JSF/F-35 name & details on where it will be built in Europe

[contedicavour]

2 informations I got from the Italian financial press :

It appears that the 131 JSFs for Italy (AF+Navy) and the 85 for the Netherlands will be assembled in Cameri (halfway between Turin and Milan in north-western Italy) as of 2010 approx. The firm in charge is of course Alenia Finmeccanica Group with the support of Avio (70% owned by the US Carlyle private equity fund).
Which other locations are planned to host assembly lines for European JSFs ?

The other bit of information gives the potential names of the JSF :
> Lightning II
> Cyclone
> Reaper
> Piasa (a mythical bird in native Americans' culture)

cheers

[410Cougar]

Lightning II? Man...no knock on the older planes, but I just can't stand it when they recycle names...please, come up with something new!!!

[Sea Toby]

America has named many of its fighters recently after birds, so I suspect the Piasa is favored. On the other hand Europeans would probably prefer Cyclone, it sort of matches with Typhoon. Reaper sounds too goulish for me, although it rhymes with Raptor.

I haven't a clue where Lighting II came from. Since the F-35s are being built in the same Fort Worth factory as the F-16 Falcon, Falcon II would fit better. Many of the good bird names have already been used: Eagle, Falcon, Raven, and Hawk. Raptor is a dinosaur bird. Why not a mystic bird?

[Magoo]

America has named many of its fighters recently after birds, so I suspect the Piasa is favored. On the other hand Europeans would probably prefer Cyclone, it sort of matches with Typhoon. Reaper sounds too goulish for me, although it rhymes with Raptor.

I haven't a clue where Lighting II came from. Since the F-35s are being built in the same Fort Worth factory as the F-16 Falcon, Falcon II would fit better. Many of the good bird names have already been used: Eagle, Falcon, Raven, and Hawk. Raptor is a dinosaur bird. Why not a mystic bird?

Raptor is the collective name for the family of birds which comprises Eagles, Hawks, Vultures, Owls etc. If you're a bird of prey, you're a Raptor.

Osprey would have been a good one, as would Goshawk and even Harrier, but all are taken.

How about 'Peregrine', or perhaps 'Sparrowhawk', 'Kestrel' or even just 'Kite'? You could have the F-35A 'Kite' or 'Peregrine', and the F-35B/C 'Sea Kite' or 'Sea Peregrine'? So simple it might just work!?!?! :dance

Maybe it's time to start a new series of names, as the Raptor family is almost exhausted. How about 'Wolverine', 'Mink', Weasel'....yeah, ok, I know!

Besides, because this is a Navy (traditionally feline names), Marines and multinational aircraft as well, they'll probably deviate from the 'Raptor' family of names, and look for something more 'global'. Don't get me started there...it'll probably be so politically correct as to be laughable!:rolleyes:

Magoo

[gf0012-aust]

How about 'Peregrine', or perhaps 'Sparrowhawk', 'Kestrel' or even just 'Kite'? You could have the F-35A 'Kite' or 'Peregrine', and the F-

Kite, SparrowHawk and Kestrel have already been used ;)

I think Peregrine was a series of Rolls Royce engines...

[rossfrb_1]

I believe Booby is free.
http://www.montereybay.com/creagrus/boobies.html

There aint anything flying at the moment called Wedgetail!

rb

[Big-E]

America has named many of its fighters recently after birds, so I suspect the Piasa is favored. On the other hand Europeans would probably prefer Cyclone, it sort of matches with Typhoon. Reaper sounds too goulish for me, although it rhymes with Raptor.

I haven't a clue where Lighting II came from. Since the F-35s are being built in the same Fort Worth factory as the F-16 Falcon, Falcon II would fit better. Many of the good bird names have already been used: Eagle, Falcon, Raven, and Hawk. Raptor is a dinosaur bird. Why not a mystic bird?

How does Raptor ryhme with Reaper? The F-16 was named VIPER by her pilots and this should be the real name. No one cares what the Air Force names it, the pilots are the ones who have to live with the name. Navy should get to name our version and Marines should name theirs based on pilot vote.

[swerve]

Kite, SparrowHawk and Kestrel have already been used ;)

I think Peregrine was a series of Rolls Royce engines...

Kestrel was only a development aircraft, which never entered service. Turned into the Harrier. A pity, really, as Kestrel is the perfect name for a plane which can hover, which is, of course, why it was picked. There are no Kestrels now (except maybe in a museum), so I'd say it's free.

But what about Albatross? :lol3 Oh no - it's an Italian naval SAM.

[Wild Weasel]

In '96, I asked a USMC Harrier pilot what he thought the JSF would be named, ( the official designation of the fighter was not even known at that time, due to the fact that the final down-selection process between Lockheed and Boeing had not yet taken place. )
-and he said, "How about Pipe Dream?" His wingman just laughed.

Apparently they were quite skeptical of the future of the program.
Given the dynamic nature of bringing such an enormous defense program to fruition, and having seen the recent demise of the USN's A-12- it's quite natural they would be skeptical.

Personally, I think Panther, or Couger would be best.

[fylr71]

I like the mythical bird approach or reusing a name on a plane that wasn't widely used such as Rapier or Skynight.:)

[umair]

At keymags they call it the "Ardpiglet" in sheer appreciaton of it's looks.

[alexsa]

Lightning II? Man...no knock on the older planes, but I just can't stand it when they recycle names...please, come up with something new!!!

What like

Globemaster II
Phantom (two so far)
Intruder (two to date)

etc etc

lets fact it many names have been sed before but there are emotional attachments.

[rattmuff]

Why not take the names of all the swedish fighter aircraft and translate to english?

Swedish = English
Tunnan = The Barrel
Lansen = The Lance
Draken = The Kite or The Dragon
Viggen = The Thunderbolt
Gripen = The Gryphon

[Izzy1]

If memory serves, wasn't the F-22 Raptor also originally going to be called Lightning II?

[Aussie Digger]

Occum (and Goon and Kopp) would probably be in favour of the F-35 "Slug"... :p:

[rossfrb_1]

Occum (and Goon and Kopp) would probably be in favour of the F-35 "Slug"... :p:
Fairey Gannet has been used so Fairy Penguin could be a goer for the F-35C.
I still think the F-35 Booby or Booby Strike Fighter sounds good.
If two of them were flying in formation, you could say 'there goes a nice pair of boobies.' And the wife would have no reason to get upset.
If they were flying beside one another then they would be keeping abreast.
I think I've milked this for all its worth:)

rb

[Occum]

Occum (and Goon and Kopp) would probably be in favour of the F-35 "Slug"... :p:


Don't know why you would think this or that I am somehow down on the JSF. Provided it makes it through the development program intact and proves itself in DT&E, IOT&E and FOT&E, then it should be a good platform for what the JORD requires it to do. I suggest the point you are missing is that I, like many, do not believe it is the right system for Australia. To put this another way, the decision to go JSF is flawed; not the aircraft, necessarily.

What is it that makes some people (and it would appear this includes you) not want the best for our troops - particularly when the best is far more capable than, far more cost effective than and far less risky than what senior folks in Defence are intending for Australia to acquire?

As to a name for the JSF, from what I have read I think Dr Kopp had already suggested the Thud II some time ago. The supporting reasons he provided make a lot of sense from a capability and military aviation historical perspective.

As much as I have enjoyed the fun being had with Booby, not sure that will fly.

;)

[Seacraft]

Names of Sea Birds

Cormorant (doesn't exactly flow off the tounge but has many variations in different languages)

Gannet - fairly nasty tempered bird that folds in its wings and dives in on its prey.

Plover - maybe apt, small defensless "cotton ball on tooth pics" (bad joke)

Buzzard

Tern

Skimmer

[rjmaz1]

I think they should just keep it as the JSF, as that sounds good.

Jayesseff

[rossfrb_1]

Names of Sea Birds

{snip}

Skimmer
If by Skimmer you mean a Shearwater, these also go by the name of Muttonbird. Methinks Lockmart may use something similar behind closed doors for the BSF.

rb

[Big-E]

Occum (and Goon and Kopp) would probably be in favour of the F-35 "Slug"... :p:

Slug? I thought they would go for something more like "DoDo".:p:

[robsta83]

Well its official USAF have named the F-35 the F-35 Lightning II,:dance2 not exactly as catchy as the Raptor, but meh, its better than the Black Mamba, Viper would of being better, perhaps, the other variants will have different names time will tell.
Check out www.af.mil for the video news article.

[Occum]

May be going out on a limb here, but didn't both Lightnings have 2 engines?

Will be interesting to see what those who operate and maintain the aircraft end up calling it.

:)

[gf0012-aust]

May be going out on a limb here, but didn't both Lightnings have 2 engines?

The first Thunderbolt was a single. The second (and subs refd to as Thunderbolt2 had twins - so it can happen in reverse)


Will be interesting to see what those who operate and maintain the aircraft end up calling it.

:)

"Piglet" has been suggested. ;)

[umair]

IMHO an insult to the name of two of the most good looking fighters I've seen.
"Flying Piglet" would have suited it better. Honestly speaking, Boeing's JSF submission atleast for me was the better looker of the two.

[swerve]

May be going out on a limb here, but didn't both Lightnings have 2 engines?
:)

Yes. And one of them could supercruise.

[Pathfinder-X]

Hah looks like LM just couldn't forget about P-38. They tried to name the F-22 Lighting II also, but that didn't work out. I guess they got their way this time around.

[alexsa]

Honestly speaking, Boeing's JSF submission atleast for me was the better looker of the two.

You are kidding, that was one ugly airplane. It was interesting that when the decision was announced even Boeing admitted the F-35 had outperformed their proposal in many key areas.

[Occum]

Gotta agree with you, Alexsa - it looked like a pregnant pidgeon while the JSF (eh, Lightning II) is more like a pidgeon on steroids.

:)

[Cootamundra]

Gotta agree with you, Alexsa - it looked like a pregnant pidgeon while the JSF (eh, Lightning II) is more like a pidgeon on steroids.

:)

"Pidgeon on Steroids" sounds good to me! :hehe

The P-38 didn't look all that flash but it sure did the job

[Aussie Digger]

Don't know why you would think this or that I am somehow down on the JSF. Provided it makes it through the development program intact and proves itself in DT&E, IOT&E and FOT&E, then it should be a good platform for what the JORD requires it to do. I suggest the point you are missing is that I, like many, do not believe it is the right system for Australia. To put this another way, the decision to go JSF is flawed; not the aircraft, necessarily.

What is it that makes some people (and it would appear this includes you) not want the best for our troops - particularly when the best is far more capable than, far more cost effective than and far less risky than what senior folks in Defence are intending for Australia to acquire?

;)

I DO want what's best for Australian forces, I just don't necessarily agree with you or others of like mind to you as to what is best for Australia. I'm also sick of arguing about.

Neither you or Dr KOPP in all his AA, Defence Today, Air International, Headsup or Air Force Monthly articles (etc) articles have convinced me of anything more than the fact that you are both fixated upon the F-22 and F-11 respectively.

As such any desire to debate this issue any further has completely left me.

AS to the actual topic of this thread, Lighting II? Wasn't the Lightning a British aircraft???

[alexsa]

AS to the actual topic of this thread, Lighting II? Wasn't the Lightning a British aircraft???

Both.

the P-38 was the lockheed lightening also refered to as the "fork tailed devil"

The English Electric Lightening was a very attractive two engined beast that I understand was ofter described as "what the hell was that".

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/index.html

As noted earlier this was the first supercuising air craft in the world. Not bad considering the prototype first flew in august 1954. max speed in excess of mach 2.2 with a ceiling of 60000, Range on the other hand was not its strong point, but a beaut looking aircraft

[rjmaz1]

As noted earlier this was the first supercuising air craft in the world. Not bad considering the prototype first flew in august 1954.
Incorrect. The website says supercruise when it never supercruised.

Mach 0.8 or below = subsonic
Mach 0.8 to 1.2 = transonic
Mach 1.2 to 5.0 = supersonic
Mach 5 and above = Hypersonic

So the it never reached supersonic speeds without afterburning ;)

[alexsa]

Incorrect. The website says supercruise when it never supercruised.

Mach 0.8 or below = subsonic
Mach 0.8 to 1.2 = transonic
Mach 1.2 to 5.0 = supersonic
Mach 5 and above = Hypersonic

So the it never reached supersonic speeds without afterburning ;)

If you say so

But my understanding is supersonic capability is sustained level flight above mach 1 while transonic exceeds mach 1 in the dive. The web sites states

"On the 4th of April 1957 the first P.1B flew. On this flight it also exceeded Mach 1 without using reheat."

I understand this was in level flight and to me that supercruse but I am no expert. The author of the site seems to think this is supercruise and he does seem to know what he is talking about.

Where did you get your defination of supercruise from?

[swerve]

If you say so

But my understanding is supersonic capability is sustained level flight above mach 1 while transonic exceeds mach 1 in the dive. The web sites states

"On the 4th of April 1957 the first P.1B flew. On this flight it also exceeded Mach 1 without using reheat."

I understand this was in level flight and to me that supercruse but I am no expert. The author of the site seems to think this is supercruise and he does seem to know what he is talking about.

Where did you get your defination of supercruise from?

Posibly from Lockheed Martin, who have for some time defined supercruise as whatever the F-22 can do that nothing else can. So if something else achieves the previous definition, they change the definition. :D

[rjmaz1]

If you say so

But my understanding is supersonic capability is sustained level flight above mach 1 while transonic exceeds mach 1 in the dive.

Where did you get your defination of supercruise from?
Thats incorrect.

Supersonic is when the entire aircraft is infront of that shock wave.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/sound_barrier/DI94.htm

There are many other sources that state this. Just type "supersonic subsonic, transonic mach" into google

Again Mach 1.2 and 0.8 are only estimates as if the aircraft is larger or smaller it may require more or less speed to become supersonic.

[alexsa]

Thats incorrect.

Supersonic is when the entire aircraft is infront of that shock wave.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/sound_barrier/DI94.htm

There are many other sources that state this. Just type "supersonic subsonic, transonic mach" into google

Again Mach 1.2 and 0.8 are only estimates as if the aircraft is larger or smaller it may require more or less speed to become supersonic.

I love a challenge. Did what you said and typed supersonic and supercruise into google:

Supersonic (from NASA):

"Planes which travel faster than Mach 1 (or the speed of sound) are traveling at supersonic speeds. An example of this speed regime is the Concorde. The speed range is 760 - 3500 MPH or Mach 1 - Mach 5."

Cool so exceeding mach 1 is supersonic, then

Supercruise (from wikipedia this time):

"A supercruising aircraft is able to cruise at supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners."

So if they cruise above mach 1 wihtout reheat they are supercruising by this definition. In any case I believe the Lightning could achieve higher speed that just Mach 1 without reheat as it was basically two engines with wings (hence the miserly 800 mile range without tanks (I am trying to find a previous reference on this).

In any case it was an impressive effort for 1957 and given the UK involvement in JSF maybe Lightening II is an appropriate name because of this.

[Oryx]

Thats incorrect.

Supersonic is when the entire aircraft is infront of that shock wave.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/sound_barrier/DI94.htm

There are many other sources that state this. Just type "supersonic subsonic, transonic mach" into google

Again Mach 1.2 and 0.8 are only estimates as if the aircraft is larger or smaller it may require more or less speed to become supersonic.

I know my voice will probably be fairly meaningless considering all the politics surrounding what "supercruise" means. However, as an aeronautical engineer specialising in applied aerodynamics I feel obliged to state what is accepted standard in the industry (note - I am referring to the technical side of the industry, not what those involved with marketing want to call it). When the true airspeed of an aircraft is lower than the local speed of sound, it is subsonic. When it is faster than the local speed of sound, it is supersonic. It is as simple as that. The terms "transonic" and "hypersonic" are terms that engineers and physicists came up with to describe certain characteristics of the flow. Transonic refers to a flow condition where there is a "significant" (note the vague term) amount of mixed flow - i.e., there are considerable amounts of subsonic airflow as well as considerable amounts of supersonic airflow. Because of the mixed nature of the flow, it is a very tricky area in which to do flow analysis, and therefore the separate term "transonic". "Hypersonic", on the other hand, refers to flows where the speed is high enough so that several terms that we usually ignore in the lower supersonic speed range become significant, and therefore a separate term was chosen to refer to those types of flows. Both the terms "transonic" and "hypersonic" are defined in a fairly vague way, and no self-respecting aerodynamicist will try to say transonic starts at "exactly" Mach 0.7 and ends at "exactly" Mach 1.4, or whatever. In fact, almost all supersonic flows around aircraft have areas where the flow will be subsonic (for instance directly behind fairings), and sometimes local flows can be supersonic even though the aircraft is flying very slowly (for instance near propeller tips). Even for a given airplane "transonic" is not well defined - the point at which you can say that the amount of subsonic flow is insignificant depends completely on the point of view. An aerodynamicist working on the wing design may say it is fully supersonic at Mach 1.2, while another working on the refueling probe will say it is still well within the transonic regime (you can't make the assumption the flow is fully supersonic for the purpose of analysis) even up to Mach 1.5.

In contrast, the terms "subsonic" and "supersonic" are defined exactly, as explained in the beginning of this post. If the free-stream Mach number (TAS divided by local speed of sound) is 1.01, you are going supersonic. If it is 0.99, you are going subsonic. Yes, in both cases the flow around the aircraft is in the mixed subsonic/supersonic regime and when I do an analysis on the flow I will say it is transonic, but according to the definitions of subsonic and supersonic and based on its free-stream Mach number, the aircraft is supersonic in case 1 and subsonic in case 2.

The word "supercruise" is a marketing term. If you want to use correct aerodynamic nomenclature and describe the aircrafts Mach number based on the free-stream speed as has been done throughout the history of flight, then an aircraft that can "cruise" at Mach 1.01 without afterburner will be supercruising. (Even the afterburner part is a bit misleading - what if an aircraft and its engine was actually designed to cruise with afterburner? Anyway, I'll ignore that ambiguity for now). Since the term is used by aircraft marketers, however, I guess they can give it any meaning they want and you can argue until you are blue in the face over what the term really means without getting anywhere. What is irritating, though, is that they are now using the word "transonic" in a way it was never meant to be used, and say "look, aircraft X is not supercruising - it is transocruising"... Yes, and Chuck Yeager didn't go supersonic in the X-1 on October 14, 1947, he merely attained a high transonic Mach number;)

[alexsa]

Many thanks for that. Far from being meaningless if found it a very educational answer and the information is greatly appreciated.

[gf0012-aust]

I know my voice will probably be fairly meaningless considering all the politics surrounding what "supercruise" means.

Thanks for this. I did actually contact Dryden/NASA, one of the F-22 Prog Mgrs I know and Dr Kopp some 6 months ago re this and they were all virtually identical in their offerings. Transo/transonic cruising was one of the interesting additions to the emails.

So I guess a standard does apply outside of the marketing ;)

[Oryx]

Glad the info is useful. Of course, if the word was made up for marketing purposes, those using it can let it mean whatever they want to. There is no doubt in my mind, however, over what the word "should" mean...

[swerve]

Glad the info is useful. Of course, if the word was made up for marketing purposes, those using it can let it mean whatever they want to. There is no doubt in my mind, however, over what the word "should" mean...

I'll add my thanks. May I quote your explanation?

[Oryx]

I'll add my thanks. May I quote your explanation?

No problem - you are welcome to use it.

[Sea Toby]

Lockheed has released the name for the new F-35s. The new name will be Lightning II, in reference to both the United States and the United Kingdom have used the name Lightning in the past.

[alexsa]

Lockheed has released the name for the new F-35s. The new name will be Lightning II, in reference to both the United States and the United Kingdom have used the name Lightning in the past.

You are a bit behind the times, this was noted in post number 22 and has been the cause of much discussion since (particularly in regards to previous air craft named Lightening.