J-XY/J-35 carrier-borne fighter thread

Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
taxiya said:
Why does the pilot need to turn their head when EODAS is meant to remove that necessity?
Click to expand...
EODAS doesn't remove that necessity. It - at least, in current form, - complements it. EODAS/HMS equipped pilot still turns his head just as much as every other pilot - he "just" gets to see way more, and can make fire control solutions out of it.
taxiya said:
EODAS' optics should be able to look further than naked eyes, plus IR and night vision.
Click to expand...
Further isn't the only spec, nor does it answer what to do with the result.
It's faaaaar too early to remove pilot's head (and eyes) from the equation.
 
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Gloire_bb said:
EODAS doesn't remove that necessity. It - at least, in current form, - complements it. EODAS/HMS equipped pilot still turns his head just as much as every other pilot - he "just" gets to see way more, and can make fire control solutions out of it.

Further isn't the only spec, nor does it answer what to do with the result.
It's faaaaar too early to remove pilot's head (and eyes) from the equation.
Click to expand...
I guess the designers of both F-35 and 350003 are trying (by their design choices) to convince the pilots to change their habit from relying on their eyes to relying more on the sensors. It is like teaching a person used to manual geared car to adapt to auto geared car.

I drive a manual geared car, whenever I drive a leased auto geared car I have difficulty in moving it at the beginning minutes because I step on the break thinking I am stepping on the clutch.
 
O

oceanmaster

New Member
Registered Member
special_seeker15 said:
Wasn't the conventional wisdom behind the J-20 using canards was *because* the PRC aerospace industry's understanding of advanced flight stability systems wasn't yet deep enough to enable a canard-less/ventral-less design?

In terms of "insane setup"-yes mechanically it has more outward components, but simply having lots of visible control surfaces is not necessarily a sign of underlying design sophistication. Else flying wings would be considered to be primitive aerospace technology.
Click to expand...

in which world controlling "un-conventional" and "more aero surfaces" is easier than following "conventional" setup that everyone does?
 
A

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
stannislas said:
speaking of exporting naval version jet, does Canadian CF-188, or Australian F-18 have any differences to regular USN F-18 and can it still land on a aircraft carrier?
if so, then there shouldn't be any issue for foreign countries to buy J-35 directly or for PLANAF to deploy some J-35 on land
Click to expand...
They can still land on it, but they use arresting cables at some bases in snow and ice conditions, we have bad weather in winter in the north. The arresting gear surely saved a number of aircraft from going off runways. Cf-188 are more or less f-18a and b but they have some different systems like the lateral night identification light for interception.

I can see export j-35 variants with goodies to meet customer needs, pretty sure that Pakistan J-10 have some stuff added and removed. Exported j-35 would probably have option list of some sort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top