Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

232 comments

Air Wolf (4, Funny)

Cytlid (95255) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314319)

And you thought Air Wolf had badass headgear.

  You'll have all the kids thinking "Is Air Wolf a new game for the wii???".

Re:Air Wolf (1)

GammaKitsune (826576) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314363)

Hey, it could hit the virtual console.

Re:Air Wolf (2, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314839)

Too bad it's not virtual.

Instead, you can look "cool" while committing war crimes - you know, like Guernica. [wikipedia.org]

Let's bomb Mommies and their babies into hamburger. Their standing over our oil.

Re:Air Wolf (1)

GammaKitsune (826576) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315001)

That's cool. You're a cool guy. Hold on a second.

Re:Air Wolf (1)

nicolastheadept (930317) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315095)

Wrong: its a stealth-strike fighter, not for carpet bombing.

Re:Air Wolf (1)

aktzin (882293) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314465)

My skydiving instructor, whose last name is Wolfe, has a sticker on his helmet that says "Airwolfe". He was amused that I got the reference (the show was on when I was in high school).

My what big eyes you've got (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21314671)

... all the better for helping me drop bombs on women and children

Re:Air Wolf (1)

finkployd (12902) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315313)

I'd buy it, but for the life of me the only real use I can think for the Wii controller would be for when Stringfellow Hawke plays the cello in his secluded mountain cabin.

Finkployd

Slashdotted? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314347)

One comment, and already slashdotted? Wow, that's fast!

Re:Slashdotted? (1)

realdodgeman (1113225) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314385)

Seems like more people are RTFA than you would think is normal on slashdot :)

Re:Slashdotted? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21314503)

It's only /. posters who don't bother to RTFAs.

Re:Slashdotted? (5, Informative)

echucker (570962) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314783)

Because it's really not a FA at all... It's a blog that links to an article. Would it kill the editors to actually link to a story, instead of just bump up joehaveablog's hit counter?

Re:Slashdotted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21314795)

Clicking the link != actually reading the FA

Re:Slashdotted? (1)

G Fab (1142219) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314409)

I don't think it's surprising that the top article on slashdot is getting the most traffic.

It might be odd that a server is overrun quickly, but if it's going to get slashdotted, it's going to happen when it's a newer story.

Re:Slashdotted? (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314589)

Guess the UK needs a trillion-dollar defense budget too...

Re:Slashdotted? (1)

JackMeyhoff (1070484) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315077)

UK is great at inventions but sucks at following the up. Invisible tanks, USA will take it and give it to Israel and then capitalise on it just as they did the steam train, faster than sound jet and so on. All British inventions but stolen by the US. The same will happen to this.

Enough is enough! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21314351)

I am sick of this Terminator-like and Star Wars-like technology. When do we get the actual Terminators and Tie Fighters?

I call shenanigans! They want us to believe that this is futuristic technology yet they take away the droids and killbots.

Re:Enough is enough! (0)

djmurdoch (306849) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314559)

When do we get the actual Terminators and Tie Fighters?

Pretty soon, although Skynet is having launch problems. [bbc.co.uk]

This Isn't New (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21314357)

I worked on a military aircraft program, and we had the same thing. A head-tracking helmet that displayed the video to the pilot and had an imposed an outline of the aircraft so you knew where you were looking.

This is really just new packaging of an old idea.

Re:This Isn't New (1)

Provocateur (133110) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314419)

Yes, but the earlier models didn't come with Menacing Voice(TM) tech; they just played 'These aren't the droids we're looking for!' over and over.

army? (5, Informative)

TrappedByMyself (861094) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314373)

which kinda makes you wish you were in the army

So you could admire the cool helmets the Air Force, Navy, and Marine pilots have?

Re:army? (3, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314809)

which kinda makes you wish you were in the army

W's trying to lour us geeks into Iraq with cool gadgets. What's next, a Beowulf cluster of Linux tanks and a night with Natalie P.?
       

Re:army? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21314863)

W's trying to lour us geeks into Iraq with cool gadgets. What's next, a Beowulf cluster of Linux tanks and a night with Natalie P.?

but leave looking like goatse
     

Re:army? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21315037)

Considering this is a UK piece and the F-35 is set to replace their ARMY's Harrier then it does make sense and you just look like a dumbass.

but the British Army doesn't fly Harriers... (3, Informative)

fantomas (94850) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315089)

...except that the British Army doesn't fly Harriers: check here for what the Army Air Corps flies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_Kingdom_military_aircraft [wikipedia.org] ... only the RAF (the Air Force) and Fleet Air Arm (the branch of the Royal Navy responsible for the operation of the aircraft on board their ships) fly Harriers.

Re:army? (1, Informative)

nicolastheadept (930317) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315205)

No, the F-35 is more of a stealth fighter than the Harrier, which is actually being replaced by the Eurofighter Typhoon. BAE is in-fact involved in the development of the F-35 as well.

Considering this is a UK piece and the F-35 is set to replace their ARMY's Harrier then it does make sense and you just look like a dumbass.
Remember the air force fly planes, and the army drive tanks!

The scenic view (4, Interesting)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314375)

Seeing right through their own aircraft fuselage to the ground below...
How many pilots will get vertigo the first time they look down thru their seats at the ground zipping by a few thousand feet below? I would. Will the masks include organic fluid caching and isolation?

Re:The scenic view (2, Informative)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314399)

The ground doesn't zip when it is a few thousand feet below, even at mach 2. You need to be close for that effect.

Re:The scenic view (4, Funny)

EaglemanBSA (950534) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314417)

Good point though, my brother is an airline pilot, but he's terrified of heights. He's fine, as long as he can't look down.

Re:The scenic view (1)

eMartin (210973) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314615)

Something tells me that would be a problem when trying to become a pilot.

Personally, I am terrified when at the edge of a bridge or the roof of a building, but love flying and I have no problem looking straight down when in plane or helicopter. I guess for me it's more of a fear of falling.

Re:The scenic view (1)

yada21 (1042762) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314739)

Well not really, if you can look down from an airliner cockpit, you're either banking quite steep, or diving too steep.

Re:The scenic view (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314797)

Something tells me that would be a problem when trying to become a pilot.

Personally, I am terrified when at the edge of a bridge or the roof of a building, but love flying and I have no problem looking straight down when in plane or helicopter. I guess for me it's more of a fear of falling.


Not really. I am extremely afraid of heights but have flown supersonic jets and jumped out of a/c; it's all a matter of surroundings.

Re:The scenic view (2, Interesting)

dshk (838175) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315425)

You fear of instability. An aircraft is stable. If you sit in it in a seat you are in a stable situation. I haven't tried it but I guess even if you jump out of it with a parachute you feel safe, because the parachute and you together make a stable system (you can assume that you eventually open it, it opens successfully etc.). On the other hand if you stand on a 1 meter tall table you fear because you are in a physically instable position.

Re:The scenic view (1)

Charcharodon (611187) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315281)

Well that's probably why you aren't a pilot.

Besides at those altitudes the whole concept of ground and heights becomes more of a theoretical concept rather than a butt puckering reality. You know you are heigh up, but most of your references you're used to associating with hieghts are gone. Same goes for speed. 150mph seems like impending doom behind the wheel of a car. 600mph at 10,000ft seems like a leisurely pace.

Army? (3, Informative)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314377)

"... which kinda makes you wish you were in the army."


The Army flies helicopters, not fixed-wing aircraft.

Re:Army? (1)

G Fab (1142219) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314391)

He is saying that the helmet is intimidating, so the Army joke means he is going away from the helmet.

Re:Army? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21314507)

So are you going to be the one to tell the Army's C-12 and C-23 pilots that they are really in the Air Force?

Re:Army? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21315419)

No, but someone really should tell them the wings aren't fixed on their craft anymore. They would probably be interested to know.

The memories! (2, Funny)

StarfishOne (756076) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314381)

And you thought Air Wolf had badass headgear.

Thank you for that bit of nostalgia! Now I'm browsing YouTube for cool startup sequences and intro's of AirWolf again! :)

What can I say more? Dom, give me the turbo's! :D

Re:The memories! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314463)

While as a kid, I loved Airwolf, looking back I cannot really say I do anymore. I mean, yes, it was the 80s, it was campy as hell, but it also has the rather interesting aftertaste of being a Bellisario show. When you look down this man's production list, which includes gems such as JAG, NCIS and Baa Baa Black Sheep, you have to wonder whether his primary concern is to make shows or whether he got his production money out of the DOD's propaganda funds.

Re:The memories! (1)

crankyspice (63953) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314747)

] ] And you thought Air Wolf had badass headgear.

] Thank you for that bit of nostalgia! Now I'm browsing YouTube for cool startup sequences and intro's of AirWolf again! :)

If you watch the episode Moffett's Ghost, you'll learn Airwolf was programmed in AppleSoft BASIC.

Re:The memories! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21315147)

After you're done, maybe you can browse a dictionary and learn the mind-bending fact that you don't pluralize with an apostrophe. I mean at least be consistent in your stupidity; why didn't you write sequence's?

+2 to fear bonus (1, Insightful)

spineboy (22918) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314383)

Just the thought of me being bombed or chased by someTHING that looked like this would make me think twice about it. That helmet looks fricken evil. If it's ever used {I really should say when if GWB :-( is still at the helm}, then advance patrols should drop paper flyers with the image of the fighters helmet on it, saying that these creatures will be bombing you - fear tactics.

Re:+2 to fear bonus (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21314903)

If it's ever used {I really should say when if GWB
Not to play devil's advocate... but why does GWB have anything to do with the Royal Air Force's helmets?

good point (1)

spineboy (22918) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315015)

I imagine that the US will also get something like this as well. The US and Britain also seem to be running hand in hand together thoughout most of the worlds conflicts anyway, and thus he could be egging Britain on, or vise versa.

Re:good point (1)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315161)

I've been seeing this article everywhere and the thing that strikes me as odd is this is being developed mostly by the US but the article just kind of glosses over that.

Cool designs... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314387)

So what's wrong with the cool '80s retro look of Air Wolf?

Earlier ... (4, Informative)

foobsr (693224) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314389)

http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/10/new-helmet-allows-fighter-pilots-to-peer-through-the-jet/ [engadget.com]

engadget, CA - 23 hours ago
No, the headgear in the photo above wasn't some unused prototype created for The Terminator; rather, it's a snazzy new helmet designed to give fighter ...

CC.

Re:Earlier ... (1)

Imaria (975253) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314439)

Mod parent informative; since TFA is slashdotted, this is the only way we'd see this.

Re:Earlier ... (1, Funny)

foobsr (693224) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314495)

OK, I rephrase so that the average intellect may get a grip.

A picture of the device can be found here: http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/10/new-helmet-allows-fighter-pilots-to-peer-through-the-jet/ [engadget.com]

The link given in the summary is slashdotted, which means that there are too many hits for the server to cope with. A server, in this context ... WTF

CC.

Re:Earlier ... (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314827)

Good God, cyborg cat people! And I thot W was against human-animal hybrids.
     

Re:Earlier ... (3, Informative)

stu72 (96650) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315139)

Way earlier.. in fact, the original source material:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=492631&in_page_id=1965&ito=1490 [dailymail.co.uk]

Why not just link to that in the first place?

Reading 18 blog summaries to just get back to the original story is ridiculous. If you want to credit the guy who happened to tip you off, by all means, but stop wasting our time, link to the original article.

And then of course there's the old saw about how blogs will replace newspapers - interesting that their original material often seems to come from them.

I'm sure I'll get flamed with comments like, "but what about the blog writers ad revenue stream - how dare you cheat him out of his living!" - bullshit. What exactly is the blog writer adding to the equation here that entitles him to anything? The Daily mail reporter found & wrote the story, got quotes, graphics & photos and did the layout. The blog writer said, "Hey, this is cool, check it out". Or more likely said, "hey, check out what my blog buddy said about what his blog buddy said about what his blog buddy said about what his blog buddy said about this cool article in the newspaper"

hilarious.

Re:Earlier ... (1)

ms1234 (211056) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315151)

The green eyes are somewhat freaky :P Spooked me the first time I saw the picture.

It might even useful for a few years (3, Insightful)

Fear the Clam (230933) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314441)

Within a couple of decades using a fighter aircraft with a human inside will be as quaint as using a missile with pigeons as the guidance system [wikipedia.org] .

Re:It might even useful for a few years (2, Insightful)

vanadium213 (576524) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314611)

Right, I am surprised that we are not moving more quickly in this direction right now. An unmanned fighter could do way crazier acrobatics than one with a fragile human in it, could stay in flight far longer (with in flight refuelings) and probably be better at a lot of other things I cannot think of right now.

We need small unmanned robotic subs also.

slashdotted already? (3, Informative)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314489)

So pilots in these aircraft won't have as many blindspots as are in current aircraft? Are they planning on using this on current aircraft or as an add-on to future ones because I thought the F-22 Raprtor was the last plane in future production that actually had a pilot rather than a UAV type craft or was that just for testing?

Re:slashdotted already? (1)

serene_byte (1187541) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314573)

TFA said it was designed to work with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter now in production which does in fact have a pilot.

cosmetic appeal (2, Insightful)

xPsi (851544) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314539)

The functionality of this helmet is impressive, but I do take issue with the idea that because it looks good (does it?) it "kinda makes you wish you were in the army." There are potentially a lot of reasons to want to be in the military, but the way a helmet LOOKs should NOT be one of them.

Re:cosmetic appeal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21314585)

Mod parent (-1, Takeslifetooseriously)

Re:cosmetic appeal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21314815)

Buddy, its called a JOKE. The editor didn't really mean it.

Re:cosmetic appeal (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314877)

There are potentially a lot of reasons to want to be in the military, but the way a helmet LOOKs should NOT be one of them.


I think you didn't get the idea in the assertion "it kinda makes you wish you were in the army"


That was meant for actual Air Force pilots who know that, if they were in the Army, they wouldn't have to wear those helmets...

Re:cosmetic appeal (1)

xPsi (851544) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314985)

Ahh. Right. Damn. Mod my origional post -1 notpayingattention.

Not just the UK (1, Troll)

Dolphinzilla (199489) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314543)

kind of a weird tag line - but basically the US built Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) which the UK is buying has this feature for all the pilots that are lucky enough to get to fly this beast - most cool - although it might be a good ticket to air sickness :-)

Re:Not just the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21314741)

I dunno... In some games, the aircraft cockpit just gets in the way. Fly sim combat with equally skilled pilots. Have one where the interior has to be on vs. one where look-through or outside mode is allowed... Who will come ahead more often than not? I think the concept is just an extention of that.

But with virtualization of visibility to this extent, it shouldn't be too long where the pilot doesn't need to actually ride in the aircraft to proficiently control it. Next step would be to move a whole bunch of virtual cockpits into a command and control aircraft. It would be close to theater for low latency, utilize spread spectrum encrypted signal tech. to keep the jamming problem low, and the drone planes being controled by the squadron of operators on the CC aircraft could do manuevers that would turn human pilots into red-fleshy-goo.

pfft (4, Funny)

Digitus1337 (671442) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314595)

Jerks have been using these things in first person shooters for years.

Yes but... (1)

haeger (85819) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314603)

...couldn't they have used a more sinister look. Now the pilot just look surprised. "Hey, cool, I can see my house from here!".
The tech is cool though.

.haeger

The Pressing Question (2, Insightful)

RabidMonkey (30447) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314613)

Since when do 'The Terrorists' have fighters?

With the cold war over, and the major super powers having no one to have air battles with, is it really necessary to spend huge amounts of money to fight an enemy that doesn't exist? I mean, back in the Cold War, it made sense-ish, but since the current battle is against "terror", and "terror" doesn't have an air force ...

Granted - the technology is cool, and it's good to have somewhere to spend money to research tools like this, which I'm sure have other, less militaristic uses, but why should military spending dictate research?

Or is the world planning to gang up on China, and just not telling us?

Re:The Pressing Question (5, Funny)

GammaKitsune (826576) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314699)

If Civilization has taught me nothing, it's that you should always upgrade your military technology as much as possible, even when you don't seem to need it. Also, Gandhi is a huge jerk.

Re:The Pressing Question (4, Insightful)

Thirdsin (1046626) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314971)

With the cold war over, and the major super powers having no one to have air battles with, is it really necessary to spend huge amounts of money to fight an enemy that doesn't exist? I mean, back in the Cold War, it made sense-ish, but since the current battle is against "terror", and "terror" doesn't have an air force ...

It's not so much about getting ready for war, as it is deterrence. Making sure the potential aggressor is aware of the risk so that he refrains from aggression. (See Iran). You don't need another cold war for a reason to have bigger guns than the next guy...

Re:The Pressing Question (4, Insightful)

wjsteele (255130) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314997)

With the cold war over, and the major super powers having no one to have air battles with


Right... whenever you have more than one country who thinks they are a superpower, you have a good chance that there will be a war.

A good country that want's to remain around needs to have a strong defense. Just because the current battlefield isn't so obvious doesn't mean the next one won't be.

Bill

Re:The Pressing Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21315125)

With the cold war over

major super powers having no

is it really necessary ... ?

why should military spending dictate research?
I dunno, lets ask China [wikipedia.org] !

Re:The Pressing Question (2, Insightful)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315189)

why should military spending dictate research?
You prepare for the war you are going to fight, not for the war you are fighting.

The whole point of having such badass weapons is so the US can strike when and where it chooses. It is part of the military's doctrine to take action rather than react.

Link to original article (5, Informative)

SpectreBlofeld (886224) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314673)

Link to the original Daily Mail article: The Terminator-style helmets that allow fighter pilots to see through their planes [dailymail.co.uk]

  Note to submitters and Slashdot editors: Don't link to blogs. They get Slashdotted.

  It's especially shiatty when a blogger doesn't even provide a link to the article he's pulling his text and images from.

  Interesting how the blogger switched the referenced Schwarzenegger character of choice from The Terminator to the Predator in his 'article' to make it appear as original content.

This is just silly (1, Insightful)

popo (107611) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314683)

The weak link in this weapon is the human. Get him/her out of the plane altogether.

Re:This is just silly (2, Insightful)

Denis Troller (1002792) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315109)

The weak link in this weapon is the human. Get him/her out of the plane altogether.

I wonder why this makes me think of
- Do you want to play Chess?
- No, I want to play global thermonuclear war.

terrified (1)

ConcreteJungle (1177207) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314687)

yaaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhhh!

another photo (2, Informative)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314731)

http://www.rockwellcollins.com/news/page8813.html [rockwellcollins.com]

Clicky for bigness.

Re:another photo (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315013)

Completely different picture. It looks like a very annoyed electronic pig.

Band aid for a greater problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21314733)

Pilots are obsolete now, giving them expensive helmets isn't going to fix that fact.

cant see through clothes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21314757)

who cares.

Link to original article (4, Insightful)

davidoff404 (764733) | more than 5 years ago | (#21314901)

Instead of driving up the ad revenue on some asshat's (now slashdotted) blog, how about we link to the original article in the newspaper?

The Terminator-style helmets that allow fighter pilots to see through their planes [dailymail.co.uk]

Re:Link to original article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21315409)

If you're like me and it seems to take about a week to load the actual picture, it was in the "Day in pictures" on FRIDAY on BBC's website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7087000.stm [bbc.co.uk]

(see picture #4)

This technology is fatally flawed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21314927)

The increased vision is comes with the downside that the pilots can no longer communicate as all anyone hears is a series of pops and clicks.

Hobbes! The Kilrathi are attacking... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21315055)

Get back to the Concordia...

Yeah ... (1)

JackMeyhoff (1070484) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315061)

.. X-Ray vision and they say LOOK DOWN hmmm, I would rather not.

"Let him go!" (1)

cryptogryphon (547264) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315063)

"Stay on the leader!"

Re:"Let him go!" (1)

nicolastheadept (930317) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315345)

I have you now!

predator? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21315133)

looks more like a "marvin-the-martian" style helmet to me.

Subject far more complex than it seems (0, Offtopic)

franois-do (547649) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315167)

True, restituting in front of you the image of what is behind you, though not perfectly, is quite seducing and does provide one of the best possible camouflages, much better than the static ones.

But..

... the problem is that if you do it in only one direction, you can only fool people who are exactly in that direction. If you have to face a battlefront which extends on many miles, it just cannot work anymore.

Unless you get multidirectional lenses and multidirectional LCDs (or whatever), which looks like a very different problem, one for which we do not seem to have solutions (but of course if the militaries have a solution, they will not shout it in the streets ;-) )

What is the point? (1)

spectrokid (660550) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315211)

In almost all current attacks nowadays, you have a few high-tech stealth planes taking radars out, followed by (often weeks) of bomb delivery with almost no danger from the ground. When did a you last hear about a fighter going in a dog fight at supersonic speeds? Is there a point in making anything better than a F16? Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on making a cheap fighter plane? Make it slow, robust,non-picky for landing conditions and fuel. Any weapons platform will cost less if it doesnt have to work supersonic...

Re:What is the point? (3, Interesting)

smitth1276 (832902) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315399)

That's the whole point of the JSF... cost effectiveness. It is one modular plane with 3 variants: a traditional fighter, a STOVL marine version, and a more rugged carrier version with a hook, etc. It is designed to be one plane that can be produced for all branches (hence the term "Joint" Strike Fighter), which will lower production costs. It will replace pretty much every fighter-like aircraft in use, except for the F-22.

This plane will be the "high-tech stealth plane" taking radars out. And if it is ever engaged in a dog-fight at supersonic speeds, the pilot has done something wrong. They almost didn't even put a gun on it (only one variant got a gun, IIRC), because it is meant to take out threats WELL before they are visible.

One more thing, supersonic speeds are essential for combat aircraft... they have to get in and hit targets before anyone hears them coming (have you never been to an airshow where they do a low supersonic pass?). Supersonic capability itself isn't all that expensive... supercruising capability is more expensive, and JSF doesn't do that.

Re:What is the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21315483)

It's not about current threats, it's about anticipating future threats. Better to have it and not need it, and all that. The western nations are not the only ones working on very advanced fighters -- so are the Chinese [wikipedia.org] and Russians [wikipedia.org] .

And there is a fielded "cheap" fighter plane -- the Predator [wikipedia.org] . It's subsonic and very flexible.

The F35 will have this also... (1)

smitth1276 (832902) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315253)

I can't see the article, but the Joint Strike Fighter (F35) will have this capability as well. There are multiple DAS cams looking in pretty much every direction, and that imagery (or IR, etc) can be synthesized into a single large image and piped into the HMD, giving the illusion of seeing "through the plane". One cool thing about the JSF is that the computer will mask out the part of the image that would occlude the touchscreen multi-function display, so the pilot can ALWAYS see the important stuff in front of him/her.

shit (1)

naticus (615655) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315257)

airwolf, my ass. wonderwoman didn't need no stupid helmet.

Actually... (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315291)

It sounds more like the "see-through" cockpit of the YF-19 [wikipedia.org] in Macross Plus.

Bad Title. (1)

WK2 (1072560) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315295)

The summary title is wrong. According to the article, this allows "pillots" to see through planes, not pilots.

Old Tech (3, Informative)

kunwon1 (795332) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315393)

US Pilots have had this for a few years at least, it's called JHMCS, Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/jhmcs.htm [globalsecurity.org]

No, it isn't... it's new. (1)

smitth1276 (832902) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315447)

The JHMCS you linked to is a HMD projected HUD with visual targeting, off-axis target symbology, etc. The one going on the JSF has all of that (except maybe for the targeting), but it also allows the pilot to look straight through the plane, and see the ground or other objects that would normally be occluded by the airframe. This is only possible because of the JSF's DAS cams, which are synthesized into a single image and piped into the HMD... other planes don't have those, to my knowledge, so they could never have that ability.

Makes you see the world like the Terminator eh? (1)

Weaps (642924) | more than 5 years ago | (#21315405)

So will the pilot also see an old COBOL program scrolling up in the lower left of the display like the Terminator's did?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...