Lockheed Martin F-35

Do you like the new name?

  • "Lightning II" What a great idea!

    Votes: 6 30.0%

  • They could have done better. "Reaper!" Hello?!

    Votes: 9 45.0%

  • Who gives a rip as long as it doesn't crash?

    Votes: 5 25.0%
  • Total voters
    20
moving0target

moving0target

Active member
Looks like they've finally come up with something (marginally) better than "Joint Strike Fighter."

lighteningii4ch.jpg


http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=17756&rsbci=0&fti=100&ti=0&sc=400
 
The name of a fighter does not determine how many enemy it can shoot down nor how many missles it can evade.
 
My thought process is that it is an original aircraft. At least give it an original name. Besides a ground attack role, what does it have in common with a P-38?
 
I think it was named in honor of both aircraft.

"The F-35 Lightning II will carry on the legacy of two of the greatest and most capable fighter aircraft of all time," said Ralph D. Heath, president of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. "Just as the P-38 and the British Lightning were at the top of their class during their day, the F-35 will redefine multi-role fighter capability in the 21st century."
 
That's weird, I thought they had already designated the name "Lightning II" for another aircraft... :?
 
The original Lightning was such an amazing plane, it's kind of nice to see the name carry on.
 
AJChenMPH said:
That's weird, I thought they had already designated the name "Lightning II" for another aircraft... :?
Click to expand...

that was supposed to be the name for the F-22 which became the Rapier and finally the Raptor
 
At least it isn't called the "butterfly" or "tinkerbell" or something like that.
Click to expand...


Oh thats brilliant, lets start giveing all of our weapon systems non-threating names. Make the enemy laugh before they die.

"sh_t zhang! we got some inbound tinkerbells"
 
The "Lightning" part works, but I dunno ... "II" kinda makes it seem a bit corny. Why not just call it the "Lightning" and leave off the "II"?? Several of M-1 through M10 US tank designations have been re-used without bothering with adding a "II" at the end.
 
LOL. Yeah, whatever the Pentagon decides on is fine I guess. But according to Hollywood rules, slapping the "II" on there is potentially cursing the F-35, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top