|
Can't be as bad as your Phantom though?! :E
|
No, that wasn't so good, Dat. ;)
|
Of course the Phantom had special sensors (another pair of eyes) to help with the visibility. ;)
|
In some cases they were very high resolution sensors too! Oh, and the best radar of its day.
But none of this excuses the appalling rearward vis from the F-35. I know, it's all to do with the lift fan. Let's hope STORVL is worth it. With all the other compromises it could seem like a compromise too far. Too late for all that now, just get the engine fixed. |
External Cockpit Visibility
The Canberra B(I)8 had the best Pilot's external visibility capability by far across the relevant types I have flown. PR9 was probably very similar.
lm |
Yes, accept that Dave, but in 40 years of operations it has dropped more bombs at low level than most other types in service today. |
True, but that just makes the point that Mel made even more impressive.
|
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil
True, but that just makes the point that Mel made even more impressive.
|
Originally Posted by kbrockman
...F4 even some might say
-RP |
Actually -
The design of what was eventually to emerge as the McDonnell F-4 Phantom began in August of 1953. The McDonnell design team was headed by Herman Barkley. Initially, the goal of the team was to extend the production life of the F3H Demon single-seat carrier-based fighter by boosting its performance and improving its versatility. Tis series of in-house designs were also known as the Model 98 series by the company) ..... On September 19, 1953, McDonnell submitted its Model 98B project to the Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) in the form of an unsolicited proposal. ..... Although the Navy was favorably impressed by the Model 98B proposal, the Grumman XF9F-9 Tiger and the Vought XF8U-1 Crusader which had been ordered respectively in April and June of 1953 appeared to satisfy all the Navy's immediate requirements for supersonic fighters. Nevertheless, the Navy encouraged McDonnell to rework its design into a single-seat, twin-engined all-weather attack aircraft to compete against designs being worked on by Grumman and North American. McDonnell submitted a formal development proposal for the F3H-G/H to the Navy in August of 1954. The Navy responded in October of 1954 by issuing a letter of intent for two prototypes and a static test aircraft. The Navy assigned the designation AH-1 to the project, reflecting its intended ground attack mission. The AH-1 was to have no less then eleven weapons pylons. Armament was to consist of four 20-mm cannon. On December 14, 1954, the multirole mission of the aircraft was formally abandoned by the Navy, and McDonnell was requested to rework the proposal as an all-weather interceptor. McDonnell was instructed to remove the cannon and all hardpoints except for a centerline pylon for a 600-US gallon fuel tank. In addition, troughs were to be added for four Raytheon Sparrow semi-active radar homing air-to-air missiles. A Raytheon-designed APQ-50 radar was added, this installation being essentially that installed in the F3H-2 Demon. A second seat was added to accommodate a radar operator. Yes - the first USN interest in, and specification for, what eventually became the F-4 Phantom II was as a competitor to the Grumman A2F (A-6) Intruder and A3J (A-5) Vigilante! FGH-3 mockup: http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...ps729cb273.jpg http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...psc3a0c6af.jpg http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...ps36c464fb.jpg |
GK121, semantics... ;) I stand by my comment, the 'F-4 wasn't designed as a bomber...'
-RP :ok: |
It's interesting, however, that the fighter that set standards for a generation emerged from such a screwed-up development process - single-seat fighter to single-seat bomber, back to two-seat all-missile interceptor with a big radar, and then to air-superiority with slats, a smaller radar and a gun. And then the last big mod program was the Israeli Kurnass 2000, which was (drum roll) a dedicated precision strike aircraft.
Of course, if you look at the history of the 737... |
LO, not forgetting the Japanese 'Kai', the German 'KWS/ICE', the Hellenic 'PI2000/AUP' and the Turkish '2020 Terminator' and 'ETM' mods, which were all significant in themselves... :)
-RP |
There were a few new-gen fighter radars, that's true... K2000 was pretty huge, though, with Popeye integration and a purpose-developed radar.
|
And the Kurnass 2000 could've been an even more significant upgrade, if the PW1120's had been included!
-RP |
Of all sad words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these, "It might have been". The PW1120 Kurnass would have been a beast. Plus, even today, most fighter radars can't do GMTI and SAR interleaved, which was the Ku-band APG-76's party trick. Not to mention Popeye...
|
Kbrock,
Apart from anything else, I do agree about fighter to bomber, bomber to fighter. F-15 is probably a better example. |
Originally Posted by Rhino power
Really? Who? The F-4 wasn't designed as a bomber which was then turned into a fighter, not by any stretch of the imagination!
-RP Courtney, I agree with the F15 (and all the others I quoted). |
LO, Turkey have the Popeye integrated on their 2020's but, I digress, this thread is about the F-35. Apologies to all for the break in coverage! :O
-RP |
Actually, all this F-4 discussion is very pertinent to the F-35! ;)
Remember this? Is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter the New F-4? How the controversial Joint Strike Fighter resembles the classic Cold War jet https://medium.com/war-is-boring/is-...4-75aee4a354bc :E I always thought comparing the F-35 to the F-4 was a complement - mainstay of a dozen nations' air power for decades, an extremely successful aircraft from carriers as well as land bases, rugged and dependable, easily upgradable through several decades, world-beating for its era, and listed by almost everyone as an all-time classic! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:38. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.