Good luck F35

[TomcatViP]

raised cockpit = perturbed airflow for the lifting fan

if only the VMC had the bunk cockpit then the Price of all three versions would hve raised

Also, it's really expensive to make a stealthy bubble cockpit like for the 22 (look at the choice made for the T50).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA

So it is a matter of priceS and overall effectiveness.

The Crusader had poor rear view and was an awesome dogfighter during Nam.

The top scoring aircraft of all time (the 109) had an enclosed canopy too

[ZaltysZ]

That article does not explicitly mention the model of F-35, but I suppose it is F-35B (STOVL), because that one is presented in photo inside that article. The "B" has lots of weak points (like reduced G tolerance, bad rearward view, reduced fuel capacity) just because of that huge fan behind the pilot. Other models: conventional A and catapult launched C do not have these problems or at least not at such great extent.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by ZaltysZ

. Other models: conventional A and catapult launched C do not have these problems or at least not at such great extent.

It seems the problems are much worse and not limited only to poor rearview.

Originally Posted by wiki

n 22 February 2013, the U.S. fleet of F-35s was grounded after a routine inspection of a F-35A at Edwards Air Force Base found a crack in an engine turbine blade.[178][179]

USAF test pilots have noted a lack of visibility from the F-35 cockpit during evaluation flights and said that this will get them shot down in every combat. Defense spending analyst Winslow Wheeler concluded from the flight evaluation reports that the F-35A "is flawed beyond redemption".[180] The same report found (in addition to the usual problems with the aircraft listed above):

Current aircraft software is inadequate for even basic pilot training.
Ejection seat may fail causing pilot fatality.
Several pilot-vehicle interface issues, including lack of feedback on touch screen controls.
The radar performs poorly, if at all.
Engine replacement takes an average of 52 hours, instead of the two hours specified.
And the maintenance tools do not work.[181]

The JPO responded that more experienced pilots would be able to safely operate the aircraft and that procedures would improve over time.[182] And the USAF began pilot training in March 2013.[183]

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by grawl

The US should start to develop a brand new fighter using all the technology without the flaws the F35 is suffering.
So they could sell it again to the countries that funded the F35 project

It's not just a US project, lots of British companies are involved.

"JSF development is being principally funded by the United States. The partner nations are either NATO members or close U.S. allies."
......
"The United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, and Turkey are part of the development program; Israel, Singapore and Japan may also equip their air services with the F-35"

[Codex]

The test pilots are a bunch a whiny pussies ...

[horseback]

First of all, the primary requirement for testing personnel in any discipline is to find fault (my ex would have been very good in this field); the whinier, the pickier, the more persnickety the better. Guys who don't find something wrong find themselves back in sales. Add to this the natural expectation of men who flew bubbletops exclusively for a decade or more, and that canopy is going to draw comment. It's a lot like going from a P-51D to a P-51B with the basic clamshell instead of the vastly better Malcolm blown canopy--one minute, you're at the top of the world with a panorama view, and the next, you're in a box.

I'm not convinced that the cockpit visibility is all that much of a deal killer; even if the cockpit were raised 50cm or so, allowing the pilot to sit on top of the airframe in the traditional bubble, the rear view would be restricted and blocked by parts of the airframe. As it is, the view forward, down and to the sides look to me as though it is pretty danged good. Of course, the average journalist (or at least the guy who writes the headline) will be more interested in what he can sensationalize than in a balanced report, so the average citizen is more likely to get a steady diet of negatives that require more parsing than he is willing to do.

The real problem is the basic concept of One Size Fits All; some of us are old enough to remember the F-111, which was supposed to be an all-services miracle back in the 1960s--the original AIM-54 carrier for the Navy's Fleet defense and the tactical fighter for the Air Force and Marine Corps' ground attack and some portion of the air to air role. The Navy hated the concept from Day One, and created all kinds of obstacles and requirements that conflicted with the Air Force's needs. The side by side cockpit and a lot of the extra weight (for carrier landings) were part of the Navy's contribution to the project. Ultimately, the navalized F-111B version was cancelled and replaced by the much more capable F-14, but the initial versions of the Tomcat were hamstrung with the engines originally slated for the Navy's F-111Bs, which were less than optimal (Robert McNamara was nothing if not vindictive).

The USAF version was reduced to being a (very capable) bomber and later, electronic countermeasures platform, and ultimately was a very effective combat aircraft once it found its niche. However, it should have been so much more without the USN's input (and the Tomcat could have been deployed a couple of years earlier and with better suited engines) had the politicians in the Pentagon not tried to force the requirements of one service upon the other(s).

cheers

horseback

[Liz Lemon]

Funny you mention the F-14.

At one point it was suggested that the programs that spawned the F-14 and F-15 should be rolled into one program. The idea being that the navy and the air force would share the development costs and end up with a cheaper plane. A study was done that looked at the feasibility of this, and the conclusion was that joining the programs would have to result in a larger and heavier aircraft to meet the navy and AF needs, as well as increased development time - all for a cost savings of an estimated 10% or so.

Funny how that study was forgotten.