It's the name of the aircraft, and a perfectly good one.

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.

First production Lightning F1 was XM135. First UK F35B Lightning II is ZM135. :8
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!

Well with that great big hot air blower in the middle I reckon it should nicknames the "Dyson". ;)

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.

Don't Dysons suck?

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
http://www.icis.com/icisconnect/medi...0/emu-bird.jpg


sounds right, the F35 EMU

They should use the old NATO Soviet nomenclature and call each version one from Filthy, Rich & Cat Flap if Dave is deemed unsuitable.

Wouldn't that cause it to massively vectored-thrust its nose down into the sea?

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.

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?

.

Profit is not a dirty word, blackadder.

Crevice is a dirty word, profit isn't........

Probably. But maybe they will have a long term plan involving STOL turboprop or even Lockheed solution based on a F-35 with something like this

Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman Offer Airborne Vigilance At Lower Cost | Aviation International News

From both Hansard and MoD web-site:

• a £4bn plus investment in intelligence, surveillance, communications and reconnaissance assets across the Cipher, Solomon, Crowsnest, DCNS and Falcon projects

I can't see that taking off.

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.

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!

Very unlikely.

You're doing damn well in the current climate if you can make 3% :{

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 ?

defence.professionals | defpro.com

How can someone be so wrong on so many levels???

Where do they get these idiots from???

Maybe he is actually right, becuase he has the full facts to guide him?

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