The Future of the F-35 Italy cuts back

[GDS_Starfury]

Aft visibility, who needs it?

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/f-35-blind-spot/

did you read the whole article?
while the helmet mounted system doesnt work yet when it does the pilot will be able to look all around the aircraft and not even see the airframe.  youll be able to look straight down at the cockpit floor and see the ground underneath you.  as sick as I am of the project as a whole thats a pretty frikin cool system!

[mirth]

Aft visibility, who needs it?

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/f-35-blind-spot/

did you read the whole article?
while the helmet mounted system doesnt work yet when it does the pilot will be able to look all around the aircraft and not even see the airframe.  youll be able to look straight down at the cockpit floor and see the ground underneath you.  as sick as I am of the project as a whole thats a pretty frikin cool system!

I read it. The helmet system doesn't work and it may never. It's entirely possible that the F-35 will be in active service for a period of time, years perhaps, without the helmet camera system operational. Even if they do get it working, what happens if it goes down during a dogfight?

Building a fighter with a bubble canopy and good all-around views seems like a no-brainer. That's the way we've been doing it for 70 years.

[Staggerwing]

Aft visibility, who needs it?

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/f-35-blind-spot/

But if you can't see them, they can't see you.

I thought that only worked on the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.  ???

[GDS_Starfury]

That's the way we've been doing it for 70 years.

actually no.  the F-15/16/18 were the perfection on the idea but its not very stealthy.  most Soviet aircraft had almost no rear visibility nor the majority of NATO designs.  I think the main problem with the F-35 is how wide that part of the canopy is.

[GDS_Starfury]

Aft visibility, who needs it?

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/f-35-blind-spot/

But if you can't see them, they can't see you.

I thought that only worked on the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.  ???

you need a towel for that trick.

[Staggerwing]

You mean they are not yet standard issue for the F-35? I'm almost certain Bed, Bath, and Beyond has successfully lobbied to secure the contract.

[mirth]

That's the way we've been doing it for 70 years.

actually no.  the F-15/16/18 were the perfection on the idea but its not very stealthy.  most Soviet aircraft had almost no rear visibility nor the majority of NATO designs.  I think the main problem with the F-35 is how wide that part of the canopy is.

We (the US) have been doing bubble canopies since mid WW2 was my point. There haven't been many fighters since that haven't used a bubble canopy. The Delta Dagger/Dart being two of the more notable exceptions and they were both designed as interceptors, not dogfighters.

[GDS_Starfury]

you might want to go back and look at US fighter design since WW2 Mirth.  bubble canopys were the exception not the rule.  not a single Century series fighter had one.  in fact Id like you to find 1 bubble topped jet fighter  between the F-86 series and the F-14.

[mirth]

in fact Id like you to find 1 bubble topped jet fighter  between the F-86 series and the F-14.

F-89 Scorpion.

[GDS_Starfury]

that predates the F-86 honey and its an update of the F-80 platform.
just double checked and its in pretty much the exact same time frame.

[mirth]

that predates the F-86 honey and its an update of the F-80 platform.
just double checked and its in pretty much the exact same time frame.

The F-86 predates it by first flight and entry into service. You asked for this:

in fact Id like you to find 1 bubble topped jet fighter  between the F-86 series and the F-14.

And I gave it to you. See also the F-94 Starfire. Also predated by the F-86.

[mirth]

If you prefer Navy fighters, I can offer the F-9 Cougar. Indisputably after the F-86 and completely unrelated to the F-80.

[GDS_Starfury]

the F-94 is most definetly an updated F-80.  the F-87 follows the same idea.  the F-86 is a completely different beast.  so while you are technically correct due to service date they are all in the same time frame give or take a few months.  next I expect youll use the naval variant as an example.  my point still stands.  bubble canopies were the exception not the rule.  theres still no century series fighter that had one.  nor did most NATO or Warsaw Pact fighters have them.

[mirth]

the F-94 is most definetly an updated F-80.  the F-87 follows the same idea.  the F-86 is a completely different beast.  so while you are technically correct due to service date they are all in the same time frame give or take a few months.  next I expect youll use the naval variant as an example.  my point still stands.  bubble canopies were the exception not the rule.  theres still no century series fighter that had one.  nor did any NATO or Warsaw Pact fighter.

You made a big show of asking for one example between the F-86 and F-14 and I've already given you three. The F-94 was a further development of the F-80. The F-89 and the F-9 were not based on the F-80. The F-89 may have a similar looking airframe, but it was a common design of the era.

[GDS_Starfury]

If you prefer Navy fighters, I can offer the F-9 Cougar. Indisputably after the F-86 and completely unrelated to the F-80.

but also a late 40's design.  the catch here is that as fighters broke through the sound barrier it was though to be a structural weakness so the idea was dropped for a long time.  as for the F-9 being a bubble top... thats really streching the concept but Ill give it to ya just because you look great in the dress.