The F-35 wasn't designed to be a superlative dogfighter and the F-16 is one of the best handling aircraft in history. By no means am I saying that dogfighting is irrelevant -- history has shown that even with long-range missiles there will always be times when aircraft manage to close the distance, but this test is extremely artificial and doesn't by any means make the F-35 a waste of money.
The claim that “The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft" is quite strange. Despite developmental issues, the F-35 Head-Mounted Display has been completed and displays imagery in a complete sphere (4pi steradian) from the aircraft's Distributed Aperture System. Additionally, the F-35 has a somewhat roomier cockpit than the F-16, though rear visibility is more obstructed.
The control systems are still being tuned to some extent as well. The F-35 is fully fly-by-wire, and it tries to make sure the aircraft can't be overstressed or stall, but these limits can be too conservative. I'm not claiming that maneuverability will drastically improve, but this is one of the many objectives of testing.
The claim that “The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft" is quite strange. Despite developmental issues, the F-35 Head-Mounted Display has been completed and displays imagery in a complete sphere (4pi steradian) from the aircraft's Distributed Aperture System. Additionally, the F-35 has a somewhat roomier cockpit than the F-16, though rear visibility is more obstructed.
The control systems are still being tuned to some extent as well. The F-35 is fully fly-by-wire, and it tries to make sure the aircraft can't be overstressed or stall, but these limits can be too conservative. I'm not claiming that maneuverability will drastically improve, but this is one of the many objectives of testing.