Classic British Flight Sim

Next year

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24382841

Reform in 2016

Didn't realise the JSF was to be called the Lightning II

ATB
DaveB

...But I suspect named after the P-38 rather than our home-grown bird!

Why not keep the Tornados until 2016?

...But I suspect named after the P-38 rather than our home-grown bird!

Perhaps.. but I can't see it somehow. We've always renamed stuff to give it a 'local' flavour as far as I can remember. Could be well wrong though and not for the first time

Dunno why the GR4's (617's anyway) are going before the replacement is ready. Come to think of it.. I don't know much about the JSF at all. I thought we were getting it as a carrier based aircraft and a 'bomber' version of the 'Phoon' would replace the GR4. Shows I don't really take enough interest doesn't it

ATB
DaveB

I know a little about the JSF...it's a pretty standard modern day military aeroplane...that is it's over budget and about 100 years late, or will be by the time they even decide what they want it to do.


I think JSF stands for Joint Fighter Fu...

Perhaps.. but I can't see it somehow. We've always renamed stuff to give it a 'local' flavour as far as I can remember. Could be well wrong though and not for the first time

Like the Phantom, or Chinook? To be honest I think we stopped renaming stuff with the Hellcat/Gannet as it got too confusing. The Lightening II name is a US designation, when the UK has reused names we haven't normally used a II to indicate a reuse (or III in the case of the Globemaster).

I imagine 617 disbanding now is partly to ensure they're stood up as a F-35 squadron as the last squadron to be disbanded probably won't reform anytime soon. Still it's not as if they're 809 NAS, now that's a proper F-35 squadron...

Like the Phantom, or Chinook?

Good point Skip. I'd forgotten about the Chinook and always think of the Phantom as ours anyway

All in all.. a comment made with little or no thought

ATB
DaveB

Shame to use the Lightning name on something that's less than stellar in the speed/performance department, stealth is more it's thing, should be some kind of cat instead.

The F-35 is actually progressing fairly well considering that the US DoD keeps moving the goal post and then tries to blame Lockheed/Boeing when they can't deploy it immediately to the aircraft. The reason for the disband and reform is probably because they will need to do transition to the new airframe. The US Navy is doing this with their initial squadrons that are converting to the F-35. The squadron gets "disbanded", its pilots re-assigned to the training wing and squadrons assigned to do the training on the F-35, then as the airframes are delivered and they have enough pilots qualified, they "stand up" the squadron again with the new airframe. I have no clue what this achieves financially, administratively, or functionally, but that's they procedure they are using.

Also, the US Navy just received delivery of its first F-35C's at Eglin AFB, FL, and will be starting operational testing and training in a month or so, joining the USAF F-35's already there and in testing/training operations. Typically, once this phase of OT&E begins, there aren't significant new delays as little new equipment will be added to cause them.

Jetstreamsky wrote:Shame to use the Lightning name on something that's less than stellar in the speed/performance department, stealth is more it's thing, should be some kind of cat instead.

I'm guessing they wanted to reuse a Lockheed name, it probably helped that the only tier 1 partner nation also had an aircraft called the Lighting.

I have no clue what this achieves financially, administratively, or functionally, but that's they procedure they are using.

The USN has some weird thing where if a squadron formally disbands its battle honours etc. aren't carried on if it then reforms at a later date. I think this also relates to VF-103 becoming the Jolly Rogers when VF-84 disbanded. I'm guessing the way they've chosen gets round this.