ahhhh, so sweet

to this day I still find it hard to believe she was a plywood jet… all beautiful wooden wonders…

you just want to shout… ‘I am a vampire!’

agreed, it would be nice to see some ‘historic’ squadrons re-actived on new equipment, but… it only makes sense that the ‘Reapers’ will be the first, Lemoore and the ‘Pukin Dogs’ (if I remember correctly) got the introduction of the Super Bug.

With the end of ‘Tomcat’ operations, ‘101 will get a deserved rest (for a couple years) and be back in full-force with the ‘Lightning’. My earliest ‘Tomcat’ memories (waaayyyy back in the late 70s) involve VF-101 – they’ve been ‘fleet replentishment’ as long as I can remember and are surely due to introduce the ‘Lightning’ to the fleet.

smack down, bang up the underbits etc, and home for tea??

now THAT is a true classic you can take home to mother!

oh well, maybe seen before… playing in the sand

dubai… 2 ‘Hercs’, a P-3 and an F-16 – complete withopen canopy)
abu dhabi… 1… lets count the tankers… 2…. lets count the ‘Hercs’
oman… spot the ‘Nimrod’

what many people overlook it the fact that while many of us may operate the F-18 or F-16 in an air defence role, one must look at the overall ‘needs’ of a nation.

the need for a dedicated interceptor/sky dominator may be applicable to a few nations across the globe, the rest of the world needs a multi-role aircraft that can get ‘down and dirty’.

here in Canada, i’m more than pleased that we are in on the ‘Lightning’. while we lack a definitive defence policy, the ability to provide CAS to our ground troops, no matter where they may be deployed, is essential. those of us in the ‘rest of the world’ have to balance budgets and so regardless of our own personal dreams, we have to look to what is feasible within our monetary means.

here in the ‘larger portion’ of north america, we no longer face the trans-polar threat (nor do our NATO partners in Iceland, Norway and the UK) that we did 25 years ago. at the time we purchased the best possible, multi-role aircraft available for our military, and even today the Hornet meets all requirements the CF may have. the ever-changing scenarios of world politics that we all find ourselves involved in dictate that any nation’s airforce must be able to support its ground troops and in my opinion, the need for a ‘Typhoon’ or ‘Raptor’ is best left to those with the deepest wallets.

the F-35 has been designed from the outset to fulfill a multi-role profile and I for one am/will be happy to see her join our Forces. too much is made of ‘supercruise’ when the need is for low and/or slow, whether in CAS or intercepting smugglers or terrorists on airliners. whats the old tale… the young bull says to the old bull , ‘lets run down there and have us a couple of those cows’, and the old bull says ‘ lets walk, and have them all’. (cleaned up for general consumption)

JJ

while I don’t think anyone could produce a ‘magic’ wing that changes cross-section etc., If I remember correctly, NASA DID work on prototype ‘flex-wings’ on an F/A-18 (and perhaps even an F-8 and F-111) in which the ‘conventional’ control surfaces were eliminated and the entire wing was twisted to induce changes in direction… harkening back to the Wright brothers.

While I believe the tests were successful, one does have to wonder how much use the wings would be for the carriage of ordnance.

simply gorgeous!

Lightning has History and Grace

Grumman Types in FAA service were later renamed to the USN names for inter service interoperability when British Carriers joined the US Pacific CVBGs in 1944/45.

Lightning meets the RAF criteria for the naming of Fighter-Bomber type aircraft and the Export BAC Lightning’s could carry bombs, hence it does have a link with the role of the JCA if and when we get it.

As for the name to the role, there have been a number of aircraft that have shared its name with another type but not its role.

Classics are

Bristol Bulldog – Fighter, SA Bulldog – Trainer

Hawker Nimrod – Naval Fighter, Hawker Siddley Nimrod – MR aircraft

Westland Whirlwind – Fighter, Westland Whirlwind – Helicopter

Hence there is no relevance of name to type in regards to the aircraft’s operational role.

Bigvern… Thanks, I was headed there…. re: US-built carriers and commonality of ‘nomenclature’ – remember the P-51D was still known as the Mustang IV. (oh and previously I wasn’t referring to the ‘Raptor’ in the Dinosaur sense)

Lightning does work as a name – and very well indeed!… I’m a happy camper… other than the fact that it won’t be called ‘Lightning’ in Canadian Forces service – neither official language applies – we’ll have to track down a name from nature or native culture.

Regardless of what anyone may think, the ‘naming’ of aircraft still come down to what the manufacturer wants… and no one else. If an operator wishes to apply a ‘nick-name’ locally (and not what we may necessarily feel is ‘cool’) it’s completely within their rights. (and yes the Poles – or their admirers – may choose to refer to their ’16s as ‘punctuation points’ or *******s or Wh***s, not our problem).

And, so long as any predecesor bearing the same ‘nick-name’ is no longer is service, you don’t need a ‘Roman’ numeral – she’s the F-35 ‘Lightning’ – and I love her. (sure beats the F-32 ‘Codpiece’).

All I can say now (as per one of my previous posts) is, thank the bejesus the ‘Nintento crowd’ didn’t get the opportunity to name her… imagine if you will… the F-35 ‘Bleepbleep-j’Lo-oo-wa-oo-wa-blipblip-whoosh’ or maybe ‘Hyperwarrior’ etc.

JJ