• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

F-35B/C Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter)

fighterpfeif

fighterpfeif

New Member
I just wonder how the Hornet or Harriers pilots who might/will transition feel about the F-35B/C not having an internal gun and relying upon a gun pod instead? Seems like it could be the same situation as the F-4 in Vietnam, or is that a bad assumption to make?
 
Harrier Dude

Harrier Dude

Living the dream
fighterpfeif said:
I just wonder how the Hornet or Harriers pilots who might/will transition feel about the F-35B/C not having an internal gun and relying upon a gun pod instead? Seems like it could be the same situation as the F-4 in Vietnam, or is that a bad assumption to make?
Click to expand...

Harriers use a removable gun pod. It works just fine. Not the same as the F-4, but still, works great.

Hey! The refueling probe is on the wrong side!! WTF??:eek:

I guess they wanted the pilots to actually be able to see the basket and their probe tip without looking 90 deg left behind their heads.:icon_smil
 
Uncle Fester

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Gotta say, it's a sexxxy beast. Really needs a better in-house name, though. Who the hell is gonna go around saying they're a "Lightning II" driver? Well, Air Force guys, maybe...embroidered on their ascots...but can you see the Royal Navy saying that?

Just how "common" are the -35A/B/C now? The F-111B wound up having so many changes to get the weight down and otherwise boat-ize the airframe, the only thing it had in common with the A-Vark was a general physical similarity (which sort of defeated the whole idea of a common aircraft). Is the same thing happening with the F-35 or what?
 
raptor10

raptor10

Philosoraptor
Contributor
Uncle Fester said:
Gotta say, it's a sexxxy beast. Really needs a better in-house name, though. Who the hell is gonna go around saying they're a "Lightning II" driver? Well, Air Force guys, maybe...embroidered on their ascots...but can you see the Royal Navy saying that?

Just how "common" are the -35A/B/C now? The F-111B wound up having so many changes to get the weight down and otherwise boat-ize the airframe, the only thing it had in common with the A-Vark was a general physical similarity (which sort of defeated the whole idea of a common aircraft). Is the same thing happening with the F-35 or what?
Click to expand...
AIR_F-35_Version_Commonality_lg.jpg

The inhouse name I've heard thrown around is the Mako... :D
 
Uncle Fester

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Colorful... I don't know what "cousin" means, but looks like the answer to "how common are they" is "sort of...a bit".

"Mako"? Better than "Lightning," I guess. Still don't really pop.
 
HeyJoe

HeyJoe

Fly Navy! ...or USMC
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Uncle Fester said:
Gotta say, it's a sexxxy beast. Really needs a better in-house name, though. Who the hell is gonna go around saying they're a "Lightning II" driver? Well, Air Force guys, maybe...embroidered on their ascots...but can you see the Royal Navy saying that?
Click to expand...

We might have addressed that in a prior thread, but it's an interesting topic nonetheless. Air Force tends to go so PC in their names that even the rank and file won't use it. How many F-16 pilots refer to their aircraft as a "Fighting Falcon" even though it's the mascot of USAFA? Answer: it's a "Viper" And speaking of the F-111...what's its official name (it's not Vark for sure, but that's what is in use by aircrews that flew it) and how about the B-1 (think the USAF higher ups have it listed as the "Bone"?...hardly). Eagle seems to have stuck well for the F-15 and jury is out on Raptor for the F-22, but Lightning II? Seems doomed as was Thunderbolt II for the A-10. Lightning and Thunderbolt should have been retired with their epic namesakes along with Mustang IMHO.

Back to F-35, there was talk of "Fury" being used so it could be like the Blackhawk name for helos that generated Seahawk, Knighthawk, etc. Navy would have been Sea Fury even though Brits had used it before in the Royal Navy livery. I like Lightning, but it only conjures up the radical looking and successful P-38 to me.
 
Uncle Fester

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Thought the "official" name of the B-1 was Lancer. Or is that the unofficial-official name? I don't think the 111 ever had an official name, though it's indelibly the Vark.

I dig Fury/Sea Fury.
 
Mumbles

Mumbles

Registered User
pilot
Contributor
I've stood next to the "Lightning" at the Pax museum outside the front gate, as well as the one at Dulles Udvar Hazy center. I was suprised at how big it was for a single seat, single engine fighter. Not as big as the Thud though.
 
Lawman

Lawman

Well-Known Member
None
Harrier Dude said:
The air force was supposedly getting some STOVL variants, too. Anybody able to confirm this?
Click to expand...

I dont think that went much beyond getting printed in a copy of the Air Force times as a possible idea to help augment the retirement of the A-10.
 
squeeze

squeeze

Retired Harrier Dude
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
Conclusion: That man has no fucking idea what he is talking about. This is in addition to a few completely false statements about the Harrier. He writes about aviation like some of those, for lack of a better word, "Mall Ninjas" talk about weapons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top