What?, it's bad news because the eodas isn't in block 1a or that there are no effectiveness, suitability or safety response that would prohibit continuation of transitioning experienced pilots in the F-35A Block 1A.1 transition and instructor pilot syllabus.

The previous delays are bad news and it would be bad news if this was block 3 and eodas wasn't intergrated

It's bad news because it's an airshow jet.

block 1a isn't even an air show jet, it's less than that

This is a problem of expectations.

When the F-22 was designed it was as a fighter, so even though a bubble stealth canopy is difficult and expensive, it got one. When the F-35 was designed iit was as a bomb truck, so in the same manner as the F-117 the lower cost option was taken at the expense of visibility.

Unfortunately the F-35 has increasingly been sold as the equivalent or superior to the current 4th generation fighters, so the expectation of the pilots is that it will have the same visibility - which it hasn't.

The problem is to either scale back the expectations of the pilots - which I would now adjudge an impossible task, or improve the visibility - a politically/financial impossibility.

Not sure where they go from here.

F-22 vs F-35 canopies

http://www.airforce-technology.com/u...e99531/4-4.jpg http://www.armedforces-int.com/uploa...-cockpit-b.jpg

The F-35's "bubble canopy" is the eodas, heck it's even a floor canopy full 360deg

except it doesn't work...

nope it doesn't work in block 1a, infact I don't even think it's fitted
block 2a is flying with the test pilots and will be cleared this year, that might be better

I think that Raptor's HUD must get in the way - it's right in his line of sight.

I would say that it also depends on your background as a pilot when it comes to your perception of how much of an issue items like the canopy arch are.

If you are used to having one (ex-Harrier pilot) then it is a less of a problem to you than if you are not used to having one (F-16 Pilot).

It's a similar story with other non-electrically augmented vision issues: a Tornado pilot would probably think the visibility is great, even without DAS, compared to a GR4, whereas a Typhoon pilot may have a different opinion.

There is a part translation (how good I do not know) on F-16.net but anyway here is the URL:

- Det går sakte men sikkert fremover - regjeringen.no 21 Feb Partner Presentation

One para 'translated': ..."- We see that progress with the helmet is now so good that [they/we] are likely to go back to one solution at the next major milestone in April, and [they/we] will then scrap the backup solution which began its work last year. A Lightning Protection solution has now been agreed on and restrictions on flights in thunder storms will be lifted in 2015, concurrently with software version "2B" being installed in the aircraft. This is the software the U.S. Marine Corps will be operational with in 2015, and where shortly after the use of F-35 in hot military operations if necessary. The development of software in general, where we previously saw a backlog has now been dealt with [caught up on], and the development of Block 2B software is now on track to be installed in 2015. This shows that the measures taken just months back, are now showing results, says Klever...."

Some graphics on the website tell 'costs' stories....
_____________________

Google Translation (Norwegian to English) of the same page as above:

Google Translate

Yeah, it does, and does well. The ONLY areas where the helmet is currently coming up short now is in minor jitter and latency at the extremes, fixes for which have been bench-tested and are due to go to flight test soon.

JSF Rearward visibility issues fixed by simple but innovative solution from our Dutch friends;
http://www.geenstijl.nl/archives/ima...itkijkspiegels

Yeah but it does not have twin overhead chromed dipsticks. :=

A pity that a pair of oversized dice hanging from the canopy arch would increase the radar signature. They would look really manly!

This is from the Washington Post this morning - it gives both pro and con and leaves it up to the reader to decide. The only question answered seems to be that nobody can afford the F35....

F-35’s ability to evade budget cuts illustrates challenge of paring defense spending - The Washington Post

That's the trouble when know-nothing journalists try to be a defence writer
Hatchet Job on the Potomac: The Washington Post Fails Its Readers | SLDInfo

....and ultimately "know nothing" politicians make fiscal/policy/defence decisions, and usually don't stick around long enough to live with the consequences - it's called democracy!

What's worse is when these know-nothing politicians over-ride defence force planners and system evaluators recommendations for a great headline and photo op

....yup, that's democracy for you alright!!

Was "up to F-16 rearward vis standard" in the requirements documnet?

I find the use of the word "discovered" suspect.

I will strongly suggest to you that this issue was raised years ago during CDR (at the latest) and the engineering and funcitonal issues and compromises were both accepted by the program office.

I remember over 30 years ago all of the talk about how new and magic the F-18 was going to be compared to the A-7 or the F-4.

Good plane, but it wasn't perfect, and it wasn't magic.