Get the F-35B hull. Add the F-35A engine, Replace the lift fan with another seat.
Replace the lift fan top cover, with something made of glass that has a bubble.
Profit.
The second pilot can go inside through a ladder from under the airplane.
Should be very easy.
I have it on reliable reports that a second pilot or airman can already fly on the F-35, it's just not very comfortable in the weapons bay.
>can make sixth generation drone wingman super stealth multi-purpose vtol jets
>can't bring a pillow or something to make it more comfy
>If the air force procurement was run by indian IT workers
My impression was that the advanced avionics were meant so that there wouldn't be a need for multiple crewmen per aircraft, although I'm surprised that a 2-seater training version wasn't developed so prospective pilots could familiarize themselves with the aircraft while also having an experienced pilot at the helmet.
Ejection seat goes where?
Bingo.
>I'm surprised that a 2-seater training version wasn't developed so prospective pilots could familiarize themselves with the aircraft while also having an experienced pilot at the helmet.
And yet the F-35 still has a staggeringly good safety record. Apparently the current training curriculum does the job without the need for F-35 transitional trainer airframes.
>My impression was that the advanced avionics were meant so that there wouldn't be a need for multiple crewmen per aircraft
and that's been true for a while, ask single-seat hornet guys
last fighter where a backseater was useful was early f-14s
Is that why they added a second seat in the later hornet variants
no, that was because some backseaters became admirals
jokes aside here's the split among hornet pilots i've talked to and their impressions of the community:
>single seat hornet pilots: 0% think they need a WSO
>two seat hornet pilots: <50% think they need a WSO
>WSOs: 75% think the pilot needs a WSO
well it would give the pilots more time to play games on their phones which is a nice quality of life improvement
What if they create a figther drone.
They will need a second pilot just to handle the drones.
they're working on that now and the goal, as with everything in fighter jets, is to make the workload on the pilot as light and automated as possible
or in RAF terms, "a talking nav bag" or "pound for pound I'd rather have the fuel"
You can look at the F-15EX as another example of a modern plane with an added WSO, and I can see the justification for it in any plane that is going to be doing a lot of ground attack. Managing your A2A weapons and radar is a hell of a lot easier then trying to acquire a ground target and parse through all the sensor data that the F-35's diamond is generating, and while automation can help to solve that problem as well as offloading the data back to a centralized location who can do it for you without needing a second body in the plane, communications jamming permitting, I'm not sure that the algorithms are quite there.
Helmets make a huge difference, if you are finding the target with charts and the TGP a WSO will help a lot.
When you have a waypoint displayed on you visor that is close to the target and the TGP is slaved to where you look it's a lot easy to find it on your own.
Sure, but the problem during ground attack isn't blasting a known target, it's doing target acquisition on a semi-concealed position or other non-emitting sources. If all you're doing is hitting positions that have been marked for you by other forces and their networked sensors, I'd agree that a WSO isn't needed, but if I was flying an F-35 over a forest looking for enemy positions, while still needing to be heads up enough to maintain a watch for SAMS and other pop-up threats, it's a lot to ask from the pilot to also be filtering through the TGP's data to find a concealed arti battery, for example.
the f-15e added the wso because it was designed in the 80s, then the ex exists because saudi- and qatari-funded upgrades to the e and the usaf is buying the ex because nobody's jumping up to fund development of a cx. the ex is planned to fly without a backseater for its entire service life in the usaf, afaik.
how much extra load is placed on the pilot by ground attack i don't know, but the ex is being bought mostly for cruise missile defense so it's not a particular concern in american service and what information we have on the f-35's automation for ground attack-adjacent things like SEAD make it sound pretty thorough and easy.
Whats the point?
If you're going to make it a 2-seat, make in a 2-seater XL
I would coom instantly if that got made, however I think it's just going to be too expensive to be worth it. At a minimum, you need a new engine (the current one is already redlining in certain conditions, affecting readiness and maintenance), and all the radar stealth testing will have to be essentially started from scratch when you change the shape this much.
is much better than
because no HJs in a separate wienerpit
Could be easily done right now.
Who has that blue pic of all the original designs for the F35
Already exists
>crew chief on a Navy plane
Fricking garbage fanfiction image
They don't need two seaters, in combat single seat works fine because HOTAS lets you do everything.
For training they have great sims and a FCS that will not let the plane depart, it's not like the F-14 where if you look at it wrong you'll depart.
On the topic of twin seaters. I wonder if the Flogger would've performed better if it was a twin seater. From what I understand just flying the thing was a job and a half already and it wouldn't surprise me if most of the combat losses are a result of pilots being too occupied trying to wrangle the plane to effectively fight