Actually, the F-35 has normal-light and IR cameras facing left, right, rear, up, down, and front... to provide a continuous "full-globe" view.

And the pilot won't have to look at a display, the helmet-mounted display will (once a couple more bugs are worked out) show him/her/it whatever is in the direction he/she/it looks... if he looks down towards the cockpit floor he will see what's under the aircraft, etc.

He can see what's behind the aircraft by switching the display in the helmet or by looking at the display on the panel, it's his choice.

It will he as if the aircraft is fully transparent (depending on the display settings).

sounds like thats heading toward sensory overload for the pilot......where is the cutoff point at which he/she is unable to handle the visual inputs?

Engines,

Thank you for putting us straight, you make some very valid points. However, I did not say that the B is over designed, over engineered and can't take battle damage. I said it's just too complicated. The more complex a system is and the more moving parts that have to work precisely and in sequence and with numerous micro-switches (or other sensors) the greater the likelihood of a failure. Simples.

But we must also acknowledge that Rallyepilot's observation appears valid. It would seem logical that damage to a part of all those doors, jacks and swivels could cause a malfunction. Simplicity has an elegance all of its own.

You appear well-informed on the subject and I do take your points. I hope you have more pearls to offer us!

Mach Two.

The helmet has a 360 degree type function meaning wherever you look you see including straight down utilising sensors....an airborne computer game...

Way ahead of anything todate. It comes from Elbit in Israel.

I flew an F-16 sim there a year ago with something similar. It was interesting to effectively have the airframe disappear no matter where you looked...

GK121

(once a couple more bugs are worked out):}

We're gonna need a bigger can of Raid...

Engines...

The vulnerability issue that worries me is the long decelerating approach where the hottest part of the jet is flight-critical. Fine on a boat but that's a big area to make sure is SA-18-free.

Engines, I can sense your pain. I think you may have taken some people's comments more seriously than intended.


Anyway, fair cop, but my real point was about projects like this one having the rug pulled out from under their feet by more defence cuts.

Courtney

Article on Royal Navy website

UK

Guys,

Thanks for coming back and apologies if I came on strong....just sensitive when good hard working Brit colleagues get trashed for no other reason than not being American...

Willard - OK, got me. The answer you want is just over 12,500 internal fuel on the STOVL.

LO - long decelerating approach? Many ways to land the jet, on land can do an RVL with a very steep glide path and short run - as per the USMC requirement. Deceleration is very fast once the aircraft goes to powered lift mode and the slow speed allows a tight circuit. Flying qualities in the powered lift mode are far better than Harrier so less worries about manoeuvring on the jets.

M2 - sorry I plot slipped on the comments. Yes, the B is more complicated than the A. The simple arrangement of the Harrier was inspired but just could not be scaled up to meet the needs of the JSF - and we (and the USA) spent quite a bit of money trying to do just that in the 70s and 80s. If you want a very capable, stealthy, high end combat jet to to STOVL that's the price you pay. I freely admit that I preferred the Boeing X-32 design (simpler) until it got beat by raw physics - you have to use cold air to hover, not just hot air. X-32 was practically unable to hover at all. The F-35B uses the cold front fan to take power out of the hot end. Also helps stop Hot gas Ingestion (HGI). And if you want stealth then you have to cover up the holes when they're not wanted. That means doors.

Actually, the ability of most modern combat jets to take much battle damage is limited, although computer flight controls can help to reschedule controls if some get damaged - and F-35 can do that, as the AA-1 incident showed. But yes, if the fans or doors get damaged, it's a conventional landing on land or bang out next to the ship.

Hope this helps, best regards as ever

Engines

Engines, thanks for sticking up for some of my colleagues. STOVL is something that will always be surrounded by misconceptions, woolly thinking and blatant lies. Obviously it is not unique in that regard, but I know something about STOVL so it's good to see that not everyone accepts the myths.

One minor point while I'm here re: The X-32B was a pretty complicated beast in the end (did you ever count all the nozzles for lift, propulsion and control? Did you go back and count them again because between design reviews that I attended, sometimes the number changed? The F-35B has only four in total, rather fewer than the Harrier). The final Boeing PWSC submission, which I had a small part in assessing, was even worse. My view, and it is only my view, is that Boeing had to add more and more stuff to an over-simple original idea to try to make it work. LM started with a simple idea and stuck with it because basically it works. I'm not the world's greatest engineer and would not say I was better then those people at Boeing who tried so hard, but I do think there is some merit in the view that really good designs are marked by what can be designed out as they progress, not what has to be added in.

Well, it seems that the only truly pertinent question is unanswerable.

Yes, really good points all round. Let's face it, the more we ask a design to do, the more difficult it's going to be to acheive. STOVL, low RCS, agility, weapons load, sensors, oomph, comms and (as was raised light-heartedly) fuel load. It all adds up as we've seen in previous projects.

One thing I would say is that there really is nothing wrong with British engineering. In fact I would also apply this to previous projects too. IMHO a lot of the so called 'design difficulties' weren't down to the engineers, they were caused (at least in part) by constantly changing requirements, project management, funding constraints and politics - particularly where there were more than one nation involved.

NoHoverstop,

You are quite right - the Boeing design ran away out of control as they struggled with the basic lack of thrust and having the main engine in the wrong place (ie not at the rear of the aircraft). The number of jets and orifices increased, and they had to add a tail towards the end of the 'X' phase - although that, interestingly, was driven by the demands of the 'cat and trap' variant.

The LM design's ability to use the lift jets for control purposes, leaving them with just the two additional roll jets (which also generate lift) is extremely smart and minimises the additional complications associated with STOVL.

PPruners might like to note that UK engineers have led the joint industry teams on two of the main challenges with F-35, namely STOVL flight testing and propulsion integration.

Best Regards as ever,

Engines

Well put, Engines.