* JSF now “Lightning II“
* NSA’s swiss-cheese hack defense
* Carrier designs unveiled
* New York cops take to the skies
* USAF discovers blogs
* AT&T, NSA in bed pre-9/11?
* Spec Ops shortfall?
* Electric car comeback?
* Services battling over Iran strikes
* What would happen if we attacked Iran?
* “Flying robots made from cellophane?“
* DIY submachine gun
* Recruiting pre-teens?
* Open it up
(Big ups: RC, Brad)
July 3rd, 2006 | Rapid Fire | 19905 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fdefensetech.org%2F2006%2F07%2F03%2Frapid-fire-0703-0406-updated%2FRapid+Fire+07%2F03-04%2F06+%28Updated%292006-07-03+21%3A31%3A04david_axehttp%3A%2F%2Fdeftech.usmilblog.com%2F%3Fp%3D1990
Previous post: Rapid Fire — Weekend Edition
Next post: Taking on Iran’s air force
Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
AT&T, NSA in bed pre-9/11? = Bill Clinton was probably responsible for this scandal back then
JESUS. The Lightning II??? YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME. WE ARE NOT SPENDING BILLIONS TO SLAP A STUPID NAME LIKE THAT ONTO THIS AIRCRAFT!
GOOD JOB AMERICA! WAY TO BE ORIGINAL! Cant call it the Phoenix? Or the Cyclone? Or the Razorback? GEEZ!
AT&T and the Intelligence community have been in bed for a long long time. Even before Echelon. Navy Intelligence have worked with them for several decades.
I don’t think “Lightning” is itself a bad name, especially considering its history. But the “II” appellation takes a lot of originality out of the name. I mean, the original Lightning is known as the “P-38 Lightning” right?
So why can’t the JSF simply be the “F-35 Lightning?” Why is it necessary to call it “Lightning II?” Is anyone really going to confuse the F-35 Lightning with the P-38 Lightning?
I mean, the current Ford Mustang is just “Mustang,” despite the fact the today’s car is vastly different from the original Mustang. You might go as far as identify it as a “2006 Mustang” or a “2007 Mustang”, but it would be really silly to call a car the “Ford Mustang V” or “Ford Mustang VII” or whatever.
“Lightning II” smacks of the same derivative naming convention. It devalues the original worth of the name.
If it has to be lightning, just “Lightning” please!