Forum: F-35 Variants and Missions

Pics of AF version in AB testing. Thought everyone might like to see some higher res versions..

F-16.net Sponsor

Great pictures! In the first shot the F-35 looks quite menacing doesn`t it? I still wonder about the rear visibility though, or the lack of it. I believe that is solved "electronically " though... (That wasn`t a question!!). Laughing

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

I doubt rear visibility is that bad. In a turning fight you're not looking straight back (it would be physically hard to do anyway). You're generally looking up over your shoulder through the top of the canopy. If you're having to look too far back, you are probably in big trouble. Having the top of the canopy nearly level with the rest of the fuselage aft just means you won't be able to look as far back over your shoulder. If you really need true rearward visibility, you would want to have cameras looking aft. Does the F-35 have these? What about the F-22?

Yeah, the spine of the F-35 does seem to drop off towards the rear of the aircraft from the canopy... I suppose turning your head would be difficult with the wiring harness plugged into the back of head, supplying the HMS! I don`t know whether cameras are a feature of the `22 and `35... I would think sensors had that covered pretty much, ie rear aspect threats. I have a dim memory of somebody suggesting that you can literally look "through" the F-35 cockpit floor and see the same picture your sensors do...

As you have said, you would be in the preverbial sh&t if you needed to look behind you, guess that`s what your wingman` is for!

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

If you've read any Dale Brown, you'd reconize the whole looking through the floor idea with the JSF's helmet. This would work by looking back through the airframe too if there were sensors that could actually give you a visual picture of what was back there. To "see" a target in the rear of the aircraft, you'd have to have some sort of optical, radar, or thermal sensor array. I am guessing a combination of optical and thermal sensors would work best for portraying a visual scene behind the aircraft to the pilot. Simply having a wide field of view camera (with night vision capabilit of course) on the spine of the aircraft that looked up and back would give the pilot at least the equivlant of a bubble canopy. What's better is that in a turning fight he could simply move his eyes up instead of his head and get a view to the rear and above. This would be great for looking directly left-rear and right-rear too. You could see your wingmen even if they were out of your canopy's physical field of view. That's just an example.

I don't know where you'd look in your virtual space to see below and aft of your aircraft. Perhaps you'd just press a button on the stick. This is your most vulnerable area. To check below your aircraft, you'd need to roll inverted and look up and back. By the way, what's the physical size of the F-35A compared to the F-15? Is the body of the F-15 bigger than the F-35 or no? The reason I ask is because the F-35 probably puts out similar thrust to the F-15C in max AB. All this talk about how draggy the F-35 is and nobody has compared its size to other large fighters.

Let's just say that the avionics suite in the F-35 is a generation ahead of the F-22.

F-15C- length.....63.8ft.
Weight max`.......68,000lbs.
Wing span.......42.8ft.
Wing area.......608ft2.

F-35A- Length.......50.5ft.
Weight max`.....50,000lb est.
Wingspan........35ft.
Wing area......460ft2.

The F-15s body looks a lot bigger with two engines being fitted as well as the "Tennis court" nickname!
Max thrust combined on F-15C is about 46,000lbs, about 58,000lbs on a Strike Eagle with it`s `229 engines. From what we have seen thus far, similar thrust indeed when you look at the quote "40,000" thrust class for the F-135 which is old news.

As well as the sensor picture you gave, the net centric solution offers, I think, an even better picture of threats around the aircraft. Add to RWR, IRST, LWR, electro-optical gear in general, data thru` links from AWACS, friendly ships and ground installations, UAVs, satellites and other aircraft in your package... Conceivably all of that data could be displayed in your cockpit....I suppose it would be possible to see, on your helmet sight what local sensor platforms can see when you look straight down through the cockpit floor! That would be very neat!

Here is an interesting view of the comparative sizes of three aircraft, the Viper, SHornet and the F-35 naval variant...

Raptor_One wrote:

By the way, what's the physical size of the F-35A compared to the F-15? Is the body of the F-15 bigger than the F-35 or no?

If I remember correctly the F-35 is dimensionally very similar to the F-16 and the F-22 is bigger in some aspects than an F-15

falconfixer860261 wrote:

Let's just say that the avionics suite in the F-35 is a generation ahead of the F-22.

And after talking to some Raptor 'fixers' and 'fliers' in the past couple of weeks, that is amazing...

Mike

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

Okay... if the F-35 really isn't bigger in terms of wetted area than the F-15C or even F/A-18E, why do people keep calling it draggy? They act like the thing isn't "area ruled" or something. I just don't understand where this crap comes from. I bet the F-35 has a similar CDo when compared to the F-15. I'd guess better, but who knows. Regardless, even if it had the same CDo, it would have less drag since the reference area (wing area) is less than the F-15's. This would assume you referenced CD to wing planform area which is standard industry practice. With the kind of thrust the F-35 puts out, I would imagine the balance of thrust and drag is favorable.

Those calling it draggy don't have access to the drawings/calculations/simulations and are just making statements based on hearsay and their own MK I eyeballs.....(Of course I'll probably get flamed now that I've said that)

falconfixer860261 wrote:

Those calling it draggy don't have access to the drawings/calculations/simulations and are just making statements based on hearsay and their own MK I eyeballs.....(Of course I'll probably get flamed now that I've said that)

You should have been on r.a.m. 6 or 7 years ago. Back then it was "the F-22 can't break Mach 2 because it's so boxy" Rolling Eyes

Raptor_One wrote:

I doubt rear visibility is that bad. In a turning fight you're not looking straight back (it would be physically hard to do anyway). You're generally looking up over your shoulder through the top of the canopy. If you're having to look too far back, you are probably in big trouble. Having the top of the canopy nearly level with the rest of the fuselage aft just means you won't be able to look as far back over your shoulder. If you really need true rearward visibility, you would want to have cameras looking aft. Does the F-35 have these? What about the F-22?

The F-35 has 360-degree optical/IR sensor coverage. Yes, the pilot can literally see "through" the airplane. Real sci-fi sh*t, but real. Or something like that. Wink

The F-22 has no optical/IR sensor at all, although it is equipped for the future instalation of the AA equivalent of FLIR (as in the F-14D). Don't expect that anytime soon, however, or in all or even most of the airframes eventually.

'the pilot can literally see 'thru' the airplane, real sci-fi' Yaa-bah Jaa-bah Doo, Fred Flintstone had the same in his very low IR signature/ very low RCS car.
Distributed Aperture System or AN/AAQ-37, 6 infra-red cameras stitch together a 360 deg sphere in real time, they provide: missile/ aircraft approach warning, assistance with the navigation and fire control, initial Bomb Damage Assesment, great situation awareness.
The 12 o' clock view out of the Sparky's office is very good.

Awesome pics Very Happy

! Where did you find those or did you take 'em?

It's a shame we don't have that capability to look through our cars - some have horrendous visibility Mad

. Take the Gen3 Corvettes with those cool fiberglass "swoops" on the sides of the rear window and no right side mirror in some cases Shocked

. I tried driving one of those on the freeway at night...

Forum: F-35 Variants and Missions

Pics of CTOL version