FY-23 fighter re-emerges for surprise bid

[moughoun]

YF-23 re-emerges for surprise bid

Northrop Grumman's "forgotten" advanced tactical fighter leaves museum and could be heading for bomber contest

Northrop Grumman's long-abandoned YF-23A advanced tactical fighter (ATF) is emerging as the possible basis for a surprise contender for the US Air Force's interim bomber requirement.

The company recently retrieved the second of the two YF-23A "Black Widow II" prototypes (PAV-2) from the Western Museum of Flight in Hathorne, California, ostensibly for repainting for display at a forthcoming Northrop Grumman-backed air fair in August. However, the restoration is also thought to include several changes, including new cockpit displays and other possible cosmetic modifications.

Northrop Grumman confirms restoration of the General Electric YF120-powered PAV-2 is taking place, but declines to comment on whether the revived YF-23A is linked to any USAF proposal. But sources close to the studies, which were kicked off by the USAF's recently issued request for information, say Northrop Grumman now includes a YF-23-based "regional" bomber concept among its raft of proposals and that the USAF "is interested".

Until now, the company's offerings are known to include an upgraded B-2, X-47B unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) -based studies and possible designs based on its quiet supersonic technology programme. The distinctive, rhomboid-winged YF-23A lost out to Lockheed Martin's YF-22 in the ATF competition in 1991, but proved a valuable technology testbed for Northrop Grumman, which gave it all-aspect stealth. The company says it "drew upon a wide range of experience for its response to the interim bomber RFI, and the YF-23 is one".

Other contenders include a Boeing's B-1R (regional) re-engined bomber studies and a larger D-model version of its X-45 UCAV, while Lockheed Martin is considering various derivatives of the F/A-22. These include single- and two-seat, re-winged and tailless versions dubbed the FB-22, the larger of which would be able to cruise at Mach 1.8 and have 75% of the range of the B-2 carrying up to 30 115kg (250lb) small-diameter bombs. Lockheed Martin is also understood to be offering a variety of other manned designs, including a flying-wing concept.

The interim bomber is intended to bridge the gap between the current bomber fleet and a next-generation aircraft planned for 2037. The present timetable calls for a development effort to start in 2006, with an initial operating capability by 2015.

GUY NORRIS / LOS ANGELES

http://www.flightinternational.com/fi_frameset.asp?target=fi_issue/is_display_free.asp

- - - - - - - - - -

http://img42.photobucket.com/albums/v129/moughoun/f-23-ec94-42454-32.jpg

Happy ;)

[szr]

I would love to see that airframe make its way into the fleet in some form or another. It's the sexiest aircraft ever. :D

[usa320]

DAMN I DIDNT SEE THAT COMMING!

i think the aircraft, if modified properly, would give the F/B-22 a run for its money.

Though i disagree with it being the sexiest plane- that is obviously the F-14D...hands down.

I think that the F-15E still has years of service life though, and we shouldnt be looking to replace it quite yet.

[scott]

might wanna fix the typoed title
i was thinking fiscal year 23 p-)

[Obergefreiter]

I would love to see that airframe make its way into the fleet in some form or another. It's the sexiest aircraft ever. :D

I always thought the same thing.

[Frost]

Since it's one of the most beautifull aircraft (among the modern ones) I'm very happy to see this one comming back.

It's a VERY sexy aircraft! woot
Shame on the people who turned it down in favor of the f-22 :slap:

[Kilgor]

Great news... it seemed a waste to let that design left unused.

God damm its sexy !

:oops:

[seruriermarshal]

I think their goal is FB-22 plan .



http://www.checkpoint-online.ch/CheckPoint/Images/N-FB-22.jpg

[Burncycle]

I've always thought the F-23 would not only be successful as the fighter, but also had more potential for a penetrator/strike roles than the F-22.

Faster, stealthier... I mean it gives up a little by not having thrust vectoring, but the entire _point_ of stealthyness is being able to choose the circumstances of engagement. It should never get to the point where you have to get into a dogfight unless you decide to. Even then, the F-23 has lots of energy to spare and good pilots... she would be no slouch.

And yes, I think it's sexy p-) much more so than the F-22 (looks like a pregnant guppy at some angles... she's a thick beast)

[Durandal]

Jesus...

This has got to be the most stupid thing I have seen.

A) They are using a small airframe to replace (act as interim) for large airframe. This is an interim BOMBER platform not a fighter bomber.

B) If you are going to use a Fighter Bomber why not use one based on an EXISTING airframe that you are/will be using? Logistics is a WHOLE more simple.

C) Pick a damn plane that does not nee to refuel half way to its target.

More wasteful spending...get a goddamn tool that does the job right.

[Deuterium]

I would love to see that airframe make its way into the fleet in some form or another. It's the sexiest aircraft ever. :D

Must agree it was (is) beautiful.

[BlackRain]

Just bring back the FB-111 and the EF-111.

[Milkman]

Just bring back the FB-111 and the EF-111.
Yeah just give it some updates and it would be badass.
woot

[AFACadet]

I give this about a 0.01% chance of actually getting into an operational airframe.

[garyfanclub]

The F/A-18 is definitely way more sexy than this birth-defected excuse for a flying manta ray.

[Pooga]

Er AFA, isn't the Black Widow flyable…? I'm confused…

I suppose if you want a super kickbutt CAS aircraft with 30 250lbs bombs. Did I read that right? How could that thing carry 30? Ok, they're small, but…dang.

Cool. I like the 2037 thing. Freaky.

[wyrm_142]

Has anyone seen said interim bomber requirment?

I'm starting to think this is a press-ism (sorta like shauk-en-awwH!). The only 'bomber' requirement I've heard of (and read) is the Long Range Strike project, which is currently only a tech study.

The idea of an 'interim' bomber doesn't really make any sense (nor does the blue tiger stripe, but I digress) - we have a robust bomber fleet, and plently of tactical fighters, not to mention a Navy full of TLAM's. It's a waste of $$$ - $$$ that would be better spent on a next gen platform, vice rehasing something.

If there is a regional striker being batted around, I could see the F-23 getting into the gig, if it got bigger. The FB-22 has a 6' extention in the fuselage to increase room for JP-8 & more SDB's.

[OB Kenobi]

And now another quick lesson in reality for all of you who are paying attention...



At least seven former officials, consultants, or shareholders of Northrop Grumman now hold posts in the Bush administration, ensuring that the company’s interests are not overlooked for lucrative contracts in the “war on terrorism”, including Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Vice-Presidential Chief of Staff I. Lewis Libby, Pentagon Comptroller Dov Zakheim, and Sean O’Keefe, director of NASA.

Northrop Grumman’s subsidiary, Vinnell Corporation, has been catching a lot of flack lately. They landed a $48 million contract with the US occupational authority to train the Iraqi National Army, but have botched the job so badly that the Jordanian Army has recently been brought in to take over the job.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=11

Yes, go ahead, pretend it's just all a coincidence. Pretend that the US military chooses the best equipment for the job rather than what the lobbyists want for their pocketbooks. It's been like this for years, and this is how we wind up with Strykers, Crusaders, OICWs, the NMD, etc. Stuff that is either ridiculously overpriced, or doesn't work at all.

But hey, who cares, right? It's just your tax $$$.

You can now go back to calling Michael Moore fat.

[Midav]

I wish the Crusader would be used. I hope materials become light enough so the OICW becomes feasible. I support NMD. And, I just don't think Moore is fat, but a rich fat bastard that plays on the naive.

Now, that settled, might be an idea to check out the YF-23. It already exists and no one has to go through building a new aircraft, thus saving some money. Give it a chance before denouncing it. None of us here actually know what it can do, because it's almost a given, no one here has access to the classified material regarding the YF-23.

And if size is a matter, a bigger version may be built.

I just want to see how it works, first, before decrying it.

[seruriermarshal]

And now another quick lesson in reality for all of you who are paying attention...



At least seven former officials, consultants, or shareholders of Northrop Grumman now hold posts in the Bush administration, ensuring that the company’s interests are not overlooked for lucrative contracts in the “war on terrorism”, including Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Vice-Presidential Chief of Staff I. Lewis Libby, Pentagon Comptroller Dov Zakheim, and Sean O’Keefe, director of NASA.

Northrop Grumman’s subsidiary, Vinnell Corporation, has been catching a lot of flack lately. They landed a $48 million contract with the US occupational authority to train the Iraqi National Army, but have botched the job so badly that the Jordanian Army has recently been brought in to take over the job.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=11

Yes, go ahead, pretend it's just all a coincidence. Pretend that the US military chooses the best equipment for the job rather than what the lobbyists want for their pocketbooks. It's been like this for years, and this is how we wind up with Strykers, Crusaders, OICWs, the NMD, etc. Stuff that is either ridiculously overpriced, or doesn't work at all.

But hey, who cares, right? It's just your tax $$$.

You can now go back to calling Michael Moore fat.

Strykers overpriced, or doesn't work at all ?

Your funny proof , Strykers cheaper than M2 , and they used so good in Iraq .

Michael Moore just a sh*t , you think he is a "hero" .

rofl

[Ballistic]

Thats one really nice looking aircraft ! Interesting to see what happens with it.

[Kilgor]

Yeah, and we end up with aircraft like the F-15, with over 100 kills and no losses.

****ing loser. rofl

[FallenAngel]

Pretend that the US military chooses the best equipment for the job rather than what the lobbyists want for their pocketbooks. It's been like this for years, and this is how we wind up with Strykers, Crusaders, OICWs, the NMD, etc. Stuff that is either ridiculously overpriced, or doesn't work at all.

But hey, who cares, right? It's just your tax $$$.

You can now go back to calling Michael Moore fat.

We don't pick the best equipment. If we did, the US would issue SiGs across the board instead of M9s. It's a compromise between cost and effectiveness. So, yes, part of it has to do with pocketbooks.

Stryker is a good idea for what the Army wants to do with it. I, personally, am just not too keen on the Army wanting to be the Marine Corps.

Crusader was scrapped almost three years ago, so that piece is out.

OICW is a good idea. In about 15 years when technology catches up with that idea, it should be an outstanding system.

Me, personally, I'd rather have my tax dollars spent on military equipment dueing a time of hostilities than welfare because it's pretty well documented welfare is abused at least in California and several other places too. Or what about the Federal Department of Education? The entire Dept. is unconstitutional (go ahead, read what powers are allotted to states- education is one of them). Seems there's plenty that we could divert tax dollars from to the military ;)

And Michael Moore is fat.... ;)

[FallenAngel]

Yeah, and we end up with aircraft like the F-15, with over 100 kills and no losses.

f*** loser. rofl

When you say "we" I hope you mean Israelis ;) because I don't think the US has shot down a 100 anything with the F15.

[Ratamacue]

Yeah, and we end up with aircraft like the F-15, with over 100 kills and no losses.

f*** loser. rofl

When you say "we" I hope you mean Israelis ;) because I don't think the US has shot down a 100 anything with the F15.
The F-15, if I'm not mistaken, has over 100 total air-to-air kills and not a single combat loss.

[Kilgor]

yes... i should say the zionist alliance ;)

[szr]

When you say "we" I hope you mean Israelis ;) because I don't think the US has shot down a 100 anything with the F15.

Enemy Air Forces ground themselves when the US shows up in the neighborhood. :(

[Durandal]

The F/A-18 is definitely way more sexy than this birth-defected excuse for a flying manta ray.

The F/A-18 is NOT a bomber either.

Jesus guys, the air force NEEDS a bomber. Not a fighter designed to carry bombs. They need a massive payload capable airframe that is capable of flying halfway around the world without refueling.

[Pooga]

And somehow, OB Kenobi somehow ties this into his dream world where everything imaginable is corrupt and evil with the US. Get a grip, bud. :roll:

[oldsoak]

Still think its a pretty plane - much more "shape of things to come" to her than the F22.

[Pooga]

Yeah, and we end up with aircraft like the F-15, with over 100 kills and no losses.

f*** loser. rofl

F-15s from air forces around the world have 104 air-to-air kills total. The USAF has 38 kills 0 losses, and the IAF has 40 kills 0 losses.
rofl

[Desertpilot]

F-15s from air forces around the world have 104 air-to-air kills total. The USAF has 38 kills 0 losses, and the IAF has 40 kills 0 losses.


The USAF might have killed 38 birds with F-15's, but not near that many piloted enemy aircraft. I seem to remember a Blackhawk or two, but nothing else...

[Midav]

F-15s from air forces around the world have 104 air-to-air kills total. The USAF has 38 kills 0 losses, and the IAF has 40 kills 0 losses.


The USAF might have killed 38 birds with F-15's, but not near that many piloted enemy aircraft. I seem to remember a Blackhawk or two, but nothing else...

Good link here (http://www.sci.fi/~fta/score.htm)

And here (http://www.airtoaircombat.com/background.asp?id=11&bg=20)

[Operation Ivy]

The F/A-18 is definitely way more sexy than this birth-defected excuse for a flying manta ray.

The F/A-18 is NOT a bomber either.

Jesus guys, the air force NEEDS a bomber. Not a fighter designed to carry bombs. They need a massive payload capable airframe that is capable of flying halfway around the world without refueling.

B-52?

(I am clueless when it comes to planes :( )

[Pooga]

The USAF might have killed 38 birds with F-15's, but not near that many piloted enemy aircraft. I seem to remember a Blackhawk or two, but nothing else...

Whut in tarnation did yew jest say?

[Desertpilot]

Thanks for the links Midav, I stand corrected... :cantbeli:

[Midav]

Thanks for the links Midav, I stand corrected... :cantbeli:

Np. We all make mistakes. :)

[Pooga]

Was gonna say, Whatchoo talkin bout Willis?

;)



B-52, B-1, and B-2 are pretty long range, my friend. Taking off at Guam or Missouri (one of those M's) and ending up in Iraq or Afghaniplace is pretty good.

[Durandal]

B-52?

(I am clueless when it comes to planes :( )

No problem. You are the tank man! :)

That is what they want to replace, well several eventually.

Which is why this entire thread is absurd. The YF-23 is not a bomber. it does not have the legs. What they want is a JDAM platform lots of em...

The YF23 is a pipe dream and silly. Sure its a sexy plane. We know how it works. the airframe is NOT scaleable in a way that will save us money so that option is out and the thing does not have the range or tonnage capacity to make a useful bombing platform.

[Pooga]

Depends what kind of bombing you want. This thing carries 30X 250 pound bombs. The F-15 can carry 20X 326 pound MK20 Rockeyes. That's 7500 pounds for the Black Widow II and 6520 pounds for the Eagle. Both of them are more than the A-10, oddly enough, although I still think refitting A-10s with hooks and putting them on aircraft carriers would save a whole lot more money than procuring new JSFs. But that's another story. Anyhoo, the Black Widow II will have thrust-vectoring, I suppose, and can carry half a ton more bombs than the Eagle. And it's stealthy.

Hold on there's a fat fire around my house. K the hills are on fire. There's OV-10 Broncos, UH-1 Hueys, and S-2 Trackers buzzin around.

Read the third paragraph. This sounds like the Black Widow II. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/b-3.htm

Ah fine, here it is:
The Light Bomber (Manned) concept calls for a medium-sized aircraft that blends the advantages of a tactical fighter with a strategic bomber to develop a medium/long range, high payload capability (inter-theater) affordable bomber. The aircraft will utilize some level of low-observable technology to obtain an effective yet affordable aircraft which can provide for multiple/heavy weapons carriage and launch for missions requiring real time decision making/replanning or autonomous operations. Cost would be controlled by utilizing off-the-shelf systems and affordable stealth technologies (JSF technology). Logistic support would be enhanced by maximizing commonality of support equipment with existing systems.

So I suppose the Black Widow II would be a nice counter-insurgency thingamajigger, with 30 anti-personnel bombs and awesome maneuoverability (I hate spelling that). But does it have the armor? I think not.

Separate Topic: What is the point of the JSF? None of the US's services are getting the VTOL version, correct? I think USN and USAF are getting CTOL (conventional take-off and landing) and USMC are getting STOL (short TOL). Course I could be wrong, that's from memory, which is about as good as a monkey with a banana but no teeth (although you could eat a banana with your gums). The JSF doesn't have honest-to-goodness thrust-vectoring, either. So what's the point, I say, what's the point? Anybody heard what it'll be called? I heard Phoenix. Or was that the new name for my teddy bear.

Eww, nasty smoke. Poor snakes and ground squirrels and deer and grass. And dirt.



By the way—I think the Black Widow II looks like a skinny crow with a messed up face.

[AFACadet]

nt

[Pooga]

nt

Are you trying to tell us something? GUYS! TIMMY FELL DOWN THE WELL! Come on boy, where is he, where is he?!?
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:fxTjMCfbS2gJ:http://w1.877.telia.com/~u87727183/lassie.jpg


Sorry. What's "nt?"

:P

[szr]

'nt' means "no text" usually used when you accidentally post or write something then delete it.

[AFACadet]

^^^^^^^^
What he said.

I wrote a quick response to the F-15 kill posts, only to relize that Midav already said the same exact thing :oops:

[OB Kenobi]

Strykers overpriced, or doesn't work at all ?

Your funny proof , Strykers cheaper than M2 , and they used so good in Iraq .

M2 = IFV, Stryker = APC. If you think an APC should be in the cost range of an IFV then what the hell is the point of the APC at all? It performs about as well as a BTR-80, yet costs 10x as much. What are we getting for that extra cost?


Michael Moore just a sh*t , you think he is a "hero" .

rofl

I don't think he is a hero or "a sh*t." He'd be a hero if he followed up on his claims and faced Bush (and Kerry for that matter) publically.

About the YF-23, I don't see what purpose this plane could possibly have that our current aircraft and the F-22 and JSF cannot fulfill. The NMD... l that's the thing that doesn't work at all and never will. You might want to check who's companies are working on it, btw. Yep, the usual suspects again. The OICW might be nice for limited use, but I think it's way too expensive and problematic general use in the near future.

Instead of these corporate welfare projects, it would be much better to upgrade what we already have unless there is a "next generation" advance that makes what we have completely obsolete.

[Pooga]

And you don't think upgrades are problematic? Ok, cheaper.

Just out of curiosity, what does the JSF fulfill?

What NMD? What companies? Halliburton? What are ya gettin at? ;)

[seruriermarshal]

M2 = IFV, Stryker = APC. If you think an APC should be in the cost range of an IFV then what the hell is the point of the APC at all? It performs about as well as a BTR-80, yet costs 10x as much. What are we getting for that extra cost?


Why you think BTR-80 better than Stryker ? Stryker is a system . The distributional system combat theory (a network architecture), including UAV support . It isn't take the platform as the central .Stryker is one kind of transition .　Future the army will adapt FCS . You still in use primitive theory.


I don't think he is a hero or "a sh*t." He'd be a hero if he followed up on his claims and faced Bush (and Kerry for that matter) publically.

About the YF-23, I don't see what purpose this plane could possibly have that our current aircraft and the F-22 and JSF cannot fulfill. The NMD... l that's the thing that doesn't work at all and never will. You might want to check who's companies are working on it, btw. Yep, the usual suspects again. The OICW might be nice for limited use, but I think it's way too expensive and problematic general use in the near future.

Instead of these corporate welfare projects, it would be much better to upgrade what we already have unless there is a "next generation" advance that makes what we have completely obsolete.

If Michael Moore is a hero , then why he don't damn terrorists ? It's fair ?
Answer is he afraid terrorists .

And NMD is a system , including more module (like ABL THAAD , PAC-3
MEADS, NAVY SM-2 ...... )

[MaxPayne]

i want to see the a7d back but no its too old blablablablabla :( :lol:

[perdurabo]

And you don't think upgrades are problematic? Ok, cheaper.

Just out of curiosity, what does the JSF fulfill?

What NMD? What companies? Halliburton? What are ya gettin at? ;)
Joint Strike Fighter
it wil replace hariers both marine and RAF/FAA and prabably Spain and Italy willbuy them too and in future maybe Taiwan
Replace of F16 not only yours but also Danish Norwegian etc
Replace of F/A 18 swiss?
Its small fighter that can strike ground targets it is need for F35 because yours F16are loosing ground Europe have already new generation of fighters (well we are waiting for Russia but they are working on it too and prabably it will be very good) and if you didnt noticed China India Pakistani and other countries are working on their fightersthey maybe not too advenced but in future will be. Also main frame of fighter is agening you can use it to some extension of time but it will need replacement or you will suffer heavy looses due to crashes...

[4_tune]

why let such beauty gone to waste

[Pooga]

Thanx Serurier.

Perdurabo, what does the USAF version of the JSF have that the F-16 doesn't? That's my point. :D

[perdurabo]

stelath? sea wersions? STOL and VTOL wersions? new frame? better electronics? radars? looots of other things.

[Pooga]

USAF and USN versions are CTOL. All glass cockpit? OK, you're going to develop a whole new aircraft so you can have an electronic artificial horizon? ;)

[DPGLAW]

When you say "we" I hope you mean Israelis ;) because I don't think the US has shot down a 100 anything with the F15.

Enemy Air Forces ground themselves when the US shows up in the neighborhood. :(

I think that is a very good point. None of our enemies would even dare TRY to fight any of our fighter planes, they know that if they get up in the air, they are coming back down in a flaming ball.....a sight I just love to see :) Well, that a a mushroom cloud over the middle east are good sights to see

[perdurabo]

USAF and USN versions are CTOL. All glass cockpit? OK, you're going to develop a whole new aircraft so you can have an electronic artificial horizon? ;)
but british and marines is STOL/VTOL
logistics if all planes have 90% of prats common its simplier and cheaper.
F16platform is agening Polish F16 will be prabably last build sixteens. Other plane producers have new platforms with better capabilitys. Structure of fighter aircraft works in heavy condition it isnt bomber or transport taht can be used for 50-60years with only minor changes i even flew 60year old wooden glidder it flew beautifull feeling was better than in new composite one. 40year old fighter is very used and needs lots of work to be in flyable condition. will you risk your pilots life to old frame?
if you do maths of all costs (maintance fuel consumption etc...) you will prabably see that new aricraft is cheaper than 40year old grandpa-fighter.

[AFACadet]

All glass cockpit? OK, you're going to develop a whole new aircraft so you can have an electronic artificial horizon?

Not exactly. It has the most advanced cockpit ever placed in an aircraft. Star Wars looks outdated (not joking).

A published example: You're sitting in a JSF flying in the air. Those stupid canopy frames getting in your way? That's ok, you can look though them. In fact, you can look though any part of the aircraft. If that's not good enough for you, and you STILL want to see more, you can look though your own body. Full, compete, total and unhindered 360 degree visability.

[Pooga]

Not exactly. It has the most advanced cockpit ever placed in an aircraft. Star Wars looks outdated (not joking).
Got any pichas for de Poogs?


A published example: You're sitting in a JSF flying in the air. Those stupid canopy frames getting in your way? That's ok, you can look though them. In fact, you can look though any part of the aircraft. If that's not good enough for you, and you STILL want to see more, you can look though your own body. Full, compete, total and unhindered 360 degree visability.
Really? Or is it like "Derr we're gonna have 360º visibility in the year 2096. But it kinda works on the JSF if you take a picture of the ground before you take off and paste it on the floor."

I'm just all butt-hurt that it doesn't have any thrust-vectoring. Almost like Don Sindromiòn had some say in that.

[AFACadet]

http://www.airpower.at/news01/1027_jsf/maro_x35cockpit.jpg

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/editions/4503/images/flightline/161-874_09%20JSF%20Simulator_th.jpg

http://www.awgnet.com/shownews/02asia1/images/sn68.jpg

These are a few pictures of the mockups (but its the final design of the JSF cockpit).

Most pictures you will see are from the X-35 aircraft which only used off the shelf parts.

Unless you know a lot about aircraft avionics, it will not really phase you that much. A massive, single touchscreen MFD controls the aircraft. The pilot can pull what ever he want up on the screen, when he wants, move the screen where he wants, and change the size. They can put as much or little as they want or have the computer system bring up screens based on the fight conditions.

From a pilot's or aviation enthusiast's standpoint (which you'll have to have to get anything out of the pics), that's really cool, and has never been done before. But its the unpublishable material that makes the cockpit really cool. Over the next few years, that may be released to the public, so keep a lookout for it.

The 360 degree vision has been demonstrated and is working right now. When you have an awesome HMD system unhindered by having to put important information on a small HUD, you can really do a lot. Having an IRST type system implanted in the skin of the aircraft (that's how you get total coerage) also makes it possible--along with massive computing power.

[Pooga]

Wait, so is it like wide-angle cameras past the info on your floor? That sounds stupid, sorry, but how does it work?

[AFACadet]

Ummm... no.


Like I said above, it projects the images onto your HMD. the images are three inches in front of your face.

Like a VR visor, you look around and the images change with you. Think of them like x-ray glasses, 'cept you don't see the innards of something, you look right though them.

That's a tactical advantage that isn't matched by anything ever invented. Even with you're own eyes standing on top of a mountain, you don't have that good of visabilty, you're body and the mountain are still in the way.

[AFACadet]

Here are a couple links on the JSF's EOSS. The DAS is part of the EOTS and the DAS is the aspect that alows the full 360 degree visability. The data from that system can be patched directly into the HMD alowing the pilot to 'see' though both the aircraft and his own body.

http://www.capitol.northgrum.com/press_releases/ngpress061003.html

http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_news/factsheets/factsheet-JSF_EOTS.pdf

[Pooga]

Oh. I'm thmart.

[Pooga]

So lemme get this blasphemy straight:

There's a crazycool camera on the chin of the JSF that projects the goodness onto your visor? What about the back of the plane ('course your neck isn't designed to have you head turned towards your butt, soo nevermind)?

[AFACadet]

Read the last paragraph of the post with the pictures. The EOSS is the stuff in the nose, the DAS is implanted in the skin of the aircraft itself. Its an IRST (infra-red search and track) type system. That's how you get total coverage (and also why you can't do this in other aircraft).

[Pooga]

Oh, silly me, I thought it wasn't in English.