Thunder-" names (P-47, F-84, F-84F, RF-84F, XF-84H, F-105, A-10) Thunderbolt II is the official name of the A-10, the end of the road for Republic.
Republic became Fairchild-Republic, which became Fairchild-Dornier. They only recently folded.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
I reckon it would actually have been quite a good name - the aircraft are similar in a number of respects - single pilot, single engine, strike fighter. It even has the same style of intake when viewed from above...
DeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (8 years 12 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7653 times:
Quoting Lehpron (Reply 20): Awe, now we see how something simple turns offensive. Both of you should be slapped, IMO.
Who was offended? It was a simple question based on a remark that seemed a little strange due to the fact that the F-35 is very impressive to look at IMO.
Maybe you should be slapped for trying to find a problem where there is none!
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 22): There's no need to agree with me on this, of course, and certainly no need to feel offended by it, unless you are the designer of the F-35 AND beauty was your design target
As I said above, I had never seen anyone really upset with the looks of the F-35, and from the picture above of it flying it is a pretty good looking plane, but not to everyone I am sure. The picture you post is not doing it justice thats for sure, and that Boeing plane was just bizzarre, like they took the Corsair and mated it with an F-18.
Do you still not like it after seeing a more flattering picture? Just curious.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny