" F-35 Joint Strike Fighter problem." Topic

"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the military¡¯s expensive main warplane of the future, has a huge blind spot directly behind it. Pilots say that could get them shot down in close-quarters combat, where the flier with the better visibility has the killing advantage.

¡°Aft visibility could turn out to be a significant problem for all F-35 pilots in the future,¡± the Pentagon acknowledged in a report (.pdf) obtained by the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington, D.C. watchdog group.

That admission should not come as a surprise to observers of the Joint Strike Fighter program. Critics of the delayed, over-budget F-35 ¡ª which is built in three versions for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps ¡ª have been trying for years to draw attention to the plane¡¯s blind spot, only to be dismissed by the government and Lockheed Martin, the Joint Strike Fighter¡¯s primary builder.

The damning report, dated Feb. 15, summarized the experiences of four test pilots who flew the F-35A ¡ª the relatively lightweight Air Force version ¡ª during a September-to-November trial run of the Joint Strike Fighter¡¯s planned training program at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. The report mentions a number of shortfalls of the highly complex F-35, including sensors, communications and aerial refueling gear that aren¡¯t yet fully designed or just don¡¯t work right.

No aspect of the report is more damning than the pilots¡¯ critiques of the F-35¡äs rearward visibility. ¡°All four student pilots commented on the out-of-cockpit visibility of the F-35, an issue which not only adversely affects training, but safety and survivability as well,¡± the report states. The Joint Strike Fighter is a stealth plane designed to avoid detection by radar, but if it ends up in a short-range dogfight, a distinct possibility even in this high-tech age, it¡¯s the pilot¡¯s eyes that matter most.

Meant to replace almost all of the military¡¯s jet fighters at an initial cost of more than $400 USD billion, the F-35 has a clamshell-style windshield with a good view to the front and sides. But it¡¯s got no line of sight to the rear, which is blocked by the pilot¡¯s seat and the plane¡¯s upper fuselage spine. Today¡¯s A-10s, F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s and F-22s, by contrast, have so-called ¡°bubble canopies¡± with good all-round vision.

The limitations of the F-35¡äs canopy are ¡°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.

The pilots, who formerly flew A-10s and F-16s, didn¡¯t seem interested in excuses. Their comments, quoted in the report, are scathingly direct.

¡°Difficult to see [other aircraft in the visual traffic] pattern due to canopy bow,…¡±
Full article here.
link

Amicalement
Armand

Well, it's kinda too late to go back to the drawing board now ain't it? Though frankly I don't think rearward visibility is that big of a deal in today's ACM environment. If a 5th generation F-35 with all its high tech gizmos, networked datalink and highly trained pilot lets a bogie get close to it, much less behind it, it means somebody screwed the pooch big time.

We're spoiled with the bubble canopy of 3rd and 4th generation jets. Before that, planes like the F-4, F-8, F-102 and F-106 had the same 'problem' the F-35 now 'has.'

And two-seaters of contemporary aircraft, like Tranche 3 Eurofighter Typhoons and the F-16DG's, have the same 'problem.'

Yeah, I'd have to respond to the pilots with the following;

", noobs! Everybody else manages okay, you need to step up or shut up…"

I would have tought that the test with pilots (enduser test) would have done ealier and that their remaks are included into the design. The tender process of JSF was a big problem in the political landscape in the Netherlands. It could fire up again if it turns out the the JSF is not safe to the pilots. Sounds a little bit like the F104 scandal in Bavaria 30 years ago.

We ain't paying $90.00 AUDm for pilots playing dogfighting – blast the bad guys before they see us and no need for dogfights. An attached UAS swarm can "dogfight" at much higher g forces if we really must.

Since this "problem" was blatantly obvious just from looking at the design I have to wonder why it is brought up now…

For the price the F-35 should do everything but call you late for breakfast …

First off, the concept of designing the F-35 without a bubble canopy was that the pilot was going to have a Helmet Mounted Display that fed video from cameras distributed across the aircraft, allowing the pilot to look "through" the aircraft. That's like have a bubble aircraft, not a bubble canopy, which is a tremendous advantage. However, they system has not worked and is (for now) being replaced with a much simpler system. link

"Well, it's kinda too late to go back to the drawing board now ain't it? Though frankly I don't think rearward visibility is that big of a deal in today's ACM environment. If a 5th generation F-35 with all its high tech gizmos, networked datalink and highly trained pilot lets a bogie get close to it, much less behind it, it means somebody screwed the pooch big time."

"Everything in war is very simple," Clausewitz notes, "but the simplest thing is difficult." (119) "In war more than anywhere else things do not turn out as we expect. Nearby they do not appear as they did from a distance." (193) Moreover, "…every fault and exaggeration of [a] theory is instantly exposed in war." (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/clauswtz/clwt000b.htm)

"We're spoiled with the bubble canopy of 3rd and 4th generation jets. Before that, planes like the F-4, F-8, F-102 and F-106 had the same 'problem' the F-35 now 'has.'"

And that's why all of the F-14 and later fighter here and abroad have bubble canopies. They even put one on the F-22, which is supposedly the real BVR master.

"Yeah, I'd have to respond to the pilots with the following;

"Bleeped text, noobs! Everybody else manages okay, you need to step up or shut up…""

Please re-read the post. The real problem is that you can't see over the sides well, or through the front of the aircraft, due to the pilot's sunken position in the cockpit. This will lead to high operational losses. As it says, you can't see other aircraft in the landing pattern … Imagine a nose-high approach to a carrier. Ick.

"Since this "problem" was blatantly obvious just from looking at the design I have to wonder why it is brought up now…"

Because it's been brought up time and again, but "the government and Lockheed Martin" have been in deny, deny, deny mode. You'll notice that this report was leaked and is from pilots not previously part of the program.

"Well, it's kinda too late to go back to the drawing board now ain't it?"

Not necessarily. If you've spent this much money to get something bad, a little more to make it good may be worthwhile. Redesign the Air Force version with a higher seat, and bubble canopy. Expensive? Yes. Difficult? Yes. Possible? Yes. If you look at the history of aircraft development, there have been some pretty serious re-designs.

It's not called "The Coot" for nothing.

An ugly, useless, overly expensive bird.

Now, if they'd put in a rear facing radar like the Sukhois have, it'd be less of a problem.

Reminds me of the Vietnam era, when the designers decided the Phantom wouldn't need a gun, since the AAMs would be so accurate and deadly.

That was quickly proven wrong, and I suspect this design will be proved to be in error as well, eventually.

Rear-facing radars have their own problems … like they light your up like a Christmas tree for RWRs and the ARM mode of some RHMs will kill you before you have a chance to react.

> Because it's been brought up time and again, but "the government and Lockheed Martin" have been in deny, deny, deny mode. You'll notice that this report was leaked and is from pilots not previously part of the program.

Or there is a cable of naysayers against the plane (helped along by a competitor). Which it is I don'tknow, and neither does anyone else here.

"Or there is a cable of naysayers against the plane (helped along by a competitor). Which it is I don'tknow, and neither does anyone else here."

The motives dont matter if the facts are correct in that the visibility is rubbish. I'm sure any anyone fighting against them in the future will realise this weakness and exploit it, if it comes to that.

Hi, can I just buy some F-16s ok please? At least I know those work.

Of course the News Media (and 3/4 of wargamers apparently) aren't capable of thinking of something like a cheap rear facing camera or radar.

>Rear-facing radars have their own problems … like they light your up like a Christmas tree for RWRs and the ARM mode of some RHMs will kill you before you have a chance to react.

And front-facing ones don't? Just more BS. The answer must obviously be to have a rear-facing observer. Maybe he can have a separate set of controls too. And a rear facing gun and missiles.

But that's not the point. The point is that Liberal Propaganda Mills have only one purpose: to portray all military spending as wasteful and unnecessary – no matter how it cripples our Defense capabilities. The Neutron Warhead and the Sergeant York AA Gun are two of the most blatant – but every new weapons program has been targeted. (Since drones are both cheap and effective, they can only attack them with pathetic political arguments.)

The F-35's problems will be fixed just like F-111 and F-16 problems were fixed.

The issue will be cost and number of air frames eventually acquired.

I think the F-35 is also obsolete for new focus area: Asia-Pacific.

Ranges are much longer than in say Middle East or Europe.

Land bases in Asia-Pacific (South Korea, Japan, Philippines) are vulnerable to ballistic missiles. And ABM screen won't stop them all.

Carriers are also getting more vulnerable (even former Defence Secretary Robert Gates stated this) and especially in context of Asia Pacific.

If you want to be flying long range penetration missions into China, you need a much longer ranged jet than an F-35 (or indeed F-15/16/-18).

Especially if the Chinese stealth jet J-20 main mission is shooting down air-to-air refuellers and other support aircraft.

Kill the support aircraft and US is pooched.

I think the future of air warfare is long range larger jets.