Any New Names for the F-35?

Scott Ferrin wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 20:51:43 +1000, "The Raven"
wrote:

How about Camel Spider............


LOL That's GREAT. If they can use Black Widow I don't know why they
couldn't use Camel Spider. Or maybe use it on the next tank or
something.

But camel spiders are hideous, "wrong" looking things.
Hell, they're not even real concerned with being symmetric
and I doubt they're really spiders.

How about calling it 'The Atkins' as it needs to lose about 3,500 pounds

David

(robert arndt) wrote in message . com...
Last I heard the names being considered for the F-35 we

- Defender
- Bumblebee
- Gryphon (aka Griffin)... the top choice in 2002/3
- Pegasus
- Hailstorm
- Harbinger
- Valiant

Any others lately?

Rob

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 01:25:23 +0000 (UTC), Pat Carpenter
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:46:25 -0400, Yeff wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:53:58 +0000 (UTC), Pat Carpenter wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 21:43:47 +0100, Steve
wrote:

On 7 Jun 2004 23:38:08 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

Last I heard the names being considered for the F-35 we

- Defender
- Bumblebee
- Gryphon (aka Griffin)... the top choice in 2002/3
- Pegasus
- Hailstorm
- Harbinger
- Valiant

Any others lately?

Blue Tit :-)

How about "Wraith"
Blue Skies
Pat Carpenter

I don't like "Wraith" or "Blue Skies" but I'm all for naming the F-35 "Pat
Carpenter"...

Never thought of that but sounds good to me!


Blue Skies
Pat Carpenter

Since Raptor means " Bird of prey" i think the F-35 should go along
the same lines, and since the F-35 is designed to replace the F-16
also, i would call it the Kestrel wich is in the falcon family. what
sucks is that the V-22 is called the osprey, which is also a bird of
prey. that would be a good name for the VTOL version of the F-35,
since it is primarily going to the marines and friendly navies.

ince Raptor means " Bird of prey" i think the F-35 should go along
the same lines, and since the F-35 is designed to replace the F-16
also, i would call it the Kestrel wich is in the falcon family. what
sucks is that the V-22 is called the osprey, which is also a bird of
prey. that would be a good name for the VTOL version of the F-

Kestrel was the name of the original version of Harrier.

In article , Denyav
writes
ince Raptor means " Bird of prey" i think the F-35 should go along
the same lines, and since the F-35 is designed to replace the F-16
also, i would call it the Kestrel wich is in the falcon family. what
sucks is that the V-22 is called the osprey, which is also a bird of
prey. that would be a good name for the VTOL version of the F-

Kestrel was the name of the original version of Harrier.

The original Hawker VTOL was the P.1127. The Kestrel was the next
development, used by the Tri-partite evaluation squadron
(UK/US/Germany). The Harrier was developed out of that aircraft.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 18:37:42 -0600, Scott Ferrin wrote:

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 23:47:51 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Scott Ferrin
writes
The thing is the Kestrel has already been used. The Harrier
predecessor/prototype/experimental thing-a-ma-bob was called the
Kestrel.

So the F-35 is the Kestrel II (same as the F-4 was the Phantom II, the
A-10 was the Thunderbolt II...) What's wrong with re-using a good name?
Navies do it all the time if they have enough ships.

I don't have a strong opinion but 'Kestrel II' seems at least
acceptable. For that matter, leave naming it late and if it seems to be
coming together well call it the "Lightning II" or the "Mustang II" or -
my favourite now I think of it - "Phantom III".

AFAIK two's and three's affixed to a name are generally only when they
are by the same manufacturer. Corsair & II both Vought, Phantom & II
McD, Thunderbolt & II Republic, Saber and SuperSaber NAA etc.
Thunderchief II would be cool (big, heavy single-seater with goofy
intakes). BTW is it the company or the buyer who gives it the
official name? Grumman, McDonnell, Republic, Boeing, Vought, all had
traditions they stuck to when it came to naming (with the exception of
the F-15 Eagle). North American, General Dynamics/Convair, Northrop
and Lockheed didn't seem to have any.

Is there a trademarking thing about that ? Something like - Grumman
would hold the trademark for "F14 Tomcat" so an "F35 Tomcat II" (never
happen!) would infringe their trademark ? A better example would
probably be on nicking names like Tornado or Mirage. That would get
confusing.

Probably more of an issue for current or recent in service aircraft
like the Jaguar, Phantom II and others where my head is ringing too
much to remember. (got hit on the noggin playing cricket yesterday -
was wearing helmet ;-)

I was hoping for a Northrop win on the ATF and a "Black Widow II". Of
course that is both racist and sexist so it would have been a
nonstarter these days :-(

My votes - the silly one is F-35 Dodo or Ostrich - no prizes as to
part of the inspiration there ...
Sensible vote would be F-35 Condor. The name should be that of a bird
of prey and all the rest seem to have been taken ... Although "Condor
aircraft" is throwing up trademark type results on Google, which might
exclude that.

Lightning would be a fun one :-) (thinking of the EE Lightning II
there)

Pete Lilleyman

(please get rid of ".getrid" to reply direct)
(don't get rid of the dontspam though ;-)

On 11 Jun 2004 07:12:52 -0700, (David McArthur)
wrote:

How about calling it 'The Atkins' as it needs to lose about 3,500 pounds

David

Have you heard the one about Lift Demons powering aircraft ? I reckon
the F35 has gained so much weight because the X35 lift Demon, on
winning the competition, celebrated by eating the losing Lift Demon
that was powering the Boeing competitor. That celebratory feast has
since proven too much for the LM Lift Demon, causing it to put on too
much weight.

Pete Lilleyman

(please get rid of ".getrid" to reply direct)
(don't get rid of the dontspam though ;-)

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:44:39 GMT, Alisha's Addict
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 18:37:42 -0600, Scott Ferrin wrote:

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 23:47:51 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Scott Ferrin
writes
The thing is the Kestrel has already been used. The Harrier
predecessor/prototype/experimental thing-a-ma-bob was called the
Kestrel.

So the F-35 is the Kestrel II (same as the F-4 was the Phantom II, the
A-10 was the Thunderbolt II...) What's wrong with re-using a good name?
Navies do it all the time if they have enough ships.

I don't have a strong opinion but 'Kestrel II' seems at least
acceptable. For that matter, leave naming it late and if it seems to be
coming together well call it the "Lightning II" or the "Mustang II" or -
my favourite now I think of it - "Phantom III".

AFAIK two's and three's affixed to a name are generally only when they
are by the same manufacturer. Corsair & II both Vought, Phantom & II
McD, Thunderbolt & II Republic, Saber and SuperSaber NAA etc.
Thunderchief II would be cool (big, heavy single-seater with goofy
intakes). BTW is it the company or the buyer who gives it the
official name? Grumman, McDonnell, Republic, Boeing, Vought, all had
traditions they stuck to when it came to naming (with the exception of
the F-15 Eagle). North American, General Dynamics/Convair, Northrop
and Lockheed didn't seem to have any.

Is there a trademarking thing about that ? Something like - Grumman
would hold the trademark for "F14 Tomcat" so an "F35 Tomcat II" (never
happen!) would infringe their trademark ? A better example would
probably be on nicking names like Tornado or Mirage. That would get
confusing.


Apparently that's why the F-16 ended up with the dorky name of
"Fighting Falcon". It seem the French whined that people might
confuse the fighter with their business jet if they had the same name.

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 02:25:57 -0400, "John Keeney"
wrote:


Scott Ferrin wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 20:51:43 +1000, "The Raven"
wrote:

How about Camel Spider............


LOL That's GREAT. If they can use Black Widow I don't know why they
couldn't use Camel Spider. Or maybe use it on the next tank or
something.

But camel spiders are hideous, "wrong" looking things.
Hell, they're not even real concerned with being symmetric
and I doubt they're really spiders.


They're bilaterally symetric but ugly nontheless. They're not spiders
but Solifugids. They have two sets of independantly articulating jaws
(freaky to watch them chewing stuff up), are not venomous and are
reputed to have the strongest bite power per pound of anything but
personally I think that is an exageration. Ants or termites would be
my guess. They'd be a lot more well known except they don't do well
in captivity so people don't keep them like tarantulas. Speaking as
someone who has a T and is familiar with the hobby I can say a lot of
people would like to have them if they lived longer in captivity.
They're just too cool looking :-)

Scott Ferrin wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 02:25:57 -0400, "John Keeney"
wrote:


Scott Ferrin wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 20:51:43 +1000, "The Raven"
wrote:

How about Camel Spider............


LOL That's GREAT. If they can use Black Widow I don't know why they
couldn't use Camel Spider. Or maybe use it on the next tank or
something.

But camel spiders are hideous, "wrong" looking things.
Hell, they're not even real concerned with being symmetric
and I doubt they're really spiders.


They're bilaterally symetric but ugly nontheless. They're not spiders
but Solifugids. They have two sets of independantly articulating jaws

OK, maybe, *MAYBE* they're born and supposed to grow that way but
I'm yet to see an example of one that wasn't missing the ends of at least
one of that too large number of legs.

(freaky to watch them chewing stuff up), are not venomous and are
reputed to have the strongest bite power per pound of anything but
personally I think that is an exageration. Ants or termites would be
my guess. They'd be a lot more well known except they don't do well
in captivity so people don't keep them like tarantulas. Speaking as
someone who has a T and is familiar with the hobby I can say a lot of
people would like to have them if they lived longer in captivity.
They're just too cool looking :-)