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.

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 :-(