# Choice of Names for JSF Narrows



## Royzee617 (Jun 4, 2006)

What would you call the JSF? Merlin? Wombat? PoS? SHAR-Killer?
Any of those maybe but not some of the suggestions below... they surely can't be seriously considering Spitfire II? Prats.


Choice of Names for JSF Narrows
By BRUCE ROLFSEN, TIMES STAFF WRITER


A decision will be made soon that will affect thousands of U.S. airmen for decades to come: what to name the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
With the F-35’s “inaugural debut” set for early July, U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley must decide soon what the fighter will be called.
Most U.S. Air Force fighters have been named after birds of prey — Eagle, Falcon, Nighthawk, Raptor and Raven. The tradition dates to the late 1970s.
But there is no requirement that the U.S. Air Force carry on the tradition with the F-35, especially with the Navy and Marine Corps set to buy the jet, too.
As of late May, a list of potential names had been narrowed to six finalists, said Moseley’s spokesman, Maj. Glen Roberts.
They are: Black Mamba, Cyclone, Lightning II, Piasa, Reaper and Spitfire II.
While Moseley has the final say on naming the F-35, the general will consult with the Marine Corps and Navy service chiefs before making a decision, Roberts said.
The Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy are looking to buy about 2,445 jets at an estimated cost of $256 billion.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 4, 2006)

Reaper and Cyclone seem to be the best of the options, but Cyclone is the name of a USS Navy Ship.... 

Using anything that has the word "Black" in it is politically incorrect and will never make it.... The whole "II" things sucks ***, and WTF is a Piasa.....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 4, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> and WTF is a Piasa.....


It's a human eating bird!

I also think it's a former Yankee's catcher...


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 4, 2006)

> I also think it's a former Yankee's catcher...


That would be Mike Piazza of the NY Mets.....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 4, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> That would be Mike Piazza of the NY Mets.....


 Oh yea...


----------



## Dac (Jun 4, 2006)

Cyclone is a good name. Black Mamba is cool but like les says probably won't make the cut...


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jun 4, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Reaper and Cyclone seem to be the best of the options, but Cyclone is the name of a USS Navy Ship....
> 
> Using anything that has the word "Black" in it is politically incorrect and will never make it.... The whole "II" things sucks ***, and WTF is a Piasa.....


hmm... my teacher says that black is politically incorrect too, she says it's supposed to be African American...
"_african american mamba_" and yes the II thing sucks alot


----------



## davparlr (Jun 4, 2006)

I think Lightning II, even though I don't like the "II" thing either.


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 5, 2006)

Cyclone and Reaper are the best choices IMO.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jun 5, 2006)

I agree, sure beats _african american mamba_ and the crap with the II, and wtf is a piasa?


----------



## R988 (Jun 5, 2006)

Shouldn't it really be Lightning III? After all we had the English Electric Lightning as well, the F-22 was also called Lightning II for a while, they even made some computer games with the name so that would just to confuse people like that F-19 fiasco.

Perhaps F-35 Turkey would be most appropriate considering the shenanigans the project has gone through.

I like the name Black Death, but it would be better suited to something cooler, like a new stealth bomber painted black, and to hell with lame political correctness. Spitfire II woulod be an insult really, even the Eurofighter wasn't good enough to deserve it so I don't see why the probably inferior F-35 should get it. Something like Martlett II would be more appropriate given it's role.

some other ideas include
Cayman (has this been taken by something apart from the Porsche model?)
Redback (after the poisonous spider)
Demon II or Devil, (might upset religious types, good)
Death Adder (poisionous snake)


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 5, 2006)

Wildcat said:


> Cyclone and Reaper are the best choices IMO.


I agree.


----------



## Royzee617 (Jun 5, 2006)

Isn't black mamba some kind of condom? Oh no, maybe it was black mambo?

Cyclone is dumb too as it is a famous engine (and a vacuum cleaner).

I like Martlett but isn't that a FAA/RN name for a USN plane? Besides it isn't thematic with birds of prey like Harrier.

How about Hellcat II - argh no it isn't an Iron Works bird.

I like turkey most of all... but didn't they call the F14 that? On account of its turkey feather jet pipes.

Barracuda or some other fishy appelation? But the Barracuda has been used. Tarpon... nah that's gone, even Cod has gone. Shark-something. Great White... Hope/Elephant...? Remora - one of those fishy things that clings on for dear life against the odss sucking the life out of its host or something? I know 'Prescott' on account of the gaping mouth... no, even that has been used as a microprocessor name.

Gawd it's a toughie.


----------



## Royzee617 (Jun 5, 2006)

Looking up birds of prey on Wikipedia it looks like most of the good ones have gone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_of_prey

One that's left is 'buzzard'... or maybe just 'kite'! Neither is macho enough methinks.

Sparrowhawk?

Been used before but is fairly obscure.

I didn't like Tomcat but it grew on me. 

Tigercat was great name... or Tigershark... not much chance of those.

Wobbegong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wobbegong

Mako Shark?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortfin_Mako_Shark


----------



## Royzee617 (Jun 5, 2006)

Gottit!
Piranha!


----------



## Dac (Jun 6, 2006)

R988 said:


> even the Eurofighter wasn't good enough to deserve it so I don't see why the probably inferior F-35 should get it.



I don't think the F-35 is inferior to the Eurofighter. The Typhoon may be more manoeuverable but it doesn't have the low RCS of the F-35. With the increasing use of BVR missiles, that's going to be very important in the future.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2006)

Your're probably going to find that the F-35 may out perform both the Eurofighter AND F-22....


----------



## davparlr (Jun 6, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Your're probably going to find that the F-35 may out perform both the Eurofighter AND F-22....



I suspect that you are right.


----------



## Royzee617 (Jun 6, 2006)

it ought to given how much it costs and how new it is...
Reckon they should just bolt on a few sea-going Flankers...


----------



## Royzee617 (Jun 6, 2006)

Another couple of notional names:

Skua - the FAA RN had a plane called this... 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skua
the Blackburn Skua which almost matches the JSF for good looks!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Skua
as you can read here it had some 'firsts' to its name.

Alternatively, Corsair III - a fine line in navy warplanes. The Corsair I (?) was also used by the FAA. BTW I read somewhere I think about an earlier plane called the Corsair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F4U_Corsair

Finally, how about 'Peregrine'? Hardly macho but relevant to the raptor theme as it is a fish eating Falcon..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peregrine_Falcon

Or maybe 'Albatross' would be suitable... tee hee


----------



## plan_D (Jun 7, 2006)

Call it Berserker . Actually, Reaper is pretty cool.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2006)

It should go into service under the user's national designation. Give it a few years in service and let those who fly and maintain it give it its name.


----------



## Royzee617 (Jun 7, 2006)

Yes, 'Reaper' sounds good.

We wondered about 'Osprey' but of course that's gone.

Or Corsair III - the improved s/s Corsair was, ironically, called the 'Strikefighter'. But was not accepted for shame. So maybe that name's possible.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 7, 2006)

there was a large British Flying boat named Corsair that pre-dates the F4U which you might have thought about...........

and the americans aren't seriously considdering Spitfire II are they?


----------



## Glider (Jun 7, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Your're probably going to find that the F-35 may out perform both the Eurofighter AND F-22....



Sticking my neck out here. Not a chance.


----------



## Glider (Jun 7, 2006)

I will now dive for cover


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2006)

Glider said:


> I will now dive for cover


LOL! We'll see when the first F-35 gets delivered....eventually!

On the X-35's first flight it sucked the gear up and went supersonic. A lot more thought went into that aircraft than the F-22, as a matter of fact the X(F)-35 is just lessons learned from the F-22 in many areas...


----------



## R988 (Jun 8, 2006)

Royzee617 said:


> Gottit!
> Piranha!



Funny I was just thinking that myself then I got to your post 

Another on on the meteorological events how about Storm? 

Fits in well enough with Typhoon, Tornado, Lightning, Thunderbolt etc

I cant think of anything else called Storm, except perhaps the IL-2 Sturmovik which I think means Storm Bird.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jun 8, 2006)

dude, Thunderbolt could be okay, I mean look at how many planes use that name? I'm sure few would really mind that much


----------



## Royzee617 (Jun 8, 2006)

Storm sounds good... like the Schwalbe aka Sturm Vogel... Me 262...?

Stormy Petrel (on a stick)?


----------



## Royzee617 (Jun 8, 2006)

How about Shitehawk?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 8, 2006)

The the X-35 flew the engineers call it "The Screaming Monkey."


----------



## davparlr (Jun 8, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> LOL! We'll see when the first F-35 gets delivered....eventually!
> 
> On the X-35's first flight it sucked the gear up and went supersonic. A lot more thought went into that aircraft than the F-22, as a matter of fact the X(F)-35 is just lessons learned from the F-22 in many areas...



Very True! We were often told that something was a problem on the F-22 and we will not do it that way on the F-35! Example: the distance between circuit board cards were reduced for the F-22 in order to get more functionality. This turned out to be VERY expensive due to the inability to use comerical off-the-shelf components (COTS). Every card was a special design for the F-22, even down to the components. The F-35 was expressly required to use a space that was compatable with COTS.


----------



## Glider (Jun 8, 2006)

Going back to names, If you want to stick with storms no one seems to have mentioned Hurricane or Tempest.
Pretty confident the UK wouldn't disagree.


----------



## Royzee617 (Jun 9, 2006)

Good 'hard' names... unlike Rafale which I have always thought wimpy.
Gripen is a kind of bird of prey I suppose. So they won't use Griffin for the JSF I suspect.

Tempest would sit nicely alongside Typhoon too.

Though it has modern usage in the proofing against EMP.

One thing the folks like about the Typhoon is its maintainability compared to the Tornado and that was supposed to be pretty good over the Lightning and F4.


----------



## Royzee617 (Jun 9, 2006)

Another twist in the JSF saga:
Israel’s full participation in a U.S.-led advanced warplane project has been held up as both sides hammer out a deal on limiting the transfer of sensitive military technology, a senior Israeli official said on June 8.
The Jewish state’s role in the multi-billion-dollar F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project was briefly curbed last year after the Pentagon came out against Israeli arms exports to China, which it argued could threaten U.S. ally Taiwan. 
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1857643&C=mideast
Tom Burbage, executive vice president of Lockheed Martin, predicted that F-35s would cost around $46 million each and would be available to foreign partners by 2014. Other estimates put the cost of the fighter-bombers at as much as $100 million.
The Jerusalem Post reported last week that Israel, seeking boosted capabilities in the face of arch-foe Iran’s nuclear program and anticipating delays in the F-35 project, could instead buy a new fleet of the less advanced F-15 warplane.
That'll mean some interesting twists in the name! I like IAF names for western planes - Kurnass, Nesher etc.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 9, 2006)

Royzee617 said:


> The Jerusalem Post reported last week that Israel, seeking boosted capabilities in the face of arch-foe Iran’s nuclear program and anticipating delays in the F-35 project, could instead buy a new fleet of the less advanced F-15 warplane.


The decision would have to be made quickly. The F-15 production line is set to close in 2010, and once a production line closes (especially a fighter) it doesn't get resurrected very easily.


----------



## Glider (Jun 9, 2006)

Don't worry, we can always sell them some Gripens


----------



## Royzee617 (Jun 12, 2006)

Gripen is a nice plane - saw it once at MAF. Small tho. Since it can launch from the highway maybe it can go from a deck.


----------



## R988 (Jun 12, 2006)

Gripen, meaning Giffin in english, is a mythological creature with the body of a lion and the head wings of an eagle. 

Other Swedish aircraft names are Drakken meaning Dragon (we had that yet?) and Viggen, meaning lightning or thunderbolt, I forget which exactly.

Corsair has already been reused on the A-7 relatively recently.

I think mythical creatures could be quite good, TVR name most of their cars after them.

Chimera
Monster with three heads- a goat, a lion, and a dragon (or serpent) for a tail. The Chimera supposedly breathed fire.

Hydra
A serpent/dragon with multiple heads (generally 7 or 9 heads.)

Serpent (Sea Serpent for Naval versions)

Centaur
Half horse, half man.

Satyr
Half man, Half goat. Bearded, sometimes with horns or goat's ears.

Caladrius
A white bird that can predict if a sick person will live or die. If the person is going to die, the bird will look away; if the person is to live, the bird can draw the sickness into itself and then fly into the air, dispersing it.

Halcyon
A sea bird which lays its eggs on the beach in the middle of winter. During the period when the Halcyon is laying and hatching its eggs, the seas are very calm and there is fine weather. That is where the expression "Halcyon days" comes from.

Peryton
A deer with wings, that casts the shadow of a man. Their feathers might be light blue or dark green.

Pegasus
Pegasus is a flying horse from Greek and Roman mythology. He is generally pictured as white, sometimes with golden wings.

Phoenix
The size of an eagle, with gold plumage around the neck, a purple body, and an azure tail. The throat has a crest, and the head has a tuft of feathers.

Kraken
A generic name for a gigantic sea monster. Sometimes described as a whale, sometimes as a giant squid, sometimes as a giant lobster.

Tetramorph
Described by Ezekiel as having the face of a man, the face of a lion, the face of an ox and the face of an eagle, each with four wings, and the hands of a man under the wings. The tetramorph also had wheels that "turned not when they went", and eyes everywhere. 

Cerberus
Cerberus, in Greek mythology, was a 3-headed hound, with a snake for a tail. Alternatively, he is described as having 50 heads, or 3 heads with a mane of snakes. In most pictures though, he appears with 3 heads.

Could even call it the Yeti since you hear a lot about it but noone has seen the damn thing 

Or maybe a dinosaur name

Pteranodon, Quetzalcoatlus, Pterodactyl

What about insect names following on from the Hornet, could do Wasp (think this was a helicopter way back when), Bumble Bee (pretty lame), American Killer bee (better), Dragonfly (also done), Tarantula hawk 
slightly OT but found this list of most painful insect stings while looking for obscure insects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmidt_Sting_Pain_Index

Hope I never meet any bullet ants, ouch!


----------



## Royzee617 (Jun 13, 2006)

amazing work there R988!

I like the insect theme... Wasp would be good ex this was/is a carrier....?

Meanwhile it seems to me the RN doesn't need the JSF it has more punch than ever... maybe ahead of the yanks when it brings the Apache aboard... wow imagine what those beasties will be able to do!

UK carrier force is readied for strike

By Richard Scott Jane’s Naval Consultant

A decade after the extended carrier roulement off former Yugoslavia came to an end, the character of UK carrier aviation has changed substantially. Perhaps the most telling difference is the accent on delivering a recognisably joint, rather than purely naval, capability.

In the first instance, the Carrier Air Group (CAG) is no more; instead, the CVS-class HMS Invincible now embarks a Tailored Air Group (TAG): an embarked aviation package assembled from suitably configured Fleet Air Arm, Royal Air Force (RAF) and/or Army Air Corps assets to suit a specific operation or campaign. Options for the TAG include the Harrier GR.7/7A ground attack aircraft (with the upgraded GR.9/9A entering service from 2007); the Sea King ASaC.7 airborne surveillance and control helicopter; the Merlin HM.1 maritime helicopter; the Sea King HC.4 medium support helicopter; the Chinook HC.2 support helicopter; and, in the near future, the Apache AH.1 attack helicopter. 
now read on...
http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/idr/idr060607_1_n.shtml


----------



## Dac (Jun 13, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The the X-35 flew the engineers call it "The Screaming Monkey."


 

That's the best name I've heard yet.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 14, 2006)

I kinda like Reaper. Cyclone isn't all that bad IMO either. If, *IF* Canada ever procures the F-35 (stranger things have happened y'know  ), we'd have to call it something else because the new Navy helos are already to be called the Cyclone. Hmmm, maybe the Nonskimmer. Yeah!  



...Nah.


----------



## Royzee617 (Jun 17, 2006)

nonskimmer? what kind of dumb name for a plane is that? maybe ok for one of the ruskki kranoplanes maybe... tee hee.


----------



## Royzee617 (Jun 17, 2006)

Maybe they could go further with the anti sub line like Viking or Orion... good 'hard' names. How about Goth or Vandal? There must be a macho name out there which has yet to be used...
Some of the best plane names have not been real words at all - like Thunderchief, Skywarrior or Starfighter and some great planes have never had an official name, like the F-111. Lockheed has some odd choices over the years - like their transports. C130 Hercules is appropriate but Galaxy or Starlifter and a bit dumb.

How about Lockheed 'Overbudget' that would suit just about any military plane!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 17, 2006)

Royzee617 said:


> How about Lockheed 'Overbudget' that would suit just about any military plane!



The F-117 was delivered on time and UNDERBUGDET. Sticking to budget during military aircraft development and manufacture is almost impossible, the biggest problem is te government changing requirements at a moment's notice.


----------



## Glider (Jun 17, 2006)

I am currently working on a UK Government (non military) Project and can confirm suprise, suprise that the same problems happen on this side of the pond.

For my sins I am the Problem manager, so there is no danger of me running out of work.


----------



## Royzee617 (Jun 19, 2006)

Great title that..... 'Problem Manager'... honesty and management don't usually go side by side tho.


----------



## Royzee617 (Jun 19, 2006)

I knew somebody who worked on the ADV's radar at GECM and what a PITA that was for the engineers trying to keep up with ministry types changing a spec they hadn't thought through in the first place.... same for the TSR2 apparently. Why a range of 1000 miles? A bit less and the design was easier etc etc but no, it had to be the 1000 miles. Prats.


----------



## Royzee617 (Jun 19, 2006)

Other names came to me, I like Remora and Barracuda, ocean-going and well-hard (as my kids might say). Or how about the Lockheed Mitchell...? Not the B25 but rather the Eastenders toughies... 

But the old FAA Barracuda was a beast. My old Physics teacher flew them in the war. When he told us that we had a lot more respect for him. About as ugly as JSF too.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 25, 2006)

Actually considering how big a galaxy is and how much that plane could lift it was appropriate at the time the C-5 Galaxy was named. We are talking about something that can lift I think it is something like 2x what the next biggest lifter in the USAF inventory the Starlifter can carry. I know it is now superceded so any name will have to consider potential future events.


----------



## Tiger (Jun 25, 2006)

I like 'Sabbath' as a name, because that is what the JSF isn't going to be! Maybe 'Tsunami' for the NAVY version.


----------



## Royzee617 (Jul 9, 2006)

well, how original and downright stoopid can you get.....?
JSF named ‘Lightning II’
The first F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was unveiled Friday at Lockheed Martin’s facility in Texas. Although prototypes, like the one shown here, have been tested for years, the first flight of the Lightning II is scheduled for this fall. — Photo by Tom Reynolds

With a nod to Air Force history, the service’s chief of staff has dubbed the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter “Lightning II.”

Gen. T. Michael Moseley announced the decision Friday at the Lockheed Martin facility in Fort Worth, Texas, where the stealthy multi-role fighter is made. He based the decision on input received from airmen as well as the other services and coalition partners involved in the JSF program, said Maj. Glen Roberts, a spokesman for the general.

The P-38 Lightning, the JSF’s namesake, was designed in the late 1930s and was used during World War II. The Air Force’s top two aces, Richard Bong and Thomas McGuire, both flew the Lightning, amassing 78 kills between them in the plane, Roberts said.

The name also refers to a supersonic British jet called the Lightning, built in the 1950s by English Electric. English Electric eventually became BAE Systems, an industry partner on the program.

Moseley considered five other names: Mamba, Cyclone, Piasa, Reaper and Spitfire II.

Friday’s ceremony also marked the first public unveiling of the F-35A, the conventional take-off-and-landing variant. The aircraft rolled off the production line in February and has been involved in ground tests since, said Lockheed Martin F-35 spokesman John Kent.

First flight of the aircraft is scheduled for late October or early November, Kent added.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 9, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> I kinda like Reaper. Cyclone isn't all that bad IMO either. If, *IF* Canada ever procures the F-35 (stranger things have happened y'know  ), we'd have to call it something else because the new Navy helos are already to be called the Cyclone. Hmmm, maybe the Nonskimmer. Yeah!
> 
> 
> 
> ...Nah.


I actually heard we were getting the EF-2000's not the F35
Theyd call it the Brian Mulroney before they ever called it Nonskimmer. 

Did you know that technically the CF-18 is not designated the Hornet? its because theres no french word for Hornet.


----------



## R988 (Jul 14, 2006)

According to online translators the French word for Hornet is Frelon?

Anyway back on topic, Lightning II is a crap name, typical unimaginitive gimps. I'm sure it will acquire a more appropriate unofficial name soon enough though.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 14, 2006)

Hmmm, the CF-18 Frelon. Or the Hornet/Frelon. 

Nah. 


Yeah Hussars, I did know that already.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 14, 2006)

You knew what?

about the Typhoons, the fact they would call it the Brian Mulroney before they called it the Nonskimmer  or the thing about the Cf-188


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 14, 2006)

The cf18 is actually the cf188 now can you tell me what a cc129 is


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 14, 2006)

I imagine its a transport, but I could be wrong


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 14, 2006)

Yep. It's the Dakota. Otherwise known as the C-47.

Hey, a new game: "Guess the obscure Canadian aircraft designations."


----------



## Glider (Jul 15, 2006)

I was going through some of my old Aircraft magazines this morning and found one that announced that the name for the F22 whilst not confirmed, was to be the Lightning II. 
The mag is one that I normally find to be accurate and its unlikely to have made such a statement without some guidance. Goes to show what goes around comes around, eventually. No doubt also shows a massive lack of imagination.

As an aside. Some of the posts talk about how unatractive the F35 is, well she is a picture of beauty when compared to the Boeing alternative. I saw a full size mock up at Farnborough once and just knew that it wouldn't get the contract. I had never seen such a pug ugly aircraft in my life.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 15, 2006)

You must mean the X-32. It's an ugly mother alright.


(Pic source: globalsecurity.org)


----------



## Glider (Jul 15, 2006)

Thats the one, Take it away, it reminds me of a basking shark without the elegence


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 15, 2006)

Could they of designed a worse looking aircraft... Doesn't matter about it's performance (although they say if it looks good it will fly good) I would reject on the basis of it's pure ugliness...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 15, 2006)

I think the US government gave both contractors some money for the JSF development. Boeing's was so ugly and performed so poorly I think I would of demanded my money back for building such a piece of crap!


----------



## Glider (Jul 15, 2006)

Couldn't agree more.

This may be unique, something that everyone without exception agrees on. Its horrible.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 16, 2006)

awww look, it's happy to see us  but yes even i must agree that's one damn ugly aircraft......


----------



## evangilder (Jul 16, 2006)




----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 17, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think the US government gave both contractors some money for the JSF development. Boeing's was so ugly and performed so poorly I think I would of demanded my money back for building such a piece of crap!





Yeah the original design was, , now the reason its so ugly in my opinion is the wing design but they were trying to make a Delta wing fighter capable of quick manouverability at high-speeds thats why the wings are so contorted with f**ked-upness but they drew updifferent design for the wings which made it easier to look at, I watched the program about the competition between the two companies, the X-32 seemed to have an edge over the F-35 in the hover department, the one problem with this plane that stuck out was that it was too dangerous to do air to air refueling.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 17, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> Yeah the original design was, but they had a different design for the wings which made it easier to look at, I watched the program about the competition between the two companies, the X-32 seemed to have an edge over the F-35 in the hover department, the one problem with this plane that stuck out was that it was too dangerous to do air to air refueling.


Dude, I don't know what you were watching, but the only thing the X-32 did first was fly. Aside from that it was inferior all the way and wasn't even close to the X-35 in anything!!! During the X-35s first flight it met 12 out of 15 flight test parameters, sucked the gear up and went supersonic!!! The X-32 flew months earlier and only met 8 of those parameters at the time the X-35 first flew. As a matter of fact, during the F-32s first flight, it blew a hydraulic line and landed at Edwards AFB under and IFE!!! Not too promising for the first flight of the supposedly most advanced fighter aircraft in the world!!! It never hovered when it was in Palmdale because it was too heavy and they had to take the landing gear doors off when it went through its hover test at Pax river.

BTW I was there during the X-35 test, it has the most advanced VTOL set up in world - period!





The building in the background is where they used to paint L-1011s


----------



## Glider (Jul 17, 2006)

I admit to not having FJ's background but I remember weight being a problem on the Boeing. I saw some film and it seemed clear they had taken off anything they could to meet some of the parameters. When you consider that weight is almost guaranteed to increase as a plane goes through development process, it didn't bode well for the future.

The one thing that struck me when I saw the mock up, was how stealthy could it be. Just looking at it, it seemed to have the radar cross section of a couple of hanger doors.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 18, 2006)

Good info Joe, and a great picture!


----------



## davparlr (Jul 18, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Dude, I don't know what you were watching, but the only thing the X-32 did first was fly. Aside from that it was inferior all the way and wasn't even close to the X-35 in anything!!! During the X-35s first flight it met 12 out of 15 flight test parameters, sucked the gear up and went supersonic!!! The X-32 flew months earlier and only met 8 of those parameters at the time the X-35 first flew. As a matter of fact, during the F-32s first flight, it blew a hydraulic line and landed at Edwards AFB under and IFE!!! Not too promising for the first flight of the supposedly most advanced fighter aircraft in the world!!! It never hovered when it was in Palmdale because it was too heavy and they had to take the landing gear doors off when it went through its hover test at Pax river.
> 
> BTW I was there during the X-35 test, it has the most advanced VTOL set up in world - period!
> 
> ...



You forgot to ad that the XF-32 had to have the configuration changed on the ground before it could hover. I understand that this configuration change (I believe it had something to do with the inlet) was required allow hovering and it would not perform horizontal flight requirements with it. Also, to my amazement, the military allowed the flight test to continue even though the XF-32 was not of the same design as the production model. The production model had to have a horizontal stablizer, which the XF-32 did not have. I am sure that that would have pushed a law suit had the F-35 not won. I suspect the military knew all along who would be the winner. The XF-32 was a disaster. I think the F-35 is going to be a great plane.

As for the comment on weight. I'm trying to think of a single program that did not not have a weight problem. Mmm, nope not one I have heard about!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 18, 2006)

Yep - I did forget about that!!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 18, 2006)

One thing I dont understand is, that Boeing had alot of experienced personell in their staff, carried over from Mcdonnel Douglas, they were capable of building a quality aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 19, 2006)

airliners yes, they're second only to Airbus  they should stay away from fighters though..........


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 19, 2006)

What? I was saying that Macdonell Dougless carried over into Boeing, meaning you got guys who worked on such greats as the F-15,F-14,F-18 excetra, so they had more than just the ability to make a decent fighter they had the talent to make one.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> One thing I dont understand is, that Boeing had alot of experienced personell in their staff, carried over from Mcdonnel Douglas, they were capable of building a quality aircraft.


It doesn't always work that way. Lockheed Martin keeps its R&D portion of the company BKA "The Skunk Works" as a functioning unit. Boeing (Actually the remmanants of the old McDonnell contingency) tried to imitate the Skunk works with their own "Phantom Works." Needless to say their engineering approach was wrong when you compare the way both aircraft attain vertical flight.

BTW the X-35 design team won the 2001 Collier Trophy for its design.


----------



## Richard_H (Aug 7, 2006)

the F35, isn't it called the F35 Lightning II now?


----------



## Chief (Aug 7, 2006)

yeah, but we're tryin' to come with a good name that isn't barrowed. How bout" the F-35 Phoenix.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 8, 2006)

F-35 "F*cking hardcore" is the best...


----------



## evangilder (Aug 12, 2006)

Phoenix is a designation on a missile, Chief.


----------



## Chief (Aug 15, 2006)

and civilian plane Manufacturer. I looked it up I still like the name though, but still can't be used.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Aug 16, 2006)

you contradict ur own statement


----------



## Chief (Aug 16, 2006)

No. You can like something you can't use.


----------



## Glider (Aug 16, 2006)

I still like Tempest as an alternative name. Calling it Lightning II or anything II, shows a lack of imagination.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 25, 2006)

Glider said:


> I still like Tempest as an alternative name. Calling it Lightning II or anything II, shows a lack of imagination.



Neither is copying Brit F/A aircraft names from WWII! I personally would be ashamed if they named it the Spit II. Same with using the Brit tradition of naming after a type of storm, ie Cyclone.

Just hope it doesn't get a gay adjective in front... like the Fighting Falcon. Everyone just calls it Falcon. We could have the Whirly Cyclone... that sounds nice  

But why isn't everyone this excited about the AH-1Z and UH-1Y!!! These are ACTUALLY going to do something!


----------



## daishi12 (Sep 30, 2006)

How about Wolverine?


----------



## Chief (Sep 30, 2006)

I think it would sound better on either a prop. plane or a helicopter. Whether you take the name to mean the animal or the X-man.

Or some sort of transport vehicle or tank.


----------



## daishi12 (Oct 1, 2006)

I was thinking the animal, 'cos it's a nasty little sod with a mean bite.


----------



## Chief (Oct 1, 2006)

"What did you do last weekend Napolean"
_"I hunted wolverines with my Uncle"_
"How many did you get"
_"like 20"_
"what kind of did you use"
_"A friggin Twelve Gauge what did you think?!?"_


----------

