Lightning II

[sharpend]

Now that the RAF has a few, would a non-biased pilot correct my views on this aircraft: I subscribe to the principle that if it looks good, it possibly is good. In my opinion F35 looks ugly. I also think that anything with lift engines that are inoperative most of the time are dead weight and ruin performance. It cannot of course use the lift engines for combat manoeuvrability as that enormous barn door would need to be open. There are may other combat jets that out perform it in speed, load carrying capability and range. I'm told that it cannot take-off vertically or inflight refuel. It is very expensive, complicated and thus possibly unreliable. I doubt if it is invisible to radar.

Am I totally wrong?

[Timelord]

If it couldn’t air to air refuel how did it get across the Atlantic?
It doesn’t have “lift engines” it has a lift fan driven by THE engine.
It’s sensor / weapon capabilities should render combat manoeuvres unnecessary.
Cannot speak to it’s stealth capabilities but nothing claims to be invisible except in the Daily Mail.
Like the Harrier before it it may well not be able to take off vertically with a weapon and fuel load. That’s why we have brought carriers with long decks and ski jumps.

You May be right about its ugliness though but not as ugly as the Boeing submission.

[BEagle]

F-35B is undeniably hideously ugly and carts around dead weight for much of the time when the lift fan isn't in use.

It is capable of probe-and-drogue refuelling - which is how the first 4 crossed the Atlantic. Which, due to the smaller fuel capacity of the F-35B compared with the F-35A and F-35C, required 3 x Voyagers to support them.

[B Fraser]

The secretary of the late John Farley was shown how the F35 jet pipe swivelled to provide some of the lift. It is reported that her comment was "it looks like a machine designed to clean out the drains". Far cleverer people than I say it is the right tool for the job.

The Tempest mock up has such a large chin that a wag on these hallowed pages named it "The Brucie". All it needs is a small rug on top of the canopy and job done.

[sharpend]

If it couldn’t air to air refuel how did it get across the Atlantic?
It doesn’t have “lift engines” it has a lift fan driven by THE engine.
It’s sensor / weapon capabilities should render combat manoeuvres unnecessary.
Cannot speak to it’s stealth capabilities but nothing claims to be invisible except in the Daily Mail.
Like the Harrier before it it may well not be able to take off vertically with a weapon and fuel load. That’s why we have brought carriers with long decks and ski jumps.

You May be right about its ugliness though but not as ugly as the Boeing submission.

Thanks for the correction. However, a lift fan, run by the main engine, is dead weight. Moreover, sensor/weapons capability may well be good, but personally any fighter I would want to fly should be manoeuvrable. SAMs now are ultra capable. Finally, no one yet has mentioned complexity/sophistication which sure will affect serviceability. And then there is the cost......

[Timelord]

I’m sure the details are somewhere on the “When the F35 is cancelled........” thread but I would guess that the vectorable jet pipe gives respectable manoeuvring capability.

[drustsonoferp]

Thanks for the correction. However, a lift fan, run by the main engine, is dead weight. Moreover, sensor/weapons capability may well be good, but personally any fighter I would want to fly should be manoeuvrable. SAMs now are ultra capable. Finally, no one yet has mentioned complexity/sophistication which sure will affect serviceability. And then there is the cost......

Your point about manoeuvrability isn't so different to the lift fan: if you make the aircraft more manoeuvrable than it strictly needs to be, then you add complexity and weight which isn't required for almost all of the rest of the requirements. You much are you willing to degrade eg range, or avionics fit in pursuit of manoeuvrability?

[sharpend]

Your point about manoeuvrability isn't so different to the lift fan: if you make the aircraft more manoeuvrable than it strictly needs to be, then you add complexity and weight which isn't required for almost all of the rest of the requirements. You much are you willing to degrade eg range, or avionics fit in pursuit of manoeuvrability?

Good point, but the question is 'How manoeuvrable should it be?' I'm sure the avionic fit is fantastic (& costly/complex), but range invariable is governed by drag, weight and fuel capacity. 900 nm range is not a lot and it cannot even carry a Paveway III as the bomb bay is small.

[Timelord]

Good point, but the question is 'How manoeuvrable should it be?' I'm sure the avionic fit is fantastic (& costly/complex), but range invariable is governed by drag, weight and fuel capacity. 450 nm combat radius is not a lot.
Range is certainly an issue but once you have decided on carriers without catapults and wires, and please let’s not start that argument again, what choice is there? It may be that later orders opt for a different version with longer legs but that may be very inter-service contentious!

[Bob Viking]

I’m not sure if I can be counted as non-biased or knowledgeable but that has never stopped me before.

I should add add that I have never flown it and don’t expect to.

There is is no thrust vectoring in F35B. The nozzle moves for VSTOL but not for forward flight.

Sharpy, I think it’s best not to think of it in terms of just a fighter. It was never designed to get to a merge and beat all comers. It’s role (all the sneaky beaky stuff) is far more than just that.

I will not disagree with those that say it is ugly but they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There are many on here who talk about TSR2 as being a thing of beauty. Personally I have always thought it hideous. Swings and roundabouts I guess.

So in summary, F35 will actually be a very capable aircraft. It has plenty of critics but too many of those are ill informed and those in the know are not about to start crowing on an internet chat room about what makes it so good.

BV

[sharpend]

Time will tell. I remember my early days on Jaguar and the many NAVWASS dumps we had. But we had so many we had no room to put them all on the line. Those were the days. The days when our strike force was Jaguar, Tornado, Buccaneer, Harrier, Vulcan. And those were just the bombers. Just hope that reliability is so good that pilot hours are not compromised below the NATO min. We will see. It all depends on what the highly paid help are willing to pay for.

[Door Slider]

Another 5 arrived in the U.K. yesterday supported by three voyagers from the US to UK

[Frostchamber]

The amount of AAR across the pond reflected the need for diversion reserves as much as anything and doesn't I think say much about the aircraft's range per se, which is surprisingly respectable for a STOVL aircraft - broadly I think in the F-18A/C class (but happy to be corrected). Not forgetting the reduced need for go-around reserves compared to CTOL carrier aircraft. Manoevrability is reasonable if not eye watering and the combination of that, its sensor suite and the latest AIM120D currently being bought for it (and later Meteor) means it should perform well enough in the AD role. It may not be a paragon but it's a good fit for the niche we've created for ourselves and nor is it the turkey that some fervently wish it to be. The truth as ever sits quietly somewhere between the extremes.

[sharpend]

But Frostchamber, I am readily prepared to accept that I know nothing more than I have read, so Lightning II may be a good aeroplane. But it should be for the price. I only hope that this government provides enough spares, manpower and facilities for it. Remember, 1 F35 = 1000 Mosquitos :)

[drustsonoferp]

Time will tell. I remember my early days on Jaguar and the many NAVWASS dumps we had. But we had so many we had no room to put them all on the line. Those were the days. The days when our strike force was Jaguar, Tornado, Buccaneer, Harrier, Vulcan. And those were just the bombers. Just hope that reliability is so good that pilot hours are not compromised below the NATO min. We will see. It all depends on what the highly paid help are willing to pay for.

Flying training and currency is set to be rather different for the F-35. A lot more synthetic flying than in your day, partly because some of the things to be trained are not going to be trained in open skies with anyone watching.

[BEagle]

A lot more synthetic flying than in your day.

What utter joy that'll be! How many simulators are there at Marham to achieve such delights?

Simulator time is like watching pornography - hardly a satisfying substitute for the real thing!

[Rhino power]

...I would guess that the vectorable jet pipe gives respectable manoeuvring capability.

No, it doesn't, the only time it alters the thrust axis is in conjunction with the lift fan during take-off or landing...

-RP

[glad rag]

Flying training and currency is set to be rather different for the F-35. A lot more synthetic flying than in your day, partly because some of the things to be trained are not going to be trained in open skies with anyone watching.

indeed.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/510x640/ksfhu2613ekaxyugospm6g_t7kul3ji8xqp6cksveys_d6c4e92f155aac35 1033302a1c03dccd8996d775.jpg

[Rhino power]

Nice try, glad rag... :ok:

-RP

[glad rag]

I’m not sure if I can be counted as non-biased or knowledgeable but that has never stopped me before.

I should add add that I have never flown it and don’t expect to.

There is is no thrust vectoring in F35B. The nozzle moves for VSTOL but not for forward flight.

Sharpy, I think it’s best not to think of it in terms of just a fighter. It was never designed to get to a merge and beat all comers. It’s role (all the sneaky beaky stuff) is far more than just that.

I will not disagree with those that say it is ugly but they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There are many on here who talk about TSR2 as being a thing of beauty. Personally I have always thought it hideous. Swings and roundabouts I guess.

So in summary, F35 will actually be a very capable aircraft. It has plenty of critics but too many of those are ill informed and those in the know are not about to start crowing on an internet chat room about what makes it so good.

BV


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/700x350/gfyhvmd_783a525623f4eff3c0f1091109b74afb264c3c6f.jpg

This isn't what is arriving at Marham right now..

[LowObservable]

BV -

those in the know are not about to start crowing

"Those in the know" have been crowing for decades.

https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2008-09-19-Setting-the-Record-Straight-on-F-35

"Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access -- all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again," said Burbage.

By the way, it was also being claimed, at the time, that the jet would cost less to maintain than an F-16. How's that working out?

It's not very surprising that there are a few credibility issues, or that "wow this thing is a superwarwinninggamechanger but if I told you I'd have to use a worn-out cliche from a 1980s movie about beach volleyball" doesn't work on everybody.

And, for the record, here is the schedule that was in effect at the time:

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1284x798/2008_schedule_04576c96786871bd2c98cd3d668dd9f426e08c94.jpg

[stilton]

One thing I’m not clear on is the planned
role for the F35 in RAF service, if it’s to be used primarily as a strike aircraft with the Typhoon taking care of the air to air mission that seems like a fairly potent combination



Another question, as far as the F35 is concerned what’s the point of stealth when you can hear it over the horizon ? you don’t need a radar return with this incredibly loud machine, just a pair of ears

[Bob Viking]

I also understand it is an incredibly noisy aircraft. In the hover.

Unless the Navy start to write the tactics I don’t believe it will hover to war and back.

BV

PS. I feel it only fair to point out, as always, that this is meant as banter.

[stilton]

Hovering or in forward flight it’s incredibly noisy


All you need to track this thing is a microphone

[ORAC]

It is, of course, for the RAF, the Lightning III, after the P-38 and EE Lightning.

The RAF ordered 143 P-38s, almost exactly the same as the n7mbrr if F-35Bs originally expected to be ordered. We didn’t receive all of those either.......

Lightning I for RAF (http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p38_7.html)

[Pontius Navigator]

Hovering or in forward flight it’s incredibly noisy


All you need to track this thing is a microphone
Noise tends to be behind the aircraft giving rise to the saying Wot the f... was that.

Now a Chinook is something else again you FEEL it before you hear it (if like me you are deaf).

[m0nkfish]

Time will tell. I remember my early days on Jaguar and the many NAVWASS dumps we had. But we had so many we had no room to put them all on the line. Those were the days. The days when our strike force was Jaguar, Tornado, Buccaneer, Harrier, Vulcan. And those were just the bombers. Just hope that reliability is so good that pilot hours are not compromised below the NATO min. We will see. It all depends on what the highly paid help are willing to pay for.

I think the NATO minimum is probably out the window now. Fighter aircraft have moved a long way in the last 30 years and modern flight systems takes a lot of the sting out of flying highly manoeuvrable aircraft. I'm not suggesting for a second that there should be no minimum flying hours, but I suspect it should now sit significantly lower than it did in the 80/90's. Synthetic training aids have also come on in leaps and bounds and from my experience they can even now surpass flying the actual aircraft in certain circumstances.

[Haraka]

"our strike force was Jaguar, Tornado, Buccaneer, Harrier, Vulcan.:"
Harrier was never "strike" in those days. But now, with the dumbing down of definitions (e.g. "Drone"," Aerostat" etc.) ....................

[Treble one]

I think the NATO minimum is probably out the window now. Fighter aircraft have moved a long way in the last 30 years and modern flight systems takes a lot of the sting out of flying highly manoeuvrable aircraft. I'm not suggesting for a second that there should be no minimum flying hours, but I suspect it should now sit significantly lower than it did in the 80/90's. Synthetic training aids have also come on in leaps and bounds and from my experience they can even now surpass flying the actual aircraft in certain circumstances.

To prove your point m0nkfish, A recent Typhoon Display Pilot went through the entire OCU course solely in the sim.

[SASless]

Bit of Trivia I guess.....

"It says that Britain ordered 250 aircraft in May 1940 and took over the French contract but only three were delivered. It also says that the Americans took over the contracts of which the first 143 were completed. The P-332 was a reduced standard aircraft and used as fighter trainers."

No Turbo/Supercharger on them due to export restrictions by the US Government.

(Nicked from another Forum) not prune origin.

[2805662]

To prove your point m0nkfish, A recent Typhoon Display Pilot went through the entire OCU course solely in the sim.

The first time flying *in* a F-35 is the first time flying a F-35...

[Harley Quinn]

Just out of (bone) idle curiosity how will all those sim hours affect pilots aiming to go to the airlines after they get bored cruising on the big boats?

[Davef68]

Bit of Trivia I guess.....

"It says that Britain ordered 250 aircraft in May 1940 and took over the French contract but only three were delivered. It also says that the Americans took over the contracts of which the first 143 were completed. The P-332 was a reduced standard aircraft and used as fighter trainers."

No Turbo/Supercharger on them due to export restrictions by the US Government.

(Nicked from another Forum) not prune origin.

Not quite true - 3 Lightning Is reached the RAF but they were not 'delivered' but loaned from the USAAF as the Uk rejected them all in the US months before they reached the UK*. Lockheed were all set to sue the UK as they regarded this as an unacceptable breach ofcontract and a shady practice, but Pearl Harbour happened and the USAAF took over the contracts, which smoothed over a potential awkward situation with an Ally. In addition to the Lightning Is, a single Lightning II was completed (with turbo supercharger) before the order for both variants was cancelled.

The original order had no turbo superchargers as the French wanted commonality between the engines in their P40s and Lightnings (there was no restriction - at the same time Boeing was delivering B17s to the RAF with turbos. The RAF changed the later part of the French order to aircraft with the supercharger.

*The reason for the rejection is unclear, beyond the fact that performance wasn't that great at altitude - but the RAF knew this and knew the P-38E/F withsupercharger was coming soon. The thought is that the real reaosn was that the RAF diddn't need the aircraft, and the Uk was rapidly running out of cash to pay for them.

[andrewn]

I think the jury is still out on the Lightning II. I also struggle with the precise role it will fill, in current 'B' form anyway. It's obviously not optmised for AD, but neither does it appear to be a deep strike platform, so what exactly is it? Closest I can think of is kind of much more technologcally advanced Harrier or Jaguar, i.e. a stealthy, super sensor fused but relatively short legged CAS / light strike jet?

I dont doubt it will give us a generational shift in the sensor space and network enabled warfare and all that good stuff, but share others concerns about range, complexity/serviceability and versatility.

I've lost track of how many 'B' we have actually firmly ordered, but I assume we are playing a bit of a waiting game to see how much per unit costs stabilise at, prior to making any decision of whether we continue all 'B' or order some 'A' models as well?

If I was a betting man I'd say the second carrier will get dumped pretty quickly and we'll end up with a mixed fleet of 75-100 A/B in the longer term.

[Phantom Driver]

Tremblers;
To prove your point m0nkfish, A recent Typhoon Display Pilot went through the entire OCU course solely in the sim.

Time for folks to get used to the fact that the days of "The Fighter Pilot" are numbered ., as we head towards the era of the (Terminator) "Machines" . I scratch my head when I read all the talk about "manoeuvrability" ; Dogfighting is (was) fun , but not sure the powers that be will encourage risking $100 million worth of assets . in a " turning, burning" encounter , swivel nozzles , (sorry -lift fans ) or not . Who / what exactly are we planning to engage in close air combat ?

Stilton--
One thing I’m not clear on is the planned
role for the F35 in RAF service, if it’s to be used primarily as a strike aircraft with the Typhoon taking care of the air to air mission that seems like a fairly potent combination

Similar argument against low level strike ; History has proven many times in many theatres that a few well aimed ( or not even aimed at all ) primitive rounds from the ground can do a lot of damage to infinitely more expensive airborne assets . A book came out some years ago--" The Limits of Air Power " re Vietnam ; makes sobering reading . Sadly , the Tornado force learnt that lesson in Iraq 1.

Now you may argue that modern technology rules this out , that you can launch/strike BVR . Fair enough , but as we all know , what manufacturers claim can often be a far cry from what the average chap sees on the front line . Someone earlier talked about the NAVWASS dumps on the Jaguar . From my time on the jet , ( lovely aircraft , so long as you did not have to load stuff on it and try to go to war...) the preferred option when things got a bit hectic was to use good old CCIP and the mark one eyeball .

Yes, I know , that was from the dark ages compared to the reliabiilty / accuracy stage of today's machines . Still a pretty high price though going into Lockheed-Martin coffers .

Sharpend--
But Frostchamber, I am readily prepared to accept that I know nothing more than I have read, so Lightning II may be a good aeroplane. But it should be for the price. I only hope that this government provides enough spares, manpower and facilities for it. Remember, 1 F35 = 1000 Mosquitos https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

https://www.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon7.gif Indeed ..

[msbbarratt]

I suspect that the need for decent legs on a strike aircraft went out the window when the F111 went out of service. That thing could fly a very long way, if memory serves.

Stealth serves a number of useful purposes, one of which is strategic. It makes the other side, whomsoever they may turn out to be, slightly wary of what they're up against. So as long as they have a sufficiently able intel / threat assessment organisation they might chicken out before committing themselves in too public a way to a hot war. Gulf War 1 showed how much trouble you can get into if you have low chances of shooting the other guy's aircraft / cruise missiles down.

The worry these days is that they might just not give a damn about the info they're being fed by their intel chaps and do it anyway.

[jindabyne]

In year 2000, a CSIRO scientist in Oz told me that, in his (well-regarded) opinion, stealth was a decaying asset. I wonder if this has been borne out to any degree? Has technology, radar or whatever, been developed whereby his comments were valid?

[Finningley Boy]

"our strike force was Jaguar, Tornado, Buccaneer, Harrier, Vulcan.:"
Harrier was never "strike" in those days. But now, with the dumbing down of definitions (e.g. "Drone"," Aerostat" etc.) ....................

Well said Haraka, its the mejah at it again! Everything military that delivers ordnance is an ' air strike'! Rather difficult I suppose to explain attack and offensive air support.

FB

[Treble one]

The first time flying *in* a F-35 is the first time flying a F-35...



Of Course some other (early) EE Lightning pilots had the same issue....no 2 seat variants in the very early days.

It must be a 'Lightning thing'?

[sharpend]

I think the NATO minimum is probably out the window now. Fighter aircraft have moved a long way in the last 30 years and modern flight systems takes a lot of the sting out of flying highly manoeuvrable aircraft. I'm not suggesting for a second that there should be no minimum flying hours, but I suspect it should now sit significantly lower than it did in the 80/90's. Synthetic training aids have also come on in leaps and bounds and from my experience they can even now surpass flying the actual aircraft in certain circumstances.

I'm sure that you are right. The airlines long ago did all their conversion in the Sim. Moreover, as you say, one can do quite a lot more in a modern simulator. Sadly though, there is a lot less fun to be had in an electronic box.

[sharpend]

"our strike force was Jaguar, Tornado, Buccaneer, Harrier, Vulcan.:"
Harrier was never "strike" in those days. But now, with the dumbing down of definitions (e.g. "Drone"," Aerostat" etc.) ....................

Quite right, Strike was nuclear, attack was conventional. So Harrier was never Strike. But you know what I meant :)

[KenV]

Now that the RAF has a few, would a non-biased pilot correct my views on this aircraft: I subscribe to the principle that if it looks good, it possibly is good. In my opinion F35 looks ugly. Two comments:
1. "non-biased pilot?" No such thing.
2. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For quite a few folks the last "good looking" airplane was the Spitfire. Maybe the Mustang. After that everything "looks ugly." Beauty is a lousy and very subjective metric.

[Pontius Navigator]

The Mk 3 Nimrod elicited the comment J....C..... and look how that turned out.

I find some views of the Lightning look very good and purposeful. Sitting on the ground it is somewhat less so more of a beer belly (can't use the P word)

[LowObservable]

Goodness, Ken, you're sounding like a professor of modern art. Next, you'll be telling us that beauty is a social construct emerging from discourses of relative power and violence.

I was at an air museum yesterday with a female colleague. In between telling one another how we won the Cold War, we were talking about the relative aesthetics of the F-16 and F-4, among other things. The F-4 is malevolent but not without character, She is a big F-16 fan. We both find the F-35 lumpish and uninteresting, rather than actually ugly. But I have the same aesthetic reaction to the F6F Hellcat and it got the job done.

[2805662]

Quite right, Strike was nuclear, attack was conventional. So Harrier was never Strike. But you know what I meant :)

Was the FRS.1 Sea Harrier Strike?

[Davef68]

Was the FRS.1 Sea Harrier Strike?

Yes, it had a nuclear role (Hence the modified inner pylons)

[msbbarratt]

Two comments:
2. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For quite a few folks the last "good looking" airplane was the Spitfire. Maybe the Mustang. After that everything "looks ugly." Beauty is a lousy and very subjective metric.

Indeed. For instance, I think the D.H. Hornet was the most beautiful aircraft ever (though not the NF.21 with its thimble nose), closely followed by its predecessor the Mosquito. The Spitfire was pretty good looking, but not as good as those.

Sadly these days I have to get my fix from the occasional Mossie. There's no extant Hornets.

Now I wonder who could use a fast, two engined, nimble and long legged load lugger with the ability to drop a serious load?

[Davef68]

Indeed. For instance, I think the D.H. Hornet was the most beautiful aircraft ever (though not the NF.21 with its thimble nose),..... There's no extant Hornets.


For now

https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?15226-DH-Sea-Hornet-A-Survivor/page4

[msbbarratt]

For now

https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?15226-DH-Sea-Hornet-A-Survivor/page4

Thanks for that! Fingers crossed. Winkle Brown said the Hornet was the best. That alone is a reason to get one flying again, just so that a few people can experience what he meant for themselves. It would certainly count as one of the most exotic restoration / rebuild jobs ever.

How radar reflective is wood?!

[Misformonkey]

If it couldn’t air to air refuel how did it get across the Atlantic?
It doesn’t have “lift engines” it has a lift fan driven by THE engine.
It’s sensor / weapon capabilities should render combat manoeuvres unnecessary.
Cannot speak to it’s stealth capabilities but nothing claims to be invisible except in the Daily Mail.
Like the Harrier before it it may well not be able to take off vertically with a weapon and fuel load. That’s why we have brought carriers with long decks and ski jumps.

You May be right about its ugliness though but not as ugly as the Boeing submission.
it certainly looked right in comparison to the Boeing proposal which wasn’t even the final version and required parts removed for vertical flight.

[Obi Wan Russell]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1200x634/odie_d5f2278a844b15c4c9b2566edece6c8f2fe14fea.jpg

Yes the X-32 was a real dog...
But it was cute from some angles I suppose.

[57mm]

Strange that the RAF website failed to mention the arrival of the second batch of Lightnings......

[Regie Mental]

Strange that the RAF website failed to mention the arrival of the second batch of Lightnings......

Nice video on Facebook though.

[Stuff]

Plenty of coverage on The One Show last night. Thought it was very well done.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

As an aside, I can understand calling it the Lightning but not the II suffix. We don't do that. Over its life, the machine will evolve, so what happens when the MK2 comes along? Lightning II MK2? Are we so sycophantic that we have to follow the septics to the letter?

[pr00ne]

Golf Bravo Z
ULU,

It's not called the Lightning II in UK service, just Lightning. Some time ago Lightning FG1 was being banded around, but I have not seen that used for some time now.

[TEEEJ]

Plenty of coverage on The One Show last night. Thought it was very well done.

See from 03:45. You have to be registered to view it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0bdfsp7/the-one-show-06082018

[Lyneham Lad]

See from 03:45. You have to be registered to view it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0bdfsp7/the-one-show-06082018

It is not a programme I watch, so thanks for the link. A few minutes of good, positive coverage with some excellent photography.

[dook]

Gentlemen,

A Lightning.

This one is in my first logbook.

http://i63.tinypic.com/20h17r.jpg

[GlobalNav]

Now that the RAF has a few, would a non-biased pilot correct my views on this aircraft: I subscribe to the principle that if it looks good, it possibly is good. In my opinion F35 looks ugly. I also think that anything with lift engines that are inoperative most of the time are dead weight and ruin performance. It cannot of course use the lift engines for combat manoeuvrability as that enormous barn door would need to be open. There are may other combat jets that out perform it in speed, load carrying capability and range. I'm told that it cannot take-off vertically or inflight refuel. It is very expensive, complicated and thus possibly unreliable. I doubt if it is invisible to radar.

Am I totally wrong?

So what did you think of the Buccaneer? The A7? The F-117? etc. I too am attracted to attractive aircraft such as the Spitfire, The Sabre, the Hustler, the F-15, etc. But the truth is found in their mission performance. Too early to say for the F-35, but here's hoping.

[sharpend]

So what did you think of the Buccaneer? The A7? The F-117? etc. I too am attracted to attractive aircraft such as the Spitfire, The Sabre, the Hustler, the F-15, etc. But the truth is found in their mission performance. Too early to say for the F-35, but here's hoping.

I love the looks of the Bucc, not so sure about the A7 or the F111, but they were good aeroplanes. Getting off topic slightly, but the Gnat gets my vote for looking good

[GlobalNav]

I love the looks of the Bucc, not so sure about the A7 or the F111, but they were good aeroplanes. Getting off topic slightly, but the Gnat gets my vote for looking good

Well, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, I guess.

For sure, though, the X-32 was as ugly as they get and could only have been selected as a naval aircraft on that basis. 😏
At the time leading to the down select some folks, myself included, could not deny the striking resemblance between it and the Boeing Company CEO. Pictures of both, side by side, adorned many aviation related offices, then. Ugly as sin.

[newt]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/2000x1220/0db7df8f_fb2d_4be2_a9a5_3eca7a7df9b9_5283e5433dcf7f77aaebd20 150058806e56671bc.jpeg
Me flying my aircraft on my first Squadron! Now that IS a Lightning! Retiring to my bunker!

[dook]

I wondered how long it would take for Newt to appear here.

[newt]

I have tried to stay away! But the sight of that “Thing” makes me so depressed! I hear they want to join the WIWOL association!

[2 TWU]

Newt, whatever you do, don't tell them we're meeting at the Marlborough Head, North Audley St on Oct 4th.

[dook]

I might be there too - for the first time.

[Buster15]

One thing I’m not clear on is the planned
role for the F35 in RAF service, if it’s to be used primarily as a strike aircraft with the Typhoon taking care of the air to air mission that seems like a fairly potent combination

Typhoon is being updated to take on the vital air to ground role from Tornado GR4 when the latter is retired next year.
I agree that a Typhoon & F35 combination should be quite potent. However, while F35 with its stealth and sensor fusion is likely to be fairly advanced today, in years to come the benefits of these will be eroded. This is my concern in that the basic aircraft itself is quite limited in terms of pure performance. The so called 5th generation attributes will become less relevant with age and unlike Typhoon which remains extremely capable in terms of pure performance F35 limitations could well become exposed.

[megan]

I can understand calling it the Lightning but not the II suffix. We don't do that. Anorak here. By rights the F-35 should be the Lightning IV. The very first Lightning was the P-38, though an American aircraft the name was bestowed by the British, in British service to be known as "Lightning Mark I", and a one off P-38, "Lightning Mark II". For the US the F-35 is indeed a Lightning II, as they never enjoyed newt's Lightning Mk. III except by way of exchange. ;)

[Audax]

Newt, there was a good reason the MK2 was yours, if we gave you a 2A it simply meant you had more fuel per sortie with which to get into trouble!

[dook]

And mine above was an F3, the highest performance version of them all with the 301 Avons.

Standing by...…...

[Audax]

Wasn't the F3 upgraded to Avon 302s (the GT) and then the so called tuned jet pipes (the GTS)? Dook, I've flown both the aircraft pictured by yourself and Newt.

[dook]

It might well have been 302s - memory and age and all that.

Since you have flown both types pictured, I'm now wondering who you are.

PM me if you so desire.

[F35Driver]

Anorak here. By rights the F-35 should be the Lightning IV. The very first Lightning was the P-38, though an American aircraft the name was bestowed by the British, in British service to be known as "Lightning Mark I", and a one off P-38, "Lightning Mark II". For the US the F-35 is indeed a Lightning II, as they never enjoyed newt's Lightning Mk. III except by way of exchange. ;)

In UK parlance the F35 is known simply as ‘Lightning’. All numbers have been dropped. Interestingly, the USAF are now calling it the Panther (same vein as they renamed the Fighting Falcon the Viper)

[2805662]

Anorak here. By rights the F-35 should be the Lightning IV. The very first Lightning was the P-38, though an American aircraft the name was bestowed by the British, in British service to be known as "Lightning Mark I", and a one off P-38, "Lightning Mark II". For the US the F-35 is indeed a Lightning II, as they never enjoyed newt's Lightning Mk. III except by way of exchange. ;)

Wouldn’t it be [Name][Role/s].Mk[x] in modern RAF/RN use? By incorporating the WW2 P-38, your example mixes two naming conventions; the early WW2 type/name + iteration (e.g. “Spitfire Mk.IIa”) with more modern type/name + role/s. Just deriving conventions here, going from “Phantom FG.1” or “Tornado GR.1” and similar. As this is both a new aircraft type with its own role/s, “Lightning GR.1” or similar would seem fit the logic. Between the UK and the US, only the latter seems to incorporate numbers into the aircraft name, not the role/designator (e.g. C-17A Globemaster III).

[glad rag]

In UK parlance the F35 is known simply as ‘Lightning’. All numbers have been dropped. Interestingly, the USAF are now calling it the Panther (same vein as they renamed the Fighting Falcon the Viper)

I don't think the F16 was "renamed"


https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-16.html



A service nickname perhaps...

Interestingly ..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_panther

[ORAC]

User nicknames always win out over official titles - The Bone/Beak for B-1 Lancer/B-2 Spirit; Warthog for A-10 Thunderbolt etc.