Another poorly written misleading article

“F-35 super stealth plane will get pilots shot down in aerial combat” new leaked report says

According to an article published by the Washington Times, the F-35A, the Conventional Take Off and Landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter, would be defeated in aerial combat because of his current shortcomings.

Source: http://theaviationist.com/2013/03/07/f- ... TjslBynBB9

How do these people get jobs as journalists? Next they'll be saying all fighter pilots have to wear silk scarfs.

That was like a one stop shop for bad JSF press

How hard is it to fix a new model of headrest for the chair and make it standard?

As far as the blurry / double vision, that's just another technical issue to be fixed.

As far as performance, I'm willing to believe what the majority of fighter pilots say, not just 1 pilot.

1 test pilot does not give a very good overall picture, hearing what each test pilot says about the F-35 and summing up the results is what matters.

Most test pilots have very good things to say about the F-35 and it's kinematics, I'm willing to believe the majority of them over 1 pilot.

If have read correctly the bulges behind the cockpit of the F-35B are 'replicated' by the restricted view headrest of the other variants so as to keep the view the same in all variants. Similarly the cockpit of all variants is the same except for one switch (HOOK or Convert to STOVL). Yes the F-35A and F-35C have hooks but not the F-35B. BEAT ME UP IF I AM WRONG.

spazsinbad wrote:If have read correctly the bulges behind the cockpit of the F-35B are 'replicated' by the restricted view headrest of the other variants so as to keep the view the same in all variants. Similarly the cockpit of all variants is the same except for one switch (HOOK or Convert to STOVL). Yes the F-35A and F-35C have hooks but not the F-35B. BEAT ME UP IF I AM WRONG.

For greater similarity between A, B & C you'd think the B would have a hook. Also, it would allow a slow rolling landing to get trapped. Maybe though, there would be a problem of the thrust blasting downwards and the hook being extended at the same time.

Being the only difference I guess one can complain. However the two hooks are very different for very different functions. Perhaps we should specify that for commonality the A & C models should have a LiftFan? The F-35B does not need to be beefed up in either the A or C case model Hooks for a hook. Go figure.

Mr.AXE did some research to read the report (which I did also but promptly forgot as is my wont). But anyway the AXEman Knows ALL. Talk about full of it... It also makes the mistake of referring some times to the student pilots as TEST pilots to give them more credibility. I use IT because I'm not sure of the identity of the AXEperson.

Test Pilots: Stealth Jet’s Blind Spot Will Get It ‘Gunned Every Time’ By David Axe 07 Mar 2013

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03 ... lind-spot/

"...The limitations of the F-35?s canopy are a “partially a result of designing a common pilot escape system [a.k.a. ejection seat] for all three variants to the requirements of the short-take-off and vertical landing environment.” In other words, the Joint Strike Fighter’s windshield is constrained by the need to fit a standard ejection seat and the downward-facing engine of the Marine Corps variant, which allows that model to take off and land vertically and is located directly behind the cockpit...."

QUOTE from page 18 of the OUE Report page 18: http://pogoarchives.org/straus/ote-info ... 130215.pdf (0.8Mb)

".In three cases, student pilots explicitly cited visibility-related impacts that could be directly applicable to the Block 1A syllabus (a largely benign visual search environment); several other implicitly did so. One student pilot commented, “Difficult to see [other aircraft in the visual traffic] pattern due to canopy bow.” Another stated, “Staying visual with wingman during tactical formation maneuvering a little tougher than legacy due to reduced rearward visibility from cockpit.”

Three student pilot comments predicted severe impacts of the visibility shortfalls in combat or in training of a more tactical nature. One said, “A pilot will find it nearly impossible to check [their six o’clock position] under g.” Another commented, “The head rest is too large and will impede aft visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements,” and, “Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned every time,” referring to close-range visual combat.

Aft visibility could turn out to be a significant problem for all F-35 pilots in the future, especially in more tactical phases of combat training than were conducted in the OUE, such as basic fighter maneuvering (BFM) and air combat maneuvering (ACM), and possibly in tactical formation as well. It remains to be seen whether or not, in these more advanced aspects of training, the visibility issues will rise to the level of safety issues, or if, instead, the visibility limitations are something that pilots adapt to over time and with more experience. Unlike legacy aircraft such as the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18, enhanced cockpit visibility was not designed into the F-35. There is no simple relief to limitations of the F-35 cockpit visibility. In all likelihood, it is partially a result of designing a common pilot escape system for all three variants to the requirements of the short-take-off and vertical landing environment...."

I'll repeat - the A-4 had no rearward visibility but somehow managed to survive for a very long time. What?

And I'll repeat that Gen. Bogdan has said a few times now that technical issues will be or are being fixed so not to worry (he has other worries well expounded by now) so all this B/S about 'visibility behind' is just well as I'll repeat myself again B/S.

kiwidingo wrote:

spazsinbad wrote:If have read correctly the bulges behind the cockpit of the F-35B are 'replicated' by the restricted view headrest of the other variants so as to keep the view the same in all variants. Similarly the cockpit of all variants is the same except for one switch (HOOK or Convert to STOVL). Yes the F-35A and F-35C have hooks but not the F-35B. BEAT ME UP IF I AM WRONG.

For greater similarity between A, B & C you'd think the B would have a hook. Also, it would allow a slow rolling landing to get trapped. Maybe though, there would be a problem of the thrust blasting downwards and the hook being extended at the same time.

How do you put a hook on underneath a pivoting nozzle?

Three student pilot comments predicted severe impacts of the visibility shortfalls in combat or in training of a more tactical nature. One said, “A pilot will find it nearly impossible to check [their six o’clock position] under g.” Another commented, “The head rest is too large and will impede aft visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements,” and, “Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned every time,” referring to close-range visual combat.

With the HMD, the ability to display imagery from directly behind the aircraft, and the fact that the plane itself knows exactly what is behind you, what they hell are they complaining about?

Why isn't the image from all sides of the plane beamed into the HMD?

Shouldn't the pilot be able to see through the floor and any part that is covered up?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... eaked.html
Even worse "journalism" and 99% of the comments are nothing short of spectacular...

count_to_10 wrote:

kiwidingo wrote:

spazsinbad wrote:If have read correctly the bulges behind the cockpit of the F-35B are 'replicated' by the restricted view headrest of the other variants so as to keep the view the same in all variants. Similarly the cockpit of all variants is the same except for one switch (HOOK or Convert to STOVL). Yes the F-35A and F-35C have hooks but not the F-35B. BEAT ME UP IF I AM WRONG.

For greater similarity between A, B & C you'd think the B would have a hook. Also, it would allow a slow rolling landing to get trapped. Maybe though, there would be a problem of the thrust blasting downwards and the hook being extended at the same time.

How do you put a hook on underneath a pivoting nozzle?

I was imagining the hook's arm extending down from the belly enough so that the actual hook was under the nozzle. Then the pilot could put his marshmallow on the end of it!

I would reckon the hook would need to be upside down for that to be effective. See Navy News 08 Sep 1978 cartoony. That is why these chaps had some issues.

I notice that there is some competent voices (on this board) missing in the debate of the importance of visibility vs. technology. (With the exeption of Spaz) Ask yourselfs why. The pilots that are now are voicing concern about this issue is being ridiculed by a lot of people as well as the journalist who writes about it. Are these pilots rookies? No. They are elite pilots, choosen to give the implementation of the F-35 a good start in the U.S Air Force. Pilots with plenty of hours in the F-16. Should we listen to their concerns? No no, not according to the experts on F-16.net. Do you guys believe that these pilots are ignorant of the fact that some systems are not operational yet?

And I say again these pilots have minimal experience in the F-35 and are voicing rookie (in the F-35) concerns. They are not test pilots. They are test trainee pilots for sure but there is a distinction.

Otherwise the test pilots know a lot more about the aircraft in theory and in practice than the newbies quoted. Figure this out for yourself. What if these same pilots could otherwise only come out with some glowing reports on their experience. And this has happened (but not about the specific recent points - I guess because no one asked them specifically) with the initial cadre of test pilots being denigrated for being shills for LM or worse. This is the silliness of it all. I recall reading some of these criticisms in long ago articles about the F-35 (especially the visibility issue) but with the acknowledgement that the DAS, HMDS II and vHUD will compensate.

I ridicule journalists who display their ignorance when they are pretending to be experts. It is clear to me that they are not. It is all negative coverage when of course the real world suggests that there is good and bad. So let us see them also say something about the good. Clear?