What is Digg?26 Comments
- pseudojd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5we have the best trained pilots the world has Ever seen. That pilot is worth Way more than the carbon triangle of death he is sitting in.
- ktorbeck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Our military can't just look at today's war on terrorism it needs to be always looking at the future. However, I think it has a use. It is fast, quite, and stealthily a great weapon for striking an hiding enemy.
You could ask Al-Zarqawi, but we already got him with a bomb from an aircraft. - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well it was a nod to the extensive British involvement in the project. The original Lightning had a lot of respect in the Aviation community - even on the American side.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I used to perform first-line maintenance on some of the last operational English Electric Lightnings back in the mid-eighties.
They had a nickname in the services, "Midly guided missiles..."
Great aircraft, they could get anywhere REALLY quickly, just couldn't stick around for long enough. - peteraldred, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The Brits have also had an earlier plane called the Lightning, though it's a bit more recent than the P38: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning
Check the 'performance comparison' section - it once intercepted a U2 at 88,000 feet, and could outrun Concorde. - pseudojd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I am ok with my country's military being having N+1 capability. beating our military would take a alien (real aliens) invasion, and many aliens would die on forign soil that's for god damn sure.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5How we kill the last leader of Al Queda in Iraq?
Same way the current and the next leader of Al Queda in Iraq are going to die. - trejrco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Air superiority/dominance will always have a place in our national defense and in our offensive capabilities - the ability to control air space is critical to military operations. WRT fighting terrorism, at the very least think about state sponsored terrorism, where we will still be fighting an organized & well supported/funded/developed military force. And don't get trapped in the mindset of thinking we will never need to fight another "standard" war - historically anyone who thought that has been proven wrong.
- icebrk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Ktorbeck by "switch" I imagine you mean banning sales of replacement parts. Any "dongle" switch could easily be cracked. The only other alternative I see here is a remotely activated self destruct sequence, and building that in would be kinda doing the enemy's job for them.
@pyrex000 air "superiority" hasn't been America's policy for a loooooooong time, it's Air Dominance, this means the USAF has to be able to DOMINATE against any enemy they'll face out there, their policy is that the enemy doesn't get to stand a chance, even if they're fighting with US planes a few gens back. - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The original Lightening was a beast of a machine (and by all accounts incredibly easy to fly too). It was essentially a huge (and I mean huge) monster of a jet enjine, with a compartment for a pilot strapped onto it.
The Lightning’s speed and climb performance were excellent not just by 1950s or 1960s standards but even compared with modern operational fighters. Its initial rate of climb was 50,000 ft per minute (15 km/min). The Mirage IIIE climbed initially at 30,000 ft/min (9 km/min), the MiG-21 managed 36,090 ft/min (11 km/min), and the Tornado F-3 43,000 ft/min (13 km/min).
Lightning XM215 at Farnborough Air Show, England, in 1964
Enlarge
Lightning XM215 at Farnborough Air Show, England, in 1964
The official ceiling was a secret amongst the general public and low security RAF documents simply stated 60,000+ ft (18,000 m), although it was well known within the RAF to be capable of much greater heights. Recently the actual operating ceiling has been made public by the late Brian Carroll, a former RAF Lightning pilot and ex-Lightning Chief Examiner, who reports taking an F-53 Lightning up to 87,300 feet (26,600 m) at which level "Earth curvature was visible and the sky was quite dark". In 1984, during a major NATO exercise, Flt Lt Mike Hale intercepted an American U-2 at a height which they had previously considered safe from interception. Records show that Hale climbed to 88,000 ft (26,800 m) in his F3 Lightning. Hale also participated in time-to-height and acceleration trials against F-104 Starfighters from Aalborg. He reports that the Lightnings won all races easily, with the exception of the low level supersonic acceleration, which was a dead-heat.
Carroll reports in a side-by-side comparison that the F-15C Eagle (which he also flew) that:
"Acceleration in both was impressive, you have all seen the Lighting leap away once brakes are released, the Eagle was almost as good, and climb speed was rapidly achieved. Take-off roll is between 2,000 & 3,000 feet [600 to 900 m], depending upon military or maximum afterburner-powered take-off. The Lightning was quicker off the ground, reaching 50 feet [15 m] height in a horizontal distance of 1,630 feet [500 m]".
In British Airways trials, Concorde was offered as a target to NATO fighters including F-15s, F-16s, F-14s, Mirages, F-104s - but only the Lightning managed to overtake Concorde on a stern intercept.
However, later fighters greatly outclassed the Lightning in terms of range, radar and avionics, and weapons load, and were far more effective air-to-air fighters. The short range of the Lightning - just 900 miles (which was alsoa side effect of the sheer size of the engines) was particularly crippling."
But from a design from the 1940's it is still among the fastest production airacraft ever produced.
Hopefully the Brit knowhow in making really easy to fly airplanes with go some way to making the JSF Lightening II a trully spectacular airframe. - chevyorange, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I like the respect they are giving to the original Lightening.
- chevyorange, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1I was thinking of the P-38 WWII fighter, not the post WWII Electric Lightening fighter.
- mendosaprime, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2wasnt the F22 like that as well?? first ever used in combat by the isrealies?
- OneFishTwoFish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lightning II? Does everything have to be a sequel these days?
- craniac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Living in Cape Town I am privileged to be able to see and photograph the last of the English Electric Lightnings still flying today. Admittedly there are also some airworthy Lightnings still in the UK but they are prevented from flying by civil aviation regulations. People come from all over the world, and pay vast sums of money, to visit Thunder City and fly in the Lightnings and other classic British jets they have there.
- icebrk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The pilots are training like they're going to war... because they probably are. Same with Israeli soldiers...
I'm jealous of swiss soldiers, their training involves long mountain walks while smoking Js and Talking on their Handys.... Special Forces rides around mountain bikes all day, and their f-16 squads have problems training because after flying in any direction a few minutes at afterburner they have to turn around because of the border. - pseudojd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Israel gets puts most of our latest gear in the field before us, and they have for 20 years. I'm pretty sure the F16 first drew blood with working for Israel.
- synaesthesia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2They should have called it the Velociraptor. Or the Deathbringer. Lightning II is a pussy name and a plane this badass deserves a far more rad name than that.
- icebrk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Despite my interest in Aviation and how cool these Jets are... How many years do we get before Lockheed sells it all over the world and we need to pay for developing a new jet just to maintain the Air Force's doctrine of air dominance?
- ukmicky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And there was also the P38 lightning
- pyrex000, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2First of all, we only sell the plane to our Allys like Israel, Britain, and Germany.
Secondly, we don't maintain our air superiority just through technology(that's not to say we don't spend millions on R D) but we train like we're going to war all the time. Our pilots don't get lazy and their always ready to go at a moments notice.
Lastly, we have the infrastructure to project our power anywhere so just because you have a new plane doesn't mean you will win even though it certainly helps. - scotty707, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Shouldn't this be the "Lightning III?" For a short time the F-22 was named the "Lightning II" before being changed to "Raptor" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor#Development).
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I used to perform first-line maintenance on some of the last operational English Electric Lightnings back in the mid-eighties.
They had a nickname in the services, "Mildly guided missiles..."
Great aircraft, they could get anywhere REALLY quickly, just couldn't stick around for long enough. - mendosaprime, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1techinally it looks fantastic, all those variations in desgins are quite mind boggling, but i do wonder if it was actually needed in 2days military conflicts, what role does the air forces of the world have in fighting terrorism.
- ktorbeck, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2The Joint Strike Fighter was designed from the start to be sold all over the world. To our allies anyway. However, I am sure that if one of our allies becomes our enemy (like France is working) the "Lightning II" has the same feature that other aircraft have. The ability for our military to flip a switch and that aircraft just stops working. Ask Iran.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is