avatar_AeroplaneDriver

Introducing the Lockheed Martin F-21...

Started by AeroplaneDriver, February 20, 2019, 08:02:55 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

AeroplaneDriver

So I got that going for me...which is nice....

AS.12

No-one in LM's marketing division could do a quick Web search for F-21?  Or even just on Wikipedia? :banghead:

chrisonord

The dogs philosophy on life.
If you cant eat it hump it or fight it,
Pee on it and walk away!!

scooter

Its...an F-16.  Ain't nothing new about it, except one of the CFTs has a retractable probe.


And the real F-21 was the Kfir


Quote from: AS.12 on February 20, 2019, 08:17:55 AM
No-one in LM's marketing division could do a quick Web search for F-21?  Or even just on Wikipedia? :banghead:

Of course not.  They're all MBAs and marketing types, not aviation enthusiasts.
The F-106- 26 December 1956 to 8 August 1988
Gone But Not Forgotten

QuoteOh are you from Wales ?? Do you know a fella named Jonah ?? He used to live in whales for a while.
— Groucho Marx

My dA page: Scooternjng

AS.12

On a tangent, I remember reading in AvWeek that the F-21 aggressor program was an excellent example of contracted support; IAI hired a lot of experienced ex-USN personnel for its US-based support subsidiary, right down to the flightline staff.  And the pilots loved flying them as Mig-23 analogs.

chrisonord

Quote from: scooter on February 20, 2019, 10:24:25 AM
Its...an F-16.  Ain't nothing new about it, except one of the CFTs has a retractable probe.


And the real F-21 was the Kfir


Quote from: AS.12 on February 20, 2019, 08:17:55 AM
No-one in LM's marketing division could do a quick Web search for F-21?  Or even just on Wikipedia? :banghead:

Of course not.  They're all MBAs and marketing types, not aviation enthusiasts.
My thoughts exactly Scooter.
The dogs philosophy on life.
If you cant eat it hump it or fight it,
Pee on it and walk away!!

kitnut617

If I'm not building models, I'm out riding my dirtbike

JayBee

But they do have a precedent. Boeing renamed the DC-9 series as the Boring 717.
I do not see any of them with four underwing engines and re-fueling equipment.
(The Boeing 717 was Boeing's model number for what became the C-135 series of aircraft.)  :rolleyes:
Alle kunst ist umsunst wenn ein engel auf das zundloch brunzt!!

Sic biscuitus disintegratum!

Cats are not real. 
They are just physical manifestations of collisions between enigma & conundrum particles.

Any aircraft can be improved by giving it a SHARKMOUTH!

AeroplaneDriver

It looks like the cockpit is upgraded a good bit from the F-16.  They are trying to sell it as comparable capabilities to the F-22/35.  On interesting political aspect may be LM's promise to move F-16 production to India if they order it...by renaming the  Block 70 as the F-21 do they get around that I wonder?
So I got that going for me...which is nice....

jcf

Quote from: JayBee on February 20, 2019, 11:42:02 AM
But they do have a precedent. Boeing renamed the DC-9 series as the Boring 717.
I do not see any of them with four underwing engines and re-fueling equipment.
(The Boeing 717 was Boeing's model number for what became the C-135 series of aircraft.)  :rolleyes:

717-200 actually, with the original renumbered 717-100.  :wacko:


jcf

The F-21A Kfirs were leased aircraft and were returned after being used
for a few years, I wouldn't be surprised if the designation was primarily
for bookkeeping purposes.

Anyhow, designations have been cancelled and reused in the past, and at the
moment L-M can call it anything they want, if they apply to make it an official
designation it'll be up to the DoD to say yeah or nay.

kerick

It might be for political reasons in India. Politicians and corporate bigwigs can say its an Indian aircraft. "In India, for India" as the article says.
" Somewhere, between half true, and completely crazy, is a rainbow of nice colours "
Tophe the Wise

Captain Canada

CANADA KICKS arse !!!!

Long Live the Commonwealth !!!
Vive les Canadiens !
Where's my beer ?

AeroplaneDriver

According to the FAA the 818 is srill the DC-9-90 I believe.  I was halfway through training at AirTran on the MD-95 in 2000 when a better offer appeared.  Had I finished I think my Type Rating would have been DC-9-90. 
So I got that going for me...which is nice....

McColm