That's what I've been told by others KenV. Unlike yourself, I'm not (former) aircrew, and so would be interested to hear your take on why you feel the F-35 needs the rail whereas the F-16 and F-22 don't. It is a subject that has cropped up on several F-35 discussions
That's just it, I have no idea.
I've had a number of discussions with F-16 drivers and many of them really like the lack of a canopy bow. They say the unobstructed canopy gives them greater visibility, especially in the pattern. But folks with experience in fighters with canopy bows like the fact that the canopy bow provides a place to install rear view mirrors. They argue that under heavy G maneuvering it's hard to physically turn around to "check six" and the mirrors provide better situational awareness. My only experience is with aircraft with canopy bows.
The F-35 canopy seems odd to me. It is a one-piece canopy, yet it has a canopy bow. The other aircraft that have a canopy bow have two-piece canopies and the bow provides the interface/connection between the two pieces.
Another thing about the F-35 canopy that I think is odd is that it does not seem to bulge outward above the canopy side rails. The Eagle, Falcon, and Hornet canopies bulge out above the rails which gives the flight crew great downward visibility with wings level. The fuselage shape aft of the canopy also seems to restrict rearward visibility on the F-35. For whatever reason, they went away from a "bubble" canopy. Pilot visibility requirements must have been very different for the F-35 than the Eagle, Falcon, and Hornet and even the Typhoon, and Rafale. The guys who drew up those requirements must have a LOT of faith in the F-35's sensors and helmet displays and so reduced what the Mark 1 Mod 0 eyeball can see. It's an interesting trade.