I think any name with a "II" on it is stupid and unimagineative. I'm an AF history buff and all, but have we lost our minds here?? I don't mind "Phantom II", because it obviously was a more significant aircraft historically than the original Phantom. Even "Thunderbolt II" is
okay, although everybody calls the A-10 the "Hog" anyhow. When they crossed the line with "Texan II" on that Pilatus PC-9, that pegged my "this is crap-o-meter".
Please...the other new USAF fighter from Lockheed with two tails and two engines didn't warrant being called "Lightning II", so this single-engined, single tail sorta VSTOL (F-16 II) airplane sure as hell doesn't warrant that name
tom d. friedman wrote:i hate the name for the f-22 raptor. how anybody could name that ass kicker plane for a ground bound non flying dino bird is enough to make me

Uhhhhh.....a "Raptor" is a bird of prey....like an Eagle, Falcon, Hawk, or Harrier. A
"Velociraptor" is the dinosaur which you're thinking of. Different beasts all together.
Although I think "Raptor" is a sort of generic name, at least it fits in with the Eagle and Falcon bird naming convention. I'd like to see Hawk or Buzzard or something of the like for the F-35 (and we can get into another discussion entirely about the USAF f*cking up the numbering convention with this jet, too!!!)...another kick-ass bird name is what's called for.
If they name it "Spitfire II", that will be, without a doubt, the most stupid thing I have EVER seen the USAF do...and I've seen them pull a lot of stupid tricks.