Guys,
Thought I'd reply.
Courtney, I've sat in the cockpit a few times. i'm not a pilot, but there is a view out of the back. Is it as good as a Typhoon? No. Is it better than a Tornado? Yes. But there is a view. The canopy sill slope upwards from the throttle starts from a very low position, and to my (untutored) eye, the view wasn't significantly compromised. But I'll defer to your far more relevant views.
As I inferred in my last post, there are designers who think that the push for ultimate cockpit field of view went too far in the 80s and 90s. There are certainly aircraft that took a significant 'hit' in terms of performance. As ever, pilots and results will decide. (Sea Harrier had a fairly limited view, but that didn't stop it doing fairly well, as I remember).
Bird strike. The figures are lost in my ever more addled memory, but I do know that the requirement for F-35 was far more severe than that levied on the F-16. (or the F-15). This drove the need for a thicker and tougher forward section. (UK had a key hand in this requirement). The canopy arch is, as I remember, is there to help handle the transition between the reinforced forward section and the thinner aft. (And people might like to know that Typhoon struggled to achieve its own bird strike resistance requirement).
Location of that arch was modelled and adjusted over a period to get all the pilot views included. The F-35C requirement has given it a very good 'over the nose' FOV. As ever, it's a compromise, like most real things in the world.
Best regards as ever to those trying to do the right thing (for everyone)
Engines