Jump to content

F-35's first flight coming up

Ruud

By Ruud,
in Real Aviation

 Share Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Ruud

Ruud

Posted
Posted

Hoi,

Read on F-16.net that they are planning the F-35's first flight for next week... It will be nice to get to see more and more of the F-35 (i will refuse to call it the Lightning II) in action.

later

Ruud

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark S.

Mark S.

Posted
Posted
What is the significance of Dec 17th?

And for the record, I do not like Lightning II either!

Jeff

Jeff:

Two guys from Dayton, Ohio started the "first flight" business back in 1903 on that date. You would be suprised how many other aircraft first flights or other related events occur on that date.

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites
DutyCat

DutyCat

Posted
Posted

The Air Force should have learned after the F-22 that the name Lightning II was going to get a cool reception. It was almost as if the guy that tried to get Lightning II assigned to the F-22 and failed was bound and determined to make it stick to the F-35. I wonder if this was a Lockheed idea. They should have listened to some pilot input. I'll bet no one would have come up with Lightning II, for goodness sake. There are a lots of other good names they could have used. Maybe we could get a petition going! BTW, what happened to the F-24/35/26 designation, etc. How did thet get all the way up to F-35? I must say that with the F-22, they made a brilliant recovery with the name Raptor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DutyCat

DutyCat

Posted
Posted

Raven would be pretty good..goes with Raptor nicely, even though it was used for the EF-111 "Spark Vark." Incidently, Aardvark was a great name for the regular F-111.

Kestral is a no go. Too British/Harrier sounding. Cobra would be pretty good, even thought it was used for the YF-17. I kind of like Mako, as in the shark species. There are lots of other cool ones if they would just use their imagination. No need to settle for Lightning II.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ruud

Ruud

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hoi,

Didn't they get up to the F-32/F-35 due to a clerical mistake (IIRC). Someone "accidently" called the X-32/X-35 "F-XX" in some document and it stuck. Could be my faulty memory, but it is all i have. I am a bit too AR to like the fact that they skipped over a bunch of numbers. And i am not a fan of using "fighter" names for non-fighter aircraft. Osprey should be the name for the F-35...

later

Ruud

Link to post
Share on other sites
///Mflossin

///Mflossin

Posted
Posted

I got an email yesterday stating that the date was not set in stone but it should be next week at some point. It will be piped into the hanger. I work on the F-35 program at Pratt. They also piped in both first flight's of both the concept demonstrator's back during the CDA phase. That was pretty neat. Although I may be bias, Pratt has done a phenomenal job with these motors... :cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites
habu2

habu2

Posted
Posted

The jet moved under its own power for the first time today, and will probably do so again Friday and Saturday. Monday's weather looks bad, so Sunday is likely to be Very Interesting..... :cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spongebob

Spongebob

Posted
Posted (edited)
Didn't they get up to the F-32/F-35 due to a clerical mistake (IIRC).

Decision by the former SecDef. 32/35 were based on the X series...coded X as they were technology demonstrations and not prototypes per se.

Edited by Spongebob
Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim Barr

Jim Barr

Posted
Posted
"Didn't they get up to the F-32/F-35 due to a clerical mistake ?"

Decision by the former SecDef

Rumsfeld can be blamed for many things but let's don't pin this one on him, the mistake came during the awards ceremony:

"The F-35 designation for the Joint Strike Fighter is the latest in a line of out-of-sequence designations. What's new about this one is the history of its creation. On 26 October 2001, a press conference was held at the Pentagon to announce the winner of the JSF competition, held between the Boeing X-32 and the Lockheed Martin X-35. When the X-35 had been declared the winner, one of the questions asked was about the designation for the production JSF. USD ATL (Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions, Technology and Logistics) Edward C. "Pete" Aldridge mentioned the X-35 designator of the Lockheed Martin demonstrators, briefly exchanged a few words with his co-presenter, JSF Program Manager Major General Mike Hough, and then said it would be called "F-35"."

"As it turned out, no designation whatsoever had been reserved, let alone approved, for the production JSF at that time, and Aldrigde and Hough - obviously not knowing much about the aircraft designation system used in their department - simply replaced the X by an F. Of course, just about everyone interested in the subject had expected the logical designation of F-24. In fact, Lockheed Martin had also expected this, and was reportedly a bit upset about the turn of events, apparently already having referred to the hoped-for production JSF in-house as the "F-24".

The official request for MDS designations for the three JSF variants was placed by the JSF Program Office on 17 December 2001"

It was not before 16 April 2002 that the requests for F-35A, F-35B and F-35C (for the CTOL, STOVL and CV variants respectively) were forwarded by the USAF Nomenclature Office to HQ USAF/XPPE for approval. This is an unusually long delay, and may indicate that there was much discussion about the validity of the F-35 designation and/or the reasoning why it should be assigned (the latter boiling down to "It should be 'F-35' because some high-ranking but ill-informed official said so"). Nevertheless, the Nomenclature Office included the following paragraph in its letters (example for F-35A):

The last fighter aircraft was assigned YF-23A, and therefore this aircraft should be assigned F-24A as design numbers are to be assigned consecutively according to AFJI 16-401. This office recommends the designation be F-24A. "

"However, the recommendation was to no avail, and on 5 June 2002 HQ USAF confirmed the F-35 designations"

Regards

Jim Barr

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aggressor Supporter

Aggressor Supporter

Posted
Posted
The jet moved under its own power for the first time today, and will probably do so again Friday and Saturday. Monday's weather looks bad, so Sunday is likely to be Very Interesting..... :cheers:

Hey, that's great news! Wonder why there isn't much news on this as I would think this is significant? Can't wait for that first flight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Grey Ghost 531

Grey Ghost 531

Posted
Posted
Hoi,

Didn't they get up to the F-32/F-35 due to a clerical mistake (IIRC). Someone "accidently" called the X-32/X-35 "F-XX" in some document and it stuck.

later

Ruud

I don't think it's a big deal. No worse than the SR-71 designation or the confusion about the F-117/F-19.

In a couple of years no-one will think it seems weird. It's not like they're going to run out of numbers, with a new fighter coming out every 20 years or so they're good to go until about the year 2506.

Same with the name. Lightning II will either seem normal in a couple of years, or everyone will be using some other popularly assigned nick name. It's certainly no worse than "Fighting Falcon". That was a dumb-*** sounding name. Or "Spirit". If the aircrews and maintenance types don't like a name, they'll call it what they want to anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Josh1971

Josh1971

Posted
Posted (edited)

They should call it the Black Widow, to make up for the fact that they didn't put the F-23 in service. :thumbsup:

Or, based on the engine configuration, call it the "Freestyle II" :D

Seriously, the Lightning II? Come on, there are wayyyy better names they could have used. The Fighting Bullfrog! It hops!

:D

JB

Edited by Josh1971
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ruud

Ruud

Posted
  • Author
Posted

ah, okay. not a clerical error then. I wasn't worried about "who done it" (had not even thought of blaming anyone in particular) but it is interesting to clear it up in mind on how it came to be. Funny how in a world of forms/requests/chain-of-command, such a thing could have just happened.

Agreed Lighting II will only live in "official" circles. The actual personel working/flying them will no doubt come up with a much better one (as with the Viper, Warthog, Aardvark, etc.). Once they start flying it, one would guess the "real" name will come forward soon enough.

later

Ruud

Link to post
Share on other sites
DutyCat

DutyCat

Posted
Posted

The AF is just boneheaded half of the time when it comes to naming their planes. I think the B-1A was originally called the Excaliber, and then when production authority was given for the B-1B, they came up with Lancer. Better. "Bone" is obviously not appropriate for a formal name, but it does fit the aircraft's look, numerical designation, and mission (lets hit them over the head with a "bone").

Now, the Navy, on the other hand, clearly does a much better job selecting names and making them stick. Phantom, Tomcat, Hornet, Corsair, Intruder, Viking, Hawkeye, Prowler are all solid choices. Of course, many A/C have great nicknames also. For anyone who has been around them, Hoover seems like as perfect nickname for the Viking. Rhino is good for the F-4E because of its look, but not B/C/D. SLUF is great for the A-7. I don't at all like Rhino for the SuperHornet. When I was in the fleet, we called F-14s turkeys because of their large differential tails moving all over the place when they were coming aboard the boat. Viper and Warthog are great nicknames. I would guess that the F-22 will not get a nickname. What could be cooler than Raptor anyway. The F-35 may, however. No one likes Lightning II.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spongebob

Spongebob

Posted
Posted
Now, the Navy, on the other hand, clearly does a much better job selecting names and making them stick.

This thought is revoked because of the "Growler". Hopefully for Karl it won't stick...but growlers can be sticky.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aggressor Supporter

Aggressor Supporter

Posted
Posted
Lockheed Martin photo from the first taxi test, Dec 7, it's a big file

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/13800.jpg

Regards

Jim Barr

Thanks for the link. The F-35 sure does look good! I think Lockheed should be doing everything they can to hype up these events given a lot of negative publicity it seems to be receiving.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Followers 0
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...