USAF Lightning II [Archive] - Off Camber Forums

ferrarigod

07-12-06, 04:39 PM

The F-35 has VTOL(vertical takeoff and landing) capability. Solves many problems that the Harrier has, and is supersonic.

Believe it or not, the government justifies the spending on this airplane in a few ways.

First, the F-22 costs about 450 million dollars each, so don't believe what the government is saying right now. Its kinda a lie. They have at my last check 1 complete squadron of F-22's.

The way the USAF and US Fed. Gov. is justifying such costs for the F-22 is to say that it is going into helping the F-35(although it is a different company buidling the F-35(lockheed) vs. F-22(boeing)) and can then split some of the costs.

So then they are also justifying the F-35 costs and F-22 costs by saying that it being a Joint Strike Fighter(the F-35) and being bought by England, Italy and many others will defray the costs.

But here is the tricky part that a friend of mine and I have noticed.

That 450 million dollar F-22 is the actual price. What they are then doing is justifying about 200 million from each F-22 so as to illustrate the technology being used in the production of the F-35.

But the problem is, when they change the final numbers of the F-22 from 450 million each to 200-250million each, they don't raise the price on each F-35 because afterall, the F-35 is now cheaper.

Its a huge circle of logic and is pathetic.

The F-35 is a sweet plane, far better than the Boeing attempt at the JSF with VTOL.

Officially unveiled & named. And there's the little matter of commencing flight testing too...

They actually have already flown this and the JSF developed by Boeing that were in direct competition for the contract. The plane does VTOL very well(much better than the boeing) and obvioulsy lightyears ahead of the harrier.

Luckily there are buyers outside of this country for the F-35, so it should not be as bad financially as the closely held secrets of Boeings F-22.

From what pilots have said the F-22 is far advanced over what anyone can comprehend or has seen. I saw 2 F-22's fly over the Air and Sea Show in Ft. Lauderdale in May and it was amazing. The heat signature is visibly different even for the naked eye.

There is only 1 pilot who has flown both the F-22 and Su-37(the Russians top plane) and publicly he stated they were both great planes, it is rumored in secret that he claimed that the Su-37 had nothing for the F-22. Should be interesting on all accounts.

ferrarigod

07-12-06, 04:43 PM

the next hide & go seek world champion. full contact hide & go seek anyways. it's a sport, no really, it is. Watch ESPN next week, you'll see...

Here is the Canadian Olympic Demonstration Hide and Seek team being interviewed during a football game :gomer: :gomer: :gomer:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XHDJ8EVeQAI&search=hide%20and%20seek%20canada

IlliniRacer

07-12-06, 04:58 PM

It would be better if the engine was in front :gomer:

Ankf00

07-12-06, 05:19 PM

It would be better if the engine was in front :gomer:
:rofl:

They actually have already flown this and the JSF developed by Boeing that were in direct competition for the contract. The plane does VTOL very well(much better than the boeing) and obvioulsy lightyears ahead of the harrier.those were prototypes, which beyond the physical differences between the prototype & current Variant A, B & C designs, weren't put through anything rigorous beyond system demonstration.

The first production Variant A is in actual flight testing here at Fort Worth NAS :gomer:

anywho what in the DoD budget isn't a bunch of smoke & mirrors financially? The F-22 served as a testbed of certain technologies, but there's other more mature technologies being developed on the F-35 such as the AN/APG-81 AESA radar, of which a derivative will be retrofitted into future F-22's. The manufacturing technologies developed through the widespread use of titanium alloys is another example of JSF trumping Raptor.

as the USAF's stated Raptor order keeps decreasing, the price keeps going up due to development costs needing to be recouped.

There is only 1 pilot who has flown both the F-22 and Su-37(the Russians top plane) and publicly he stated they were both great planes, it is rumored in secret that he claimed that the Su-37 had nothing for the F-22. Should be interesting on all accounts.
the F-22's avionics will trump anything the Su-37 will ever carry, and that's all that matters in modern military aircraft.

also, the F-22 Raptor is fully assembled at Lockheed-Martin's Marietta, GA facility, don't know where you get Boeing from...
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=11174&rsbci=13151&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

Gnam

07-12-06, 05:19 PM

Will it really replace the A-10? Awww....

Gangrel

07-12-06, 05:21 PM

Will it really replace the A-10? Awww....

The Warthog is a great workhorse of a plane, but you gotta' admit, it is a fugly one.... :D

cameraman

07-12-06, 05:40 PM

Do you really want to fly a $400,000,000 plane low and slow enough to shoot up some trucks like you would an A-10?

Ankf00

07-12-06, 05:45 PM

35-40M, not 400M :D

edit: also the "supposed" advantage of this common platform is the monetary savings and logistical and manufacturing ease of having so many common components. Although the USAF, Navy & Marines/STOVL variants have many differences, like Navy variant being much beefier to handle carrier landing stresses, and the obvious difference between STOVL & conventional take-off and lift, your support equipment, deployment operations, maintenance training, etc will be highly similar.

Opposite Lock

07-12-06, 06:14 PM

Those mirrors will never work.

rabbit

07-12-06, 06:14 PM

They've been trying to replace the A-10 since Vietnam. Best bang-for-the-buck plane in history. :thumbup:

RacinM3

07-12-06, 06:56 PM

Those mirrors will never work.

Yeah, and where's the popoff valve? What about those wing endplates? Man, this thing looks like it's going to fly more than an IRL car! :gomer:

Back to the real thread: I'm observing that that plane looks like it wants to kill everyone in the audience, in the picture on the right (in the OP).

RichK

07-12-06, 07:02 PM

I'm observing that that plane looks like it wants to kill everyone in the audience, in the picture on the right (in the OP).

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ankf00

07-12-06, 07:20 PM

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/images/feature/937.jpg

ferrarigod

07-12-06, 07:28 PM

also, the F-22 Raptor is fully assembled at Lockheed-Martin's Marietta, GA facility, don't know where you get Boeing from...
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=11174&rsbci=13151&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

Boeing is teamed with Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney and the U.S. Air Force to develop the F/A-22 Raptor as a replacement for the F-15.

The YF-23 was a North American/McDonnell Douglas aircraft(before they got bought out by Boeing) The USAF choose the F-22(boeing and lockheed, but mostly boeing) over the YF-23.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f22/index.html

http://www.f22-raptor.com/ <-----------Look at the bottom line.

ferrarigod

07-12-06, 07:29 PM

They've been trying to replace the A-10 since Vietnam. Best bang-for-the-buck plane in history. :thumbup:

I disagree, I'm going with the B-52. When all are retired in 2050, some airframes will have over 90 years in service :thumbup:

anait

07-12-06, 07:32 PM

Back to the real thread: I'm observing that that plane looks like it wants to kill everyone in the audience, in the picture on the right (in the OP).

And yet, it has such a composed, serene look...

:cool: I suppose at full throttle it would look considerably less 'serene'. :eek:

ferrarigod

07-12-06, 07:35 PM

35-40M, not 400M :D

400 million for the F-22

45-55 million per 2002 previsions for the F-35. And that is before they split up the price of the F-22 to show how technology is shared. But all these numbers are crap, cause everything will go up no matter how they justify the technology.

Andrew Longman

07-12-06, 07:37 PM

Those mirrors will never work.

:rofl:

Crap I have to go now.

ferrarigod

07-12-06, 07:47 PM

here is a vid of the x-35 when the armed forces were deciding between the x-35 and boeings x-32. i saw clips of this on the discovery channel years ago. pretty cool:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4742849525846050256

I always find it interesting that the Navy/Marines insisted that the F-16 single engine was not good enough for them and the had to develop the f-17 into the f-18 and now the Super Hornet, yet now the F-35's STOVL is ok. Government is such b.s.

Andrew Longman

07-12-06, 07:49 PM

They've been trying to replace the A-10 since Vietnam. Best bang-for-the-buck plane in history. :thumbup:

Absolutely true but imprecise. First production plane flew in 1975

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Thunderbolt_II

The A10, like the F16, were initiated and sustained over the loud objections of the Pentagon brass and even congessional loudmouths.

They were examples of what actually perform well for their intended missions based on data and opinion of the people who actually successfully flew those missions.

The F22 and 35 are amazing machines and I ackowledge that the F16 and 15 are getting very old.

But their creation was as much in response to a need to create jobs in Delaware, St Louis, the UK, the Netherlands, and wherever than it was because of threats to the effectiveness of our current equipment.

Think about it, if you are some third world terrorist on an donkey, does it really matter that the A10 coming at you with a 20mm gattling gun first flew 30 years ago?

nrc

07-12-06, 07:51 PM

The Airforce always talks about retiring the A10 but as soon as they get a few bullet holes in their pretty planes they call in the 'Hogs. They just went through a program to allow them to carry precision munitions and were in the process of extending the life of the airframe to keep them around another decade or two.

If the Air Force tries to retire it the army will probably snap them up as observation planes and use them to mark targets with 30mm shells. Their attack helicopter fleet proved pretty fragile when they tried to use them for close air support.

ferrarigod

07-12-06, 07:55 PM

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/x-32-c35-1781-65.jpg

The F-35 was choosen over this plane. I have a feeling they voted to take the F-35 only because the X-32 was so freaking ugly.

Personally I don't understand the need for STOVL/VTOL because as our Marines already found out.......ok, so you can land this Harrier in a dense forest....now how do you get the equipment, supplies and weapons to the airplane??? You're not going to just land anywhere, you still have to have the support to back it up.

The concept makes no sense to me. But whats new.

Andrew Longman

07-12-06, 08:07 PM

[IMG]The F-35 was choosen over this plane. I have a feeling they voted to take the F-35 only because the X-32 was so freaking ugly.

Yup. While Boeing is usually smarter than the average bear that plane failed to account for the Pentagon and National image dent we would take for having a plane that looked like it starred in Finding Nemo.

And the Harrier makes a ton of sense for the Brits who don't want to pay for big carriers, but your reasons point out a serious logistical issue the Marines need to be different can't get beyond

KLang

07-12-06, 08:12 PM

I disagree, I'm going with the B-52. When all are retired in 2050, some airframes will have over 90 years in service :thumbup:

BUFF :thumbup:

Ever read any of the Dale Brown novels?

KLang

07-12-06, 08:14 PM

The F22 and 35 are amazing machines and I ackowledge that the F16 and 15 are getting very old.

But their creation was as much in response to a need to create jobs in Delaware, St Louis, the UK, the Netherlands, and wherever than it was because of threats to the effectiveness of our current equipment.

Think about it, if you are some third world terrorist on an donkey, does it really matter that the A10 coming at you with a 20mm gattling gun first flew 30 years ago?

Don't you see any value in staying ahead of whatever China or ? might develop? Especially when you consider nowadays it takes us decades to develop and deploy a new military plane.

Gnam

07-12-06, 08:20 PM

I always find it interesting that the Navy/Marines insisted that the F-16 single engine was not good enough for them and the had to develop the f-17 into the f-18 and now the Super Hornet, yet now the F-35's STOVL is ok. Government is such b.s.
I think it had something to do with the reliability of the engine. The F-16's single engine was only 99.9% reliable, while the F-35's engine is 99.99% reliable.

Plus, I don't think the Navy had a choice. Gone are the days where the services could tailor aircraft to do one job. Now one plane has to do everything.

nrc

07-12-06, 08:26 PM

The F-35 was choosen over this plane. I have a feeling they voted to take the F-35 only because the X-32 was so freaking ugly.
Yup, I knew as soon as I saw the X32 on the Discovery program about the competition that the X-35 would win unless it blew up on the runway.

Personally I don't understand the need for STOVL/VTOL because as our Marines already found out.......ok, so you can land this Harrier in a dense forest....now how do you get the equipment, supplies and weapons to the airplane??? You're not going to just land anywhere, you still have to have the support to back it up.

This is the main reason for STOVL is important. Not just for the Marines, but for the British and several other Navys. Small carriers with STOVL aircraft allow countries to project power without the expense of a full-blown aircraft carrier.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/lha5-peleliu2.jpg

Aside from that, the importance is not so much landing in the woods, but landing on unimproved or damaged runways.

ferrarigod

07-12-06, 08:42 PM

BUFF :thumbup:

Ever read any of the Dale Brown novels?

I've never read a whole novel, but my roomate has some books and I've leafed through them. I believe I read most of a book of his that Google books put online. I'll try to think of it an find it. Fortress maybe????

And I agree, the Brits have smaller carriers, and it makes sense. I don't know how many small carriers we have, but then I don't sense us attacking the Falkland Islands anytime soon either.

FTG

07-12-06, 09:37 PM

what does it do?

Shoot down Chinese aircraft that the Chinese haven't built yet, that the Chinese would never use against Americans anyways - even if they built them some day - because you'd have to be insane to go to war with your biggest customer.

Ankf00

07-12-06, 09:53 PM

400 million for the F-22

45-55 million per 2002 previsions for the F-35. And that is before they split up the price of the F-22 to show how technology is shared. But all these numbers are crap, cause everything will go up no matter how they justify the technology.
28B of R&D + 34B of procurement spread across the stated order of 183 aircraft means 340M per craft, but whatever he was talking about the replacement for the A-10, which isn't Raptor, but JSF, thus the 40M joke.

any aircraft purchased beyond the order of 183, supposing no shutdown of the production line in Marietta (A Lockheed facility, not Boeing) as is being done w/ F-16 in Ft Worth, would cost 140M'ish

that's supposing the DoD doesn't decrease their order yet again. no matter how it breaks down L-M will recoup the R&D costs spread across the original slated procurement.

Anywho, as far as X-32 vs. X-35, yea the Boeing looked like utter crap and that played a role, but X-32 didn't even pass it's STOVL test. Boeing had to remove multiple panels before the test to meet their required weight. Their composite underwing wasn't even manufactured properly w/ air prockets galore present throughout the resin. Meanwhile X-35 took off, went supersonic, came back, and landed in complete flight configuration.

Passing a system demonstration test is usually a good thing when competing againt someone :gomer:

This is the main reason for STOVL is important. Not just for the Marines, but for the British and several other Navys. Small carriers with STOVL aircraft allow countries to project power without the expense of a full-blown aircraft carrier.ding ding ding.

Plus, I don't think the Navy had a choice. Gone are the days where the services could tailor aircraft to do one job. Now one plane has to do everything.the cost and logistics of different tailored aircraft just isn't smart. The last Tomcats were retro-fitted for strike capability, same applies to the F-15E Strike Eagle. The F-35A, B, and C are very different aircraft, yet all tailored for their different roles, but there's no reason why that should call for 3 different versions of everything associated with the aircraft rather than changes with what actually makes a different in role

Ankf00

07-12-06, 10:28 PM

The YF-23 was a North American/McDonnell Douglas aircraft(before they got bought out by Boeing) The USAF choose the F-22(boeing and lockheed, but mostly boeing) over the YF-23.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f22/index.html

http://www.f22-raptor.com/ <-----------Look at the bottom line.

exactly, check out the last line, copyright Lockheed-Martin. Saying the F-22 is Boeing is akin to saying JSF is a BAE Systems product. Since the original development of Raptor, General Dynamics facilities Fort Worth now belong to Lockheed Aero. Lockheed-Martin is the Lead System Integrator on this project and provides the program management as well as the far majority of the aircraft development. Boeing's main development role is the wings, aft fuselage, radar, and avionics integration. The only reason they're not listed as a "sub-contractor" is because of their stature in the industry.

lookie, I have a pretty link too: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-22.htm

but really all I need is my work badge :gomer:

(Although I look like a homer at the moment, I agree with the others that this is some massive expenditure for relatively meaningless returns. Raptor & JSF are biggie phatty, and there's the China issue with their missile stockpiling & AESA radar capabilities, but that's some massive f'ing R&D costs)

07-13-06, 01:30 AM

I love this place.

Had to be said.

anait

07-13-06, 02:21 AM

Great link, Ank. :thumbup:

I got mr anait a desk calendar in D.C., all military jets. Looks like I have next years' calendar subject picked out.

anait

07-13-06, 02:21 AM

Andrew Longman

07-13-06, 09:19 AM

Don't you see any value in staying ahead of whatever China or ? might develop? Especially when you consider nowadays it takes us decades to develop and deploy a new military plane.

Fair point. But instead of planes, China has built a huge missile arsenal and the largest submarine fleet on the planet. These planes won't help with that. Meanwhile the Navy has decommissioned much of our antisubmarine capability.

Ankf00

07-13-06, 10:19 AM

Fair point. But instead of planes, China has built a huge missile arsenal and the largest submarine fleet on the planet. These planes won't help with that. Meanwhile the Navy has decommissioned much of our antisubmarine capability.
stealth weapons platforms allow us to strike valuable military targets within their boundaries despite their missile capabilities. especially stealth weapons platforms with supercruising capability :)

emjaya

07-13-06, 10:28 AM

I wonder how many parts in that plane are made in China? :gomer: :)

Andrew Longman

07-13-06, 10:51 AM

stealth weapons platforms allow us to strike valuable military targets within their boundaries despite their missile capabilities. especially stealth weapons platforms with supercruising capability :)

True, but the first time a carrier gets sunk by a sub or a missile, or the Navy even fears that as a possibility, it will be pretty hard to get even close to China.

Of course we could launch missions from Guam, Missouri, etc. with multiple refuelings, but that's tough as an exclusive strategy.

Gangrel

07-13-06, 11:16 AM

Yup. While Boeing is usually smarter than the average bear that plane failed to account for the Pentagon and National image dent we would take for having a plane that looked like it starred in Finding Nemo.

And the Harrier makes a ton of sense for the Brits who don't want to pay for big carriers, but your reasons point out a serious logistical issue the Marines need to be different can't get beyond

OTOH, I am pretty sure that mutha would look a lot badder *** if you painted a yellow smiley face under the nose and a big "Have a Nice Day" on rim of the intake. :D

nrc

07-13-06, 11:39 AM

Fair point. But instead of planes, China has built a huge missile arsenal and the largest submarine fleet on the planet. These planes won't help with that. Meanwhile the Navy has decommissioned much of our antisubmarine capability.

It all starts with air power. There isn't aspect of defense that isn't improved with a strong Air Force. Air dominance allows you to attack missile launching sites, or maybe even direct energy weapons against them in-flight. Air dominance allows your submarine hunters free rein.

Ankf00

07-13-06, 11:46 AM

True, but the first time a carrier gets sunk by a sub or a missile, or the Navy even fears that as a possibility, it will be pretty hard to get even close to China.

Of course we could launch missions from Guam, Missouri, etc. with multiple refuelings, but that's tough as an exclusive strategy.
Japan, India, South Korea, Afghanistan, and whichever of the other 'stans is paying us lipservice and letting us use airspace like Uzbekistan...

ferrarigod

07-13-06, 02:19 PM

especially stealth weapons platforms with supercruising capability :)

from what I've read, the stealthiness of the F-22(and probably the F-35) is lost in the heat signature at supercruise. I can vouch that the F-22 was amazing when I saw it in May, but it still isn't exactly quiet or without a complete heat signature(although it is much better than say an f-14 or f-15 even seeing it with the naked eye).

KLang

07-13-06, 02:32 PM

I thought the point of supercruise was to beat mach without using an afterburner.

Ankf00

07-13-06, 02:33 PM

I thought the point of supercruise was to beat mach without using an afterburner.
it is. it's less stressful on the engine and uses less fuel

rom what I've read, the stealthiness of the F-22(and probably the F-35) is lost in the heat signature at supercruise. I can vouch that the F-22 was amazing when I saw it in May, but it still isn't exactly quiet or without a complete heat signature(although it is much better than say an f-14 or f-15 even seeing it with the naked eye).

1. AESA radar isn't locking onto heat signatures, it's locking onto radar cross sections
2. you saw heat coming out of the rear of an aircraft with your naked eye at an airshow, it's a jet plane burning fuel at high temperatures, there is going to be visibly heated air no matter what, but your eyes aren't IR seekers or scanners stationed miles away.

KLang

07-13-06, 02:36 PM

it is. it's less stressful on the engine and uses less fuel

That should mean a reduced heat signature as well, shouldn't it? Plus I thought the exhaust was supposed to be vented in such a way that it cooled or dispursed it.

Ankf00

07-13-06, 02:39 PM

That should mean a reduced heat signature as well, shouldn't it? Plus I thought the exhaust was supposed to be vented in such a way that it cooled or dispursed it.
this is true as well. afterburners are just a massive fuel dump into the engine, brute force method of powering the engine. and the exit nozzles are fashioned to disperse the exhaust and reduce the signature, as you said.

however ferrarigod is making judgements based off of seeing the thing close up at an airshow, not exactly anything to base any kind of scientific results off of.

ferrarigod

07-13-06, 03:32 PM

however ferrarigod is making judgements based off of seeing the thing close up at an airshow, not exactly anything to base any kind of scientific results off of.

I'm not basing anything off of the airshow. I could see a difference between the F-22 and the F-14 Jolly Roger that flew over. It was visible to everyone I was with at the beach.

The heat signature problems during super cruise that I have heard of are completely different from what I saw in person and not what I was judging that on. It is just pure science that a heat signature will increase in supercruise. I don't know if the F-35 will have supercruise and I don't know if it would be visible to enemy forces if you were flying in supercruise in either plane.

I believe the F-15 strike eagle was originally stated as supercruise(i may be wrong, just remembering some conversations from the drunk VIP tent on the beach) but I am quite sure the F-15 does not supercruise often, it at all. Someone can correct me on that.

datachicane

07-13-06, 04:11 PM

what does it do?

Dogfights bomb-toting nutjobs in subways, rock-throwing 17-year old kids, 15-year old ex-Soviet airframes, rusty Fiat 124s full of plastique and urban guerillas.

It's also effective at transferring public funds to private hands.

Ankf00

07-13-06, 04:13 PM

It is just pure science that a heat signature will increase in supercruise. I don't know if it would be visible to enemy forces if you were flying in supercruise in either plane. yea, logic, burn more ****, make **** hotter, but your second sentence isn't what you implied in your earlier post. supersonic or sub, it's still smaller than a bird ;)

F-15E doesn't have supercruise ability. Neither of the Pratt's engines for JSF are designed to have that ability either. F-22's pretty much the first fighter of ours that can with a full payload, since payload is stored in-board

edit: well since it's in-board it helps alot, but a nice engine helps too...

Gnam

08-17-06, 02:12 AM

Haven't these fools seen Stealth or Terminator?

Lockheed Says F-35 Could Fly Pilotless (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/15/AR2006081501288.html)

If I get terminated, I'm gonna be pissed.

Ankf00

12-11-06, 12:54 AM

First ever flight test of F-35 to take place this week at Ft. Worth NAS. Last time such a flight was staged out there, Vietnam hadn't gone down yet...

Joelski

12-11-06, 09:35 AM

Is that just some variant of teh F-22 raptor? It looks very similar to me...

The Raptor (US only) will chew it up and spit it out. The JSF didn't get all the good stuff.

ferrarigod

12-11-06, 10:07 AM

when the f-22 was the yf-22 I got a computer game called yf-22 lightning.

interesting how they dropped that moniker and are now using it with the JSF.

anyone know why raptor, was better that lightning? but now lightning is cool again?

Ank??? is there any truthiness you have to expound for us?;)

Joelski

12-11-06, 10:19 AM

The Y is a prototype designation. F is for Fighter.

Go find a YB-40 and tell me what it really is and why it wasn't fesible. :)

ferrarigod

12-11-06, 10:45 AM

The Y is a prototype designation. F is for Fighter.

Go find a YB-40 and tell me what it really is and why it wasn't fesible. :)

I know the Y is used for the test bed, before it was even produced. I just don't understand why they changed the name. I like Lightning for the F-22 more than raptor. I think they could come up with a cooler name for the JSF. Like 'hummingbird' or something that is hoverish.

Andrew Longman

12-11-06, 11:32 AM

The Go find a YB-40 and tell me what it really is and why it wasn't fesible. :)

It was a "defensive" version of the B17 intended to protect squadrons of B17s over Germany. The extra guns and ammo slowed it down enough so it couldn't keep up with the squadron, making it pointless.

Ankf00

12-11-06, 12:10 PM

ferrarigod

12-11-06, 01:07 PM

since when is a computer game an arbiter of truth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22#YF-22_.27Lightning.27

since it was true.

so doctor, whats the verdict on the name change? Was unofficially the Lightning II. Would have enjoyed it as the lightning. Sure makes more sense to me.

Joelski

12-11-06, 01:08 PM

It was a "defensive" version of the B17 intended to protect squadrons of B17s over Germany. The extra guns and ammo slowed it down enough so it couldn't keep up with the squadron, making it pointless.

;)

Joelski

12-11-06, 01:11 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22#YF-22_.27Lightning.27

since it was true.

so doctor, whats the verdict on the name change? Was unofficially the Lightning II. Would have enjoyed it as the lightning. Sure makes more sense to me.

I imagine it's perhaps because Raptors have a lot more kills than Lightning bolts. All that, and I'm no doctor of creation; just thought about it a bit.:)

Ankf00

12-11-06, 01:21 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22#YF-22_.27Lightning.27

since it was true.

so doctor, whats the verdict on the name change? Was unofficially the Lightning II. Would have enjoyed it as the lightning. Sure makes more sense to me.

you edited the F-22 entry? cute, but you forgot to add a citation.

Lightning II is what Lockheed-Martin originally wanted for the ATF program, USAF stuck with a naming tradition wrt birds of prey (as far as 2 programs can be called tradition anyway). There is no official name until USAF issues that name. Any other service branch can issue their own name. There was no "better" or "good enough" involved. What, airliners.net didn't teach you this? :gomer:

Joelski

12-11-06, 01:28 PM

And the answer is:

General Richard Hawley, then commander of the Air Combat Command named the F/A-22 Raptor at the F/A-22A's rollout ceremony on 9, April 1997 in a departure from WW II naming conventions. The initial prototype YF 22A Lightning II first flew in late 1990 and experienced engine troubles and a crash that mandated enough of a redesign of the craft that it was deemed necessary to change the name.

Hence, the new name and the separation from old naming conventions.

Thank you, Jurassic Park.

Ankf00

12-11-06, 01:32 PM

-Dutch wanted Black Mamba to be JSF's name :gomer:
-USMC wanted Spitfire II
-Cyclone & Reaper were 2 other finalist names from USAF

Joelski

12-11-06, 01:35 PM

Fun fact File: If the Blue Angels got to fly the F22A, their signature "Diamond" formation would have approximately the same radar siggy as a single F35B.

Cheers!

ferrarigod

12-11-06, 01:36 PM

you edited the F-22 entry? cute, but you forgot to add a citation.

i didn't do that you d-bag.:)

Lightning II is what Lockheed-Martin originally wanted for the ATF program, USAF stuck with a naming tradition wrt birds of prey (as far as 2 programs can be called tradition anyway). There is no official name until USAF issues that name. Any other service branch can issue their own name. There was no "better" or "good enough" involved. What, airliners.net didn't teach you this? :gomer:

don't even front like you ain't watching a-net to see whats up.

booyaakasha! here me now.

Joelski

12-11-06, 01:38 PM

-Dutch wanted Black Mamba to be JSF's name :gomer:
-USMC wanted Spitfire II
-Cyclone & Reaper were 2 other finalist names from USAF

I cast my vote for assjacker; I'm sure my Corps brethren would concur. The 35B will be the biggest improvement in Marine Air capability in the history of aviation.

Ankf00

12-11-06, 01:51 PM

don't even front like you ain't watching a-net to see whats up.
actually, no

I cast my vote for assjacker; I'm sure my Corps brethren would concur.
I vote for Fugly Turd-like Thing. Can you imagine the Blue Angels flying those? :yuck:

ferrarigod

12-11-06, 01:58 PM

actually, no

The pics and articles are amazing. Some of the links to live route maps and such are kool as well. You need to enter the dorkside. :gomer:

actually, no

I vote for Fugly Turd-like Thing. Can you imagine the Blue Angels flying those? :yuck:

I can't wait till they switch to the Super Hornet. Wonder if the USAF will eventually use F-22's or F-35's once the F-16 is out of service.

Back on the JSF, I would have picked the name, Hummingbird, Kingfisher, or Stealth Harrier. Something cooler that fits its profile. Why not call it the Brachiosaurus?

:cool:

Joelski

12-11-06, 02:33 PM

I vote for Fugly Turd-like Thing. Can you imagine the Blue Angels flying those? :yuck:

For me, the 18 is the most wood-inducing plane at this time, though the raptor, is kinda growing on me. The 35 looks knocked-up and as such, is out of the hotness equation.:D

Joelski

12-11-06, 02:35 PM

Back on the JSF, I would have picked the name, Hummingbird, Kingfisher, or Stealth Harrier. Something cooler that fits its profile. Why not call it the Brachiosaurus?

:cool:

Raptor(cool, kickass name) > Hummingbird (massively ghey)

ferrarigod

12-11-06, 02:38 PM

For me, the 18 is the most wood-inducing plane at this time, though the raptor, is kinda growing on me. The 35 looks knocked-up and as such, is out of the hotness equation.:D

The raptor looks like a boat on the ground. The gear looks lowered like a hoop-di from South Central LA. But once it takes off, she's pretty hot. And knowing you're seeing a half-a-billion dollar plane is pretty kool also.

Raptor(cool, kickass name) > Hummingbird (massively ghey)

Why not the Teradyctyl then. I just think the STOL like characteristics would make for a cooler name.

Ankf00

12-11-06, 02:49 PM

For me, the 18 is the most wood-inducing plane at this time, though the raptor, is kinda growing on me. The 35 looks knocked-up and as such, is out of the hotness equation.:D

agreed.

Joelski

12-11-06, 02:56 PM

The raptor looks like a boat on the ground. The gear looks lowered like a hoop-di from South Central LA. But once it takes off, she's pretty hot. And knowing you're seeing a half-a-billion dollar plane is pretty kool also.

Why not the Teradyctyl then. I just think the STOL like characteristics would make for a cooler name.

Hence, my opnion that Assjacker > anything to date.

Therefore, it us to military brass to come up with something kids can repeat. :)

oddlycalm

12-11-06, 03:08 PM

That would be the B-1 bomber. I think you meant the B-2. The B-1B was expensive at $284 million a copy, but that's a fraction of the cost of a B-2 which cost $2.2 billion.

oc

TrueBrit

12-11-06, 03:11 PM

It's all a bloody stupid waste of money if you ask me....

(but it's fun watching you geeks battle it out over which waste of taxpayers money has the cooler name :D )

Joelski

12-11-06, 03:15 PM

It's all a bloody stupid waste of money if you ask me....

(but it's fun watching you geeks battle it out over which waste of taxpayers money has the cooler name :D )

If you don't want to concern yourself with defending the country, move back to Britain where it's done for you.

:D

Ankf00

12-11-06, 03:15 PM

Why not call it the Brachiosaurus?

Merriam-Webster: Main Entry: rap·tor
Pronunciation: 'rap-t&r, -"tor
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin Raptores, former order name, from Latin, plural of raptor plunderer, from rapere
1 : BIRD OF PREY

exemplum gratia: Eagle, Falcon, Hawk

cameraman

12-11-06, 03:22 PM

I would have picked the name, Hummingbird, Kingfisher, or Stealth Harrier. Something cooler that fits its profile.

The Kingfisher. A tough old plane but not exactly of the f- variety.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/images/vought_os2u_kingfisher.jpg

chop456

12-12-06, 02:59 AM

Dig in, nerds.

F4U Corsair training film (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1056703518162002454&q=f-4u)

Andrew Longman

12-12-06, 10:50 AM

Dig in, nerds.

F4U Corsair training film (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1056703518162002454&q=f-4u)

Great piece.

Amazing how busy the pilot was. Open this, turn that, check the other thing, avoid doing this...

Oh and find your target, kill and don't get killed while you are at it.

nrc

12-12-06, 01:49 PM

Great piece.

Amazing how busy the pilot was. Open this, turn that, check the other thing, avoid doing this...

Oh and find your target, kill and don't get killed while you are at it.

Yep, that's why Corsair didn't make it onto carriers until the latter part of the war - if you didn't turn this and check the other thing at the right time it could very easily bite you.

I have a fascinating book called "Wings of the Navy" by Captain Eric Brown formerly of the Royal Navy that details flight procedures and characteristics for many of the naval aircraft of the era - everything from the Fairy Swordfish to the Corsair.