Equally strange that we refer to the new ac as the F35 rather more than Lightning (or Lightning II) yet the Typhoon is the Typhoon, almost never the FGR4.

The II has indeed been dropped by the UK


IIRC it was some time after the Typhoon entered service that it received its FGR4 designation, so maybe the Lightning's will come later also.

Always thought it a great pity they didn't name it after one of those interwar RAF aircraft...

The Grebe ... or the Welkin... or even the Knuckleduster....................

Yes, the RAF/RN's F-35Bs land conventionally, as well as SRVLs and VLs. It has the same basic wing as the F-35A, but with the additional plumbing for the roll post ducts/nozzles...

-RP

Yes, but F-35 is an aircraft, while FGR4 is just a mark number. If somebody mentioned 'GR1s in RAF Germany', you wouldn't know if that was Harriers, Jags or Tornado mud-movers. I don't think it's ever been common to use the mark number other than to distinguish between versions of the same aircraft, except for the two different flavours of Tornado, and even then it only really worked after the MLU as we didn't have anything else with GR4 or F3 after its name.

I reckon if we did give the JSF a proper designation it would have a much better chance of being called Lightning, but since we seem to be using the American name that's what's stuck.

Consistency seems to have gone out of the window recently. Hercules, Phantom, Sentry and Poseidon get British military designations, but not Globemaster or Lightning. Not sure about Rivet Joint or Reaper!

Always thought it was a bit silly having the same aircraft with different names in service with allies TBH................... tho the US has to some extent accepted "Dakota" and "Catalina"

The Canadians are wore tho - they change the name of EVERYTHING they buy

I always thought it strange that the Canadians chose the name Cormorant for the helicopter we call the Merlin. A bird which seems to spend as much time below the surface of the water as flying above it seemed pretty inapt.

Still, could have been worse - they might have called it the Shag!

"The Common Cormorant, or Shag, lays eggs inside a paper bag".. You can look up the rest.

Hello Chieftp. Have a look at the thread “UK MFTS on or off the rails”. Basically, all has not been well with the UK flying training system resulting in some outrageous delays between courses.

I seem to remember 'Cormorant' was the name given to their new expanding array dipping sonar for the aircraft. RN trialled it in early 80s in Sea King, intending it for Merlin. Might explain the underwater bit!

Which is nowt compared to the annual bunfight between MoD(PE)'s Air System and Sea Systems. The former managed the sonar winch; the latter the winch cable, as it got wet. Until the fraud case and triple billing......

That was right up there with the time when a VSO stood in front of the entire assembled CQWI Mass Debrief, and proceeded to go bat **** crazy on the Harrier Force. He seemed a little miffed that the Harrier mates weren't 'conceptually' prepared to crash their jets into 'technicals' containing High Value Individuals in Afghan. IIRC, the words were something along the lines 'The F3 mates are prepared to crash their jets into an Airliner on QRA, so why do the Harrier mates think they are any better?'.

I do seem to recall the F3 mates looking furtively at each other, obviously thinking 'WTF did we sign up to that........?'

Agree about the lack of consistency. The RC-135W RIVET JOINT (US desig) seems to be called AIRSEEKER (UK project definition) on the RAF website. Not sure what the crews call it...

General Atomics call the Predator B the MQ-9 REAPER, whch is both the US and UK desig.

Slight diversion into history! The original Lightning I was rejected at least a year before any of them reached the UK, by an un-named RAF pilot in the US. The reasons are murky, it's given as 'not up to performance' but the suspicion at Lokheed was that (a) the UK didn't need it post BoB and (b) we had run out of money and couldn't afford to pay for them.We knew the supercharger- equipped mk II was coming soon, so the performance thing does sound like a red herring. Potential legal action was stopped when the USAAF took over the contract.

However the P-38 did see active service with the RAF - a P-38J was loaned from the USAAF and used in the master bomber role, later being updated to 'Droop Snoot' two seat configuration.

Most early US fighters lacked things such as self-sealing tanks, cockpit armour etc etc plus they were very MG oriented just as the RAF were looking at cannons IIRC

Wouldn't be an ex-Tornado sqn cdr and then Marham stn cdr per chance?

The crews call it Rivet Joint. DE&S, the Senior leadership and some of the intelligence community call it AIRSEEKER.

Thanks to all those who cleared up the "Lightning One" query for me.
I am enLIGHTENED"

Maybe it was my old eyes, or my fading memory, but did no-one else notice the 617 Stirlings, of "Dambusters" fame? See my post # 313

I understand that RJ is the air platform, AIRSEEKER is the whole package including the essential ground stations (well, it was a few years back, lounging by to be corrected a la Rees-Mogg)..

Presumably because they had to get through the T1, F2, and T3 variants before they got to FGR4.

Indeed.

Much like the rest of the programme, the audio, sub-titles and video were often unrelated and certainly not concurrent. Very poor editing but then I doubt anyone other than a pilot would spot it.

H, thought it may have referred to GG,but he never operated Stirlings...thought they might have brought the Lancaster,or maybe the bricks from the dam, or the Tirpitz tin....

I seem to remember the satisfaction of US saber pilots concerning the way .50 shredded migs in Korea from a number of documentaries ...

still the real german aces did ok with what they had in their 109s...15, 20 then 30mm hub cannon then twin15mm "cannon" over engine replacing 7.9mgs..

And the RN.

"How dare she! It’s not as though women are under-represented among service pilots. In 2014, there were 80 or so out of about 2,360 so they must have constituted what, at least 3%? "

A hit - a palpable hit!!!!! :ok: :ok: :ok:

Purely out of interest, are there any flying gigs* where the lady pilots have not yet arrived?

CG

* eg, if there are lady Typhoon pilots, are there lady Typhoon instructors? Similarly, any ladies at the 'Real Top Gun School'?

I'm sure Kirsty Stewart was a Hawk QFI creamie

Kirsty
 

The times you wish PPRUNE had a 'Like' button. I thought we'd done this debate 20 years ago

Not in the backwoods I'm afraid.....................

Bob Viking - I entirely agree that this attention is not sought by the women themselves, but there is no doubt that journalists and the like will always seek to feature women in what might be considered to be a male dominated environment. I recently watched a very interesting programme about railways in Scotland, and a visitor from Mars would have drawn the conclusion that all trains were driven by women, such was the emphasis given to them by the programme makers. A while ago I also pointed out that although less than 20% of Air Transport Auxiliary pilots in WW2 were women, you never heard anything about the 80% who were men. Indeed one of our number on here (I forget who) posted that until I pointed this out he had been under the impression that the ATA had been an all female organisation. I repeat, I don't blame the women themselves for this, but the programme makers, who don't seem to be able to get over the fact that women can fly aircraft, drive trains or indeed do anything except have babies and bake cakes.

I thought I caught a hint of Norn Iron RP - that strangled Northern Irish accent that comes from living with the English and having to slow down to be understood. :))