• 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-35c

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lawman

Lawman

Well-Known Member
None
PCHomerun_4 said:
Does anyone know when the F-35C will see its first action?
Click to expand...

First flight of the first prototype is due up Sunday. Apparently Lockheed could have had it up a little bit earlier but decided to do more of the taxi and ground testing and wait so they could ring in the new aircraft on the same day the Wright Brothers got off the ground.

Then take a look at how long the E/F Hornet, and F-22 took to go from prototype to IOC and figure something like that.
 
S

SnowHawk

New Member
That's right. First Flight today.

And if I am correct, it included the very early radios produced by my employer shortly before I started there. My software won't fly for a while yet, but it will fly in every single production Lightning II.
 
gaetabob

gaetabob

Registered User
pilot
Lawman said:
And so it begins.....:icon_roll
Click to expand...

and so what begins?!? I was just a little surprised that this platform is seen as a replacement for the A-10. The F-16 and F-18, sure. The AV-8, absolutely. I didn't reallize all the platforms that the JSF project was set to replace. I'm not trying to start another b*tching thread, just maybe a discussion about the direction our air assets are going...if you approve...
 
Brett327

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
gaetabob said:
and so what begins?!? I was just a little surprised that this platform is seen as a replacement for the A-10. The F-16 and F-18, sure. The AV-8, absolutely. I didn't reallize all the platforms that the JSF project was set to replace. I'm not trying to start another b*tching thread, just maybe a discussion about the direction our air assets are going...if you approve...
Click to expand...

Relax, it's the contractor's website, not a doctrinal statement from DoD.

Brett
 
CaptainRon

CaptainRon

Member
pilot
Contributor
Anybody know the deal with the numbering system our country is using for fighters?

The numbers seem to jump all over the place. Why is that? F-22 then F-35. Eh?
 
Fly Navy

Fly Navy

...Great Job!
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
CaptainRon said:
Anybody know the deal with the numbering system our country is using for fighters?

The numbers seem to jump all over the place. Why is that? F-22 then F-35. Eh?
Click to expand...

Then it'll blow your mind about the Century series...
 
Lawman

Lawman

Well-Known Member
None
CaptainRon said:
Anybody know the deal with the numbering system our country is using for fighters?

The numbers seem to jump all over the place. Why is that? F-22 then F-35. Eh?
Click to expand...

From another site.

"The F-35 designation for the Joint Strike Fighter is the latest in a line of out-of-sequence designations. What's new about this one is the history of its creation. On 26 October 2001, a press conference was held at the Pentagon to announce the winner of the JSF competition, held between the Boeing X-32 and the Lockheed Martin X-35. When the X-35 had been declared the winner, one of the questions asked was about the designation for the production JSF. USD ATL (Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions, Technology and Logistics) Edward C. "Pete" Aldridge mentioned the X-35 designator of the Lockheed Martin demonstrators, briefly exchanged a few words with his co-presenter, JSF Program Manager Major General Mike Hough, and then said it would be called "F-35"."

"As it turned out, no designation whatsoever had been reserved, let alone approved, for the production JSF at that time, and Aldrigde and Hough - obviously not knowing much about the aircraft designation system used in their department - simply replaced the X by an F. Of course, just about everyone interested in the subject had expected the logical designation of F-24. In fact, Lockheed Martin had also expected this, and was reportedly a bit upset about the turn of events, apparently already having referred to the hoped-for production JSF in-house as the "F-24".
The official request for MDS designations for the three JSF variants was placed by the JSF Program Office on 17 December 2001"

It was not before 16 April 2002 that the requests for F-35A, F-35B and F-35C (for the CTOL, STOVL and CV variants respectively) were forwarded by the USAF Nomenclature Office to HQ USAF/XPPE for approval. This is an unusually long delay, and may indicate that there was much discussion about the validity of the F-35 designation and/or the reasoning why it should be assigned (the latter boiling down to "It should be 'F-35' because some high-ranking but ill-informed official said so"). Nevertheless, the Nomenclature Office included the following paragraph in its letters (example for F-35A):

The last fighter aircraft was assigned YF-23A, and therefore this aircraft should be assigned F-24A as design numbers are to be assigned consecutively according to AFJI 16-401. This office recommends the designation be F-24A. "
 
E

eddie

Working Plan B
Contributor
Lawman said:
From another site.

"The F-35 designation for the Joint Strike Fighter is the latest in a line of out-of-sequence designations. What's new about this one is the history of its creation. On 26 October 2001, a press conference was held at the Pentagon to announce the winner of the JSF competition, held between the Boeing X-32 and the Lockheed Martin X-35. When the X-35 had been declared the winner, one of the questions asked was about the designation for the production JSF. USD ATL (Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions, Technology and Logistics) Edward C. "Pete" Aldridge mentioned the X-35 designator of the Lockheed Martin demonstrators, briefly exchanged a few words with his co-presenter, JSF Program Manager Major General Mike Hough, and then said it would be called "F-35"."

"As it turned out, no designation whatsoever had been reserved, let alone approved, for the production JSF at that time, and Aldrigde and Hough - obviously not knowing much about the aircraft designation system used in their department - simply replaced the X by an F. Of course, just about everyone interested in the subject had expected the logical designation of F-24. In fact, Lockheed Martin had also expected this, and was reportedly a bit upset about the turn of events, apparently already having referred to the hoped-for production JSF in-house as the "F-24".
The official request for MDS designations for the three JSF variants was placed by the JSF Program Office on 17 December 2001"

It was not before 16 April 2002 that the requests for F-35A, F-35B and F-35C (for the CTOL, STOVL and CV variants respectively) were forwarded by the USAF Nomenclature Office to HQ USAF/XPPE for approval. This is an unusually long delay, and may indicate that there was much discussion about the validity of the F-35 designation and/or the reasoning why it should be assigned (the latter boiling down to "It should be 'F-35' because some high-ranking but ill-informed official said so"). Nevertheless, the Nomenclature Office included the following paragraph in its letters (example for F-35A):

The last fighter aircraft was assigned YF-23A, and therefore this aircraft should be assigned F-24A as design numbers are to be assigned consecutively according to AFJI 16-401. This office recommends the designation be F-24A. "
Click to expand...

Truth be asked? Even if it does end being called "Fury," everyone's been referring to it by the project name for so long, I figure it just might stick.

I guess my thinking is, we don't call the F-16 the LWF, but was that project as much a part of the public nomenclature as the JSF was?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top