F-35B/C Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter)

[Bobola2005]

That's just like my wife's Juke!

 

[Fallonflyr]

I will preface this by saying I probably don't know what I am talking about and my flight experience is limited to about 50ish hours in a Cessna 172SP. While I think the F-35 is very sexy, it seems to me like this jet doesn't have any rearward visibility. Is that not supposed to be that big of a deal in a multirole fighter?

I have 12000+ hours and flew the F/A-18 and was thinking the same thing.

 

[Flying Toaster]

Amusing post from over on baseops-

Gotta love the useless comparisons..."an eighth of the time that powered flight has existed."

Things that took less time than the F-35:
The Beatles entire career as a band.
The Apollo program from Kennedy's speech to Neil Armstrong.
The combined timelines of WWI and WWII.
Both Mars rovers were proposed, approved, developed, launched, and have been on Mars for over 3 years.
The entire construction, from proposal to completion, of: The Golden Gate Bridge, the World Trade Center, the Empire State Building, the Suez Canal, and the Channel Tunnel.
The Manhattan Project.
Alexander the Great's conquest of Persia.
Caesar's conquest of Gaul.
The Wright brothers' first airplane, from conception to Kittyhawk.

 

[JeremiahWeed]

The forward hinged canopy is a little unique. There are a few Migs with this arrangement, but I can't think of any western fighters that have this up to now. Any thoughts on pros/cons and why they may have chosen this for the F-35?

 

[Flying Toaster]

The forward hinged canopy is a little unique. There are a few Migs with this arrangement, but I can't think of any western fighters that have this up to now. Any thoughts on pros/cons and why they may have chosen this for the F-35?

This is a copy and pasted list from some random thread on the internet, so take it for what it's worth.

- Stealth: Tighter canopy sealing
- Maintenance: Ejection seat can be removed without removing entire canopy
- Cost: Simpler and lighter design

I'm not entirely sure why some of those relate to where the canopy is hinged. My only guess is the forward tilted nature of a canopy (especially a non bubble one like the F-35) requires less energy to tilt from the front than the back and also less range of motion.

 

[JeremiahWeed]

This is a copy and pasted list from some random thread on the internet, so take it for what it's worth.

- Stealth: Tighter canopy sealing
- Maintenance: Ejection seat can be removed without removing entire canopy
- Cost: Simpler and lighter design

I'm not entirely sure why some of those relate to where the canopy is hinged. My only guess is the forward tilted nature of a canopy (especially a non bubble one like the F-35) requires less energy to tilt from the front than the back and also less range of motion.

I can see the maintenance reason. I don't think I was aware that rear hinged fighters needed the canopy off for ejection seat removal but it makes sense now that I think about it.

The cost reason seems like a "maybe". I would think that Jettison and Ejection (for sure) would require systems of greater complexity than a rear hinge.

Tighter seal?? Well, I guess. Slipstream would tend to "push" the canopy into the closed position more so than a rear hinge.

 

[jmcquate]

I'm sure that the big brains at the Skunk Works have thier reasons

 

[PropAddict]

I have 12000+ hours and flew the F/A-18 and was thinking the same thing.

I asked a similar question when I got to take the nickel tour of the LockMart factory in Fort Worth a few years ago. The answer I was given was that "It actually is a pretty pronounced bubble canopy, with good viz, it just doesn't look that way from outside. Also, with the "invisible airplane" JHMCS camera/display system, you don't need a rear window, anyway."

 

[JeremiahWeed]

Also, with the "invisible airplane" JHMCS camera/display system, you don't need a rear window, anyway."

So, I guess if the enemy does show up at an F-35 pilot's six, he just gets on guard and tell him he shouldn't be there and come back when he can play fair.

 

[Fog]

Somewhere in this very long thread, there's a discussion of the "All Aspect Situational Awareness System" that will be built into the F-35. Supposedly, just like in the movies, this system will tell the F-35 driver of any threats anywhere near him (a/c, missiles, etc.). Whoever flies this thing into highly-contested airspace better hope this gizmo works. This a/c looks 75% attack/25% fighter to me. I hope Lockheed hasn't screwed this up.

 

[PropAddict]

So, I guess if the enemy does show up at an F-35 pilot's six, he just gets on guard and tell him he shouldn't be there and come back when he can play fair.

I don't think you're paying attention. I'll explain it again. . .

Somewhere in this very long thread, there's a discussion of the "All Aspect Situational Awareness System" that will be built into the F-35.

IIRC, it was something to do with the Sniper XR pod up front for EO, and AN/AAQ-37 aft for IR cameras. The work together as a Distributed Aperture, effectively meaning there is a camera pointed every direction out of the plane. The video is piped directly into the pilot's helmet, so whichever direction he looks (or slews his video feed to) he can see, even straight down through the floorboards of the fuselage or through the vertical tails behind him.

There was a pretty big issue with the system giving test pilots some serious vertigo and I remember them tweaking the system to only come on at certain times, etc., to compensate.

I'm not a fighter guy, but rearward viz seems like a pretty fundamental thing for ACM (well, for most people. Pretty sure I'd never have to get defensive and check six .) There are enough smart people (many of them retired F-14 and F-18 guys) working on this that they wouldn't gloss over something so basic. . .

 

[jarhead]

I'm not a fighter guy, but rearward viz seems like a pretty fundamental thing for ACM (well, for most people. Pretty sure I'd never have to get defensive and check six .) There are enough smart people (many of them retired F-14 and F-18 guys) working on this that they wouldn't gloss over something so basic. . .

those "smart" people didn't put an gun on two of the versions so I wouldn't give them that much credit with the canopy.

 

[Flash]

......."It actually is a pretty pronounced bubble canopy, with good viz, it just doesn't look that way from outside. Also, with the "invisible airplane" JHMCS camera/display system, you don't need a rear window, anyway."

And that is what is what it looks like in the last picture from the post that Flying Toaster about the first cat launch, you can see the raised bubble canopy is pretty pronounced. I think that also because the fuselage is so thick that the canopy seems a bit less 'bubble-ey' than on a F-16 with a more tapered fuselage or like aircraft. And according to some on this board the A-4 wasn't that bad in a fight and it had much less a bubble canopy than the F-35. just sayin'.......

 

[JeremiahWeed]

I don't think you're paying attention. I'll explain it again. . .

IIRC, it was something to do with the Sniper XR pod up front for EO, and AN/AAQ-37 aft for IR cameras. The work together as a Distributed Aperture, effectively meaning there is a camera pointed every direction out of the plane. The video is piped directly into the pilot's helmet, so whichever direction he looks (or slews his video feed to) he can see, even straight down through the floorboards of the fuselage or through the vertical tails behind him.

There was a pretty big issue with the system giving test pilots some serious vertigo and I remember them tweaking the system to only come on at certain times, etc., to compensate.

I'm not a fighter guy, but rearward viz seems like a pretty fundamental thing for ACM (well, for most people. Pretty sure I'd never have to get defensive and check six .) There are enough smart people (many of them retired F-14 and F-18 guys) working on this that they wouldn't gloss over something so basic. . .

I'm trying to pay attention. My comment was a reaction to what I assumed was some engineer/aircraft development guy's answer when you asked your question on the nickel tour - i.e. You won't need to look back there with the "mark 1 eyeball" - we've taken care of that with our super-duper All Aspect SA system.

I hope it works great and it's all everyone needs and wants. I'm skeptical. As much credit as we'd like to give system developers and engineers, sometimes they just don't get it. Not their fault - they've never done the job. Example: I'm discussing a -188 pod with one of the engineers and asked if it was possible to add or change the antennas to expand the coverage to out past ~90 degrees vice the forward/rear "cone" available at the time. When he asked why I explained that some guy defending against a SAM with the pod on his jet is going to go to the beam and take the coverage off the threat radar. He had no idea and actually asked, "Well, couldn't the pilot just check away 30 degrees or so and keep the jamming coverage on the threat?"........... Yeah, he could but he's not going to bet his life that all the beeps/squeeks and trons are going to save his ass better than he can with a good defensive reaction.

So, back to the discussion at hand. You're absolutely right - rearward vis is critical to ACM. I've flown enough DBFM to know how much can be learned from a half-second glimpse of a guy at your six who may or may not be able to bring weapons to bear. Is his nose tracking? Are his stabs dug in and he's stuck in lag? Is he overshooting, etc. So, now we've got this SA system with cameras that may or may not deliver video when it's needed because it induces vertigo at times. Even if it's spot on, we're still talking about a video feed to an aircraft display versus the human eye. Are the retired drivers who won't "gloss over" something as basic as rear vis the same ones who voted to not include a cannon in 66% of the models and put 200 rounds of 20mm in the version supposedly replacing the A-10?
No one likes bending an aircraft around at high-g looking over their shoulder but I'd rather do that than put all my faith in a system like this. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Of all the things people bitch about with the F-35 the canopy seems like one of the silliest. The A and C both seem to have a pretty pronounced bubble canopy. As far as whether the B looks more like an attack aircraft than a fighter, I think that one is pretty easy to clear up. Also, I thought it's supposed to have a 25mm