Forum: F-35 Design & Construction

I've noticed that it seems like the rear view ability of the pilot from the cockpit is quite limited compared to other fighters, i.e the F-16 and the F-15.

Am I wrong or is there a purpose in that?

F-16.net Sponsor

On the X-35 demonstrator you are absolutely right. The canopy looked much like that of the f-5 or f-20, with it squared off behind the seat. However, if you look at new pictures of the mock-up f-35 that's been showed off at the new air shows the canopy goes back and ends off in a more teardrop-esque form along the lines off an f-16/f-15. It still seems to be not quite as all-range vision friendly as the other aircraft, but the F-35 is not intended to ever need to dogfight. If it were they would have made it more agile, instead of keeping its maneuverability on par with the f-16.

See: <a href="f-16_photos_album60-page5.html">page 5 of the X-35a gallery</a> on this site.

Thanks. But just one more thing..

Quote:

the F-35 is not intended to ever need to dogfight.

I think we can never make such assumptions, and if we do those they are wrong. Take for example the case of the F-4. At the beginning it was designed without a gun, but the USAF quickly understood its mistake.

Especially since like the F-4, the Navy and Marine Corps F-35's DONT HAVE A GUN!!!

I'm pretty sure (and hoping) that they would regret, just the like the USAF and the F-4.

I understand what I made was an assumption, but it is also an assumption the Pentagon is taking.

I agree with most people here, in that I really wish they would include a gun on the CV variant. I understand them not installing one on the Stovl version, but I believe there is already a gun thread on this board, so I'm done talking about that.

I made the assumption of "not intended to dogfight," based on the lack of inclusion of newer, more advanced flight characteristics, and thrust vectoring. The military statement on why this was, is that the F-35 does not need to be more maneuverable than an F-16, as it is intended to fly in undetected, and use its advanced weapon systems to one shot, one kill. One shot, one kill is an impossible assumption to make in air to air combat.

Unlike the later addition of a gunto the F-4, the addition of thrust vectoring, etc. to the F-35 would be much more costly and complicated, and therefore less likely to happen. Also, on the topic of less likely, I don't believe it is likely that another nations air force will become strong enough or a threat in the next 20 or so years. While Russian tech has shown a lot of promise in making astounding air to air aircraft (i.e. Su-37, S-37), they do not have the ability to mass produce this level of aircraft. So, while the F-35 is not suited well for dogfighting, the age of dogfighting is long dead now, even missile toting pseudo-dogfighting included. Hence, we are looking at the sad outlook of having computers and drones do out fighting for us. (I really hate the use of drones. Casualties are a necessary part of war, you can't really gain anything if you aren't willing to risk anything. A victory is only worth as much as your heart puts in. /end off topic rant)

The F-35 may only have an offencive role in the US armed forces, although I doubt that, but most other potential users of it will use it for its defence, hence it will need to be at least as good as the Viper in a dogfight.

I believe that there will be one canopy for the conventional take off and carrier versions and a different one for the STOVL version. The STOVL version has a 'hump' to accomodate the lift fan. On the prototypes (which were both built to accomodate a lift fan in case there was an accident), it looks like this hump might cut the canopy a little short, somewhat reducing the view to the reear.

Yes, the STOVL aircraft has a shorter canopy and is obstructed by the hump for the lift fan, but the pilot will also be aided by the combination of the DAS and HMDS, so he wont be totally blind when it comes to checking his six.

The F35 CV/VSTOL version is supposed to have a gun pod much like the Harrier. Optional equipment so to speak.

EriktheF-16462 wrote:

The F35 CV/VSTOL version is supposed to have a gun pod much like the Harrier. Optional equipment so to speak.

The 30mm gun pod on the F-16 didn't work too well... but that's for another forum as to why...

Looks like they still haven't found a way to get rid of that silly canopy bow, though. It's a lot nicer in the Viper without that in the way (of course, the Eagle guys seem to think it makes BFM more difficult, since you don't have that to use as a canopy reference).

Didnt someone on here in another thread say though that the F-35 is meant to not include and HUD and be completely HMD. And the HMD will be as such that you can look straight through the air craft floor? With that kind of technology do you even need rearword visibility?

-Aaron

Also consider how the JSF is marketed. Several different partner countries. For some of those countries, if the final decision goes through, JSF will be their one "big stick". It has to do multi-role. It will be replacing F-16 in some countries which is already used for most missions.

Would like to hear from some of the real world pilots. They might have a different opinion on cockpit visibility as... sitting in the seat of an F-16, you can look around and see the afterburner can. Don't ask a crew chief. They will be happy to have less window area to clean. Razz

Pilot vision is obviously a big criteria for canopy design. On the CTOL/CV the "clear sight line" is configured to let the pilot see the ailerons in back and over the nose in front. The lift fan obstructs a lot of rear vision on STOVL, where the main criteria is the ability to see over the side to pick up a landing pad for a vertical landing.

Visibility is enhanced by use of DAS units sprinkled all over the plane, projecting images on the helmet visor.

Forum: F-35 Design & Construction

No rear view from the F-35 cockpit?