F-35 Joint Strike Fighter gets official name

[echo1 0]

The JSF is now the "Lightning II"

Article

Interesting to note that this is what the F-22 Raptor was going to be called.

[tankieboy 0]

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter gets official name - In America

[dm 9]

While I still don't like the idea of the F-35 being called Lightning (the ONLY Lightning was the English Electric Lightning IMHO) its oh so much better than calling it the Spitfire II, that would have been heresy.

Still, would have been nice to come up with an ORIGINAL name, rather than re-using one that already has legendry status.

[Ares1978 0]

I agree with DeadMeatXM2, why the hell couldn't they come up with an original name?

Now they just need to rename the Raptor. I think they should call it "Thunderbolt III". Thunderbolt & Lightning sounds so cool (very, very frightening).

[deanosbeano 0]

USAF names Lockheed Martin's F-35 JSF the Lightning II

lightning II sounds like a decent tribute to me ? lets hoope it dosent turn out to be Sheeeit lightning

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Hope the RAF don't refer to it as 'Lightning II' though I can't recall other aircraft where we've opted against the manufacturer's name. I think sticking a II (especially in roman numerals) on the end is just tacky. We didn't call Eurofighter, 'Typhoon II' after all, despite the fact it was named Typhoon for similar reasons as to why F-35 has been named Lightning.

I don't mind tanks like Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 being named as such, because they're the direct replacement for the vehicle they bear the name of, and have similar characteristics. Neither case is true between the F-35 and the English Electric Lightning or P-38.

[hellfish6 7]

I'm sure the JSF partners can rename it if they want to. The Israelis do it all the time.

Edit: Looks like they want to make the Brits and Americans happy with this one.

http://www.jsf.mil/images/headers/head_home_v02.jpg

[IrishGuy 0]

The F-35 is a complete waste of money. The last thing the USAF needs is a new plane when they got so many good planes that they can use all the money it cost to build the F-35 and upgrade the hell out of all the planes it set to replace. Thats why I say the USAF is a bunch of dumb asses who just know how to spend money like spoiled rich kids.

[dm 9]

The F-35 is a complete waste of money. The last thing the USAF needs is a new plane when they got so many good planes that they can use all the money it cost to build the F-35 and upgrade the hell out of all the planes it set to replace.

All the "good planes" which date back to the 70's design wise, and with the uprated operational tempo are all nearing their fatigue life and need to be replaced before they fail structuraly.

The F-35 is actually a very sensible purchase, especially the way they are doing it, by replacing all of the current types with 2 types (F-22 and F-35) they vastly reduce the logistics overheads required for the upkeep of the multiple airframes they currently operate.

In my honest opinion, the F-22 is where the money is being wasted. Since what other world force can put up a threat to justify the billions being spent on an airframe that will eventually become nothing more than a lightweight bomber (it can only carry 2 1000lb JDAM internally, i think 2 or 4 more externally - comparable to the F-35 which costs 1/10th the price)

I've thrashed this point out on the milphotos.net forums, and while I agree that yes the F-22 is super-duper, I just can't see the need for it (from my limited strategic viewpoint) Sure the Ruskies are making some kickass jets in the latest Sukhoi's, but who is gonna use them to their fullest effect? Dear Leader (Kim Jong) and China can barely afford flight hours for their pilots as it is, let alone for new high tech fanciful stuff...

[echo1 0]

I agree, but how much weaponry can the F-35 carry into battle?

[dm 9]

I agree, but how much weaponry can the F-35 carry into battle?

Approximately 15,000lbs according to the "latest" info i can find.

Essentially it is capable of carrying up to 6 1000lb JDAM, along with 2 or 4 AAM's (either AIM-9 or AIM-120) plus its internal cannon.

[Messiah 2]

The Danes are buying it? Bloody hell, I should find my conscription letter and reapply

[echo1 0]

Just looked up the F-22 and F-35 on wiki. The F-35 (Basic USAF version) is approx $45m per plane, the F-22 is around $338m, what can the Raptor do that the F-35 cant that justifies almost $300m more per unit?

EDIT: If the Russians can make something like the Su-35 for about $30m, Im sure the Americans can come up with something as good if not more for the same price?

[dm 9]

F-22 is a much more capable fighter, where the F-35 is a multi-role jet much like the F-16.

I do ask the same question tho, what currently justifies the $300 million+ pricetag for the F-22...

[EiZei 0]

And we will be flying hornets well in to the 2010's.. oh well.

[Ares1978 0]

And we will be flying hornets well in to the 2010's.. oh well.

More like the 2030's, unless they figure out that ground systems are more cost effective and that the Air Force isn't worth the money that we spend on it.

[mp_phonix 0]

Is the f-35 is like a modern "Harrier" ? because I heard it can take off vertically . .

And what class is it ? I mean "bomber", "fighter", ?

[dm 9]

Depends on the model of F-35. The A has no vertical capability, the B has vertical capability, and the C has navalised features (no vertical capability.)

The F-35 is classed as a multi-role aircraft, meaning you could call it a fighter-bomber much in the same class as the RAF Harriers or the F-16.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Is the f-35 is like a modern "Harrier" ? because I heard it can take off vertically . .

And what class is it ? I mean "bomber", "fighter", ?

Typically the F-35B wont take off vertically as it places a lot of stress on the engines, damages the surface that the aircraft takes off from, and it's unlikely that the aircraft will be able to perform VTOL (Vertical Take Off and Landing) with a combat load (weapons and aditional fuel).

Instead it'll operate as a STOVL (Short Take Off, Vertical Landing) aircraft like the Harrier does currrently.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Typically the F-35B wont take off vertically ...and it's unlikely that the aircraft will be able to perform VTOL (Vertical Take Off and Landing) with a combat load (weapons and aditional fuel).

Instead it'll operate as a STOVL (Short Take Off, Vertical Landing) aircraft like the Harrier does currrently.

Ahem, thats not actually correct.  

It will perform in much the same way as the Harrier family does.  It will be used in exactly the same way the Harrier is today by the RAF, RN and USMC.  And it will be able to land vertically with the same weapons as it took off with.  All this is part of the type acceptance trials and was the point of the extensive weight saving and redesign exercise that has delayed production.

To do so it just has to dump 75% of it fuel load just like the Harrier does.  Although the Harrier actually dumps upto 85% of its fuel to land on a carrier with its full weapons loadouts.

you are correct in saying that It will be operated in the STOVL regime in places like Afghanistan and Iraq due to the ambient temp and or altitudes which both affect the max thrust produced by an engine.

The F-35 is a complete waste of money. The last thing the USAF needs is a new plane when they got so many good planes that they can use all the money it cost to build the F-35 and upgrade the hell out of all the planes it set to replace.

As DM says it’s a good plan.  It may not seem it to the Forum experts that just compare stats but it makes economic and technological sense.  If you consider that most aircraft will be in service for 30-35 years then look at the airframes made in the 80’s.  These will all soon at the end of their fatigue life (i.e. the materials have become work hardened and are now becoming brittle).  By 2012 the RAF Harrier and Jaguar Fleets (yes I know they are being retired this year and the rest in the next 2 years) will  have all reached their safe usable limit. The same goes form 80% of the US airframes and most of the NATO partners.

Since the variants of the JSF will perform the functions of various aircraft it means that the “owners†no longer have to support various different platforms with expensive ground equipment and spares for each type.  They now only support one common airframe with common spares and infrastructure among NATO partners. This greatly reduces the support costs for every air force that operates it.

It may not be the best Fighter/Bomber/interceptor or Recon platform but it can do all the jobs to a reasonable level (we’re told) and do it cost effectively (eventually when they work the bugs out of the production).

[da12thMonkey 1943]

I know it can land vertically with a full compliment of weapons, what I said was that as far as I was aware, it cannot take off vertically to go into combat due to weight etc. I know both the F-35B and Harrier can take off vertically but AFAIK, not under conditions where they're expected to perform a combat role after a vertical take off.

Can Harrier and F-35B take off vertically with weapons and a reasonable amount of fuel then?

What I was explaining to mp_phoenix was that, neither operate as a VTOL aircraft due to them not performing the vertical take off component required to perform in the literal sense of VTOL, prior to performing its function as a combat aircraft, and that a short take off is performed instead of a vertical one.

[billybob2002 0]

While I still don't like the idea of the F-35 being called Lightning (the ONLY Lightning was the English Electric Lightning IMHO) its oh so much better than calling it the Spitfire II, that would have been heresy.

Still, would have been nice to come up with an ORIGINAL name, rather than re-using one that already has legendry status.

It isn't the first time that the USAF named a new plane after a legendary plane. The A-10 is named the Thunderbolt II, the F-100 is named the Super Sabre, the C-9 is named the Skytrain II, the T-6A is named the Texan II . I think the Navy was responsible for naming the A-7 the Corsair II.

[Jinef 2]

I would have called it a massive acronym, something like.

AMWOM

A massive waste of money.

Actually, to make it fit with other acronyms.

ASMWOTM

A strategic massive waste of tactical money.

Perfect.

[EiZei 0]

I would have called it a massive acronym, something like.

AMWOM

A massive waste of money.

Id say a western fighter aircraft that costs less than 50 mil a pop cannot be massive waste of money.. well.. massive at least.

[Messiah 2]

I think you've ignored the facts put to the thread Jinef... rksl/deadmeat/da12thmonkey have provided more than enough evidence to show why in fact this aircraft is a wise choice and purchase