No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which is why I think a British name might be in order.
Hercules was a Hercules
Phantom was a Phantom
Sentry was a Sentry
Lightning is a Lightning.
I accept Washington was a Superfortress, Superfortress was a better name though. Perhaps Washington was a joke at our expense by the Yanks. Maybe Lightning should be called 'Dave's Folly'.
We always screw up perfectly good American nomenclature by sticking our own bull**** designation like C.3 or FGR4 on the end.
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 14th May 2012 at 23:48.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First production Lightning F1 was XM135. First UK F35B Lightning II is ZM135. 
so a perfectly good British name with links to the past. The question is really what is it's nickname going to be? Tonka, Tiffie, SHAR we haven't always been very imaginative so why not stick with Dave? It was quite a long thread on here to come up with it in the first place!
so a perfectly good British name with links to the past. The question is really what is it's nickname going to be? Tonka, Tiffie, SHAR we haven't always been very imaginative so why not stick with Dave? It was quite a long thread on here to come up with it in the first place!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The question is really what is it's nickname going to be? Tonka, Tiffie, SHAR we haven't always been very imaginative so why not stick with Dave? It was quite a long thread on here to come up with it in the first place!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about 'Tiny'? A nickname that can be used for fatties.
In the same vein there's 'Tony'. As in 'Fat Tony'.
There's always 'Tosser', since both B or C variants need to be thrown into the air before it will fly off a boat.
All fit in with Tonka & Tiffie alliteration too.
In the same vein there's 'Tony'. As in 'Fat Tony'.
There's always 'Tosser', since both B or C variants need to be thrown into the air before it will fly off a boat.
All fit in with Tonka & Tiffie alliteration too.
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 15th May 2012 at 08:16.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not stick with a bird analogy, like eagle or falcon, which we used before.
for the F35, I suggest the EMU;
-It looks a bit bloated , which is kind of fitting
sounds right, the F35 EMU
for the F35, I suggest the EMU;
-It looks a bit bloated , which is kind of fitting
sounds right, the F35 EMU
Last edited by kbrockman; 15th May 2012 at 09:58.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They should use the old NATO Soviet nomenclature and call each version one from Filthy, Rich & Cat Flap if Dave is deemed unsuitable.
Last edited by Thelma Viaduct; 15th May 2012 at 10:24.
Does F-35B have the ability to vector thrust using just the jet nozzle?
Although I must admit the same query about being able to vector a bit during takeoff had occurred to me.
Oh, and thanks for the notes about ramp takeoffs - I hadn't realised the damn thing doesn't actually achieve what would conventionally be considered flying speed (given whatever amount of nozzle deflection) before it runs out of deck.
Fixed-wing carrier flying always appears to me to be about the most violent and risk-strewn thing anyone would ever do to themselves on purpose, though.
Last edited by Phil_R; 15th May 2012 at 10:29.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not A Boffin quite understandably queried the published costs for the conversion of the two carriers but whilst assessing costs did he take into account the meagre profits that companies like to make when dealing with the MoD?
.
Originally Posted by reuters
Babcock, which maintains British navy submarines, said pretax profit rose 26 percent to 274 million pounds ($441 million) in the year to March, on revenue up 14 percent to 3.07 billion.
So no mention of Crowsnest yet. (Hammond -> New Airborne Carrier based early warning) Guess this is baggers for Merlin??
Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman Offer Airborne Vigilance At Lower Cost | Aviation International News
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So no mention of Crowsnest yet. (Hammond -> New Airborne Carrier based early warning) Guess this is baggers for Merlin??
- a £4bn plus investment in intelligence, surveillance, communications and reconnaissance assets across the Cipher, Solomon, Crowsnest, DCNS and Falcon projects
Thread Starter
The Babcock profits may seem high, but if the revenue is correct the profit as a percentage is less than 9% - not that high and within acceptable limits - they may also have civil work (?) where the margins maybe higher.
Thread Starter
The vigilance radar link is interesting. Presumably an aesa captor/ecr90 based version would also be plausible, with greater range than a f16 job (due to bigger antenna, assuming the sig processing is comparable).
One hopes the lessons from nimwacs and the technology maturity required to harmonise 2x 180deg systems have been addressed!
One hopes the lessons from nimwacs and the technology maturity required to harmonise 2x 180deg systems have been addressed!
Originally Posted by JFZ90
The Babcock profits may seem high, but if the revenue is correct the profit as a percentage is less than 9% - not that high and within acceptable limits - they may also have civil work (?) where the margins maybe higher.
You're doing damn well in the current climate if you can make 3%
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JFZ90
"not that high and within acceptable limits"
Seems a strange comment to make about a public company.
Isn't the objective to make as high a percentage profit as possible ?
"not that high and within acceptable limits"
Seems a strange comment to make about a public company.
Isn't the objective to make as high a percentage profit as possible ?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
defence.professionals | defpro.com
How can someone be so wrong on so many levels???
Where do they get these idiots from???
How can someone be so wrong on so many levels???
Where do they get these idiots from???
How can someone be so wrong on so many levels???
There is only one bad thing about the B and that is the bring back limit. Other than that, its the best choice in, my view.
Apparently the French also considered converting one of the carriers and rejected due to the cost (1- 1.5billion euro)
Mer et Marine : Porte-avions : Les Britanniques pourraient encore changer leur fusil d'épaule
Last edited by peter we; 15th May 2012 at 20:31.