Forum: F-35 Design & Construction

I think Aaron has a point, upgrades to the tecknology may make the "old school" reer view obsolete. That, and the fact that each varient will be customized for its own individual mision, not quite a fighter, not quite an attacker. DAS is also a big upgrade.

F-16.net Sponsor

mconi wrote:

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.

SHACK!!! Absolutely CORRECT. When you look deep six, there is no jet. You feel as though you are flying in nothing. You look at your lap, and you see the ground under you. You cannot see the bar either. The only thing you see are the MFDs. AWESOME!!! Lata!

All I think about when I read about the "look through the cockpit" stuff is the spatial D that is going to happen when you see nothing around you....

My Two Cents

: The canopy bow is not a big deal - yes it is wonderful to not have it in the Viper, I've gone blind in a fight in the AT-38 b/c the guy went behind the canopy bow in high aspect and I lost him at the merge - turned out bad for me. But, it can help with BFM if you need that kind of crutch to make things happen. It also gives you better protection in the event of a canopy loss EP. If I had my choice, I'd rather not have one, but I don't know if the limiting factor is that it is much more expensive to do the Viper thing or if it makes it harder to have a low RCS. You'll have to talk to an engineer for that.

Rear vis... amazing in a Viper - but probably better in an Eagle. They don't have a "canopy bow" behind them like we do, so that's a factor, but it is easier to see behind you with a reclined seat. It looks like the AF version has a canopy similar to that of an Eagle. Everything is trade-offs when it comes to a/c design and what the designers look at is the mission. Is it worth the extra money to give the JSF a bubble canopy like the Viper, or is what the Eagle has good enough? What's more important, lower RCS or rear vis? What other a/c (F-22) are going to be around to support this jet?

I think when you look at the big picture of the JSF - they decided that it wasn't going to be this awesome a/a machine like the F-22. It was going to be primarily an attack jet that can penetrate heavily defended areas, and the need for BFM was not a huge priority. It needed to be able to hold it's own, but not be the best. Kinda like the Viper and it's relative capability to the Eagle in BVR engagements. The Viper isn't supposed to have to do it on it's own, but if it needs to it can, just not as well.

Damn... I write too much when I've had a few... sorry guys.

I wondered the same thing about spatial D, but when I was in the F-35 sim wearing the JHMCS, it really wasn't that bad. The plan on incorporating certain visual cues (ie: horizon lines/pitch ladder) that will reduce this. Note also in the sim I was pulling no real g and it was completely motionless. It was a beaut. doing strikes using the TGP and SEAD/DEAD. For SEAD/DEAD, it was a dream!!! You hit the nail on the head when discussing its role in the "Big Picture". It cost tooo much to have everything and the focus of the JSF is LOW COST. Hence the shortcomings... (transonic speed/transition etc...). When it comes to penetration(sts) of enemy IADs... Its an SA maniac!!! Very Happy

Forum: F-35 Design & Construction

No rear view from the F-35 cockpit?