Woops! Lockheed forgot the Tailhook on the F-35C

[TLAM Strike]

Leaked Pentagon documents claim a design flaw in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has caused eight simulated landings to fail.




The “F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Concurrency Quick Look Review” claimed the flaw meant that the “arrestor” hook, used to stop the plane during landing, was too close to the plane’s wheels.

:nope::nope::nope:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9016442/Navys-5bn-Harrier-jet-replacement-unable-to-land-on-aircraft-carriers.html


Seriously people? How long have planes been landing on carriers? 100 Years? And STILL you get something that simple wrong!? :damn:

It gets better:

The review further suggests the planes will be unable to fire the British Asraam air-to-air missile. What you expect us to let you use your own missiles on those planes? Got to buy the AMRAAMs! Fund American jobs!! :03:


F-16.net has a great write up with graphics and everything:

http://f-16.net/news_article4494.html

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

The “F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Concurrency Quick Look Review” claimed the flaw meant that the “arrestor” hook, used to stop the plane during landing, was too close to the plane’s wheels. Deja Vu? :stare:

Oh... Aviation Week blogster complained about this design "feature" sometime ago... either late 2010 or early 2011.

[TLAM Strike]

Aviation Week blogster complained about this design "feature" sometime ago... either late 2010 or early 2011.

Maybe people will start to pay more attention to us bloggers now... probably not! :haha:

[Oberon]

http://qpawn.beardedfool.com/forum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

So...those F-18s.... :hmmm:

[krashkart]

http://qpawn.beardedfool.com/forum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

So...those F-18s.... :hmmm:

You can't have those. We'll be... ehm http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=258&pictureid=4485... shipping the scrap to Africa for processing. :smug:


EDIT:

Looks like we have another Tailhook scandal on our hands. :k_rofl:

[Aesthetica]

At $130+ million a pop, we'd have been better off trying to build our own "5th gen" update of the Harrier. So now we're getting two carriers, the wrong size, with the wrong catapult system, and the wrong propulsion, only one of which will be loaded with the wrong planes.

And to add to the problem, the tail hook doesn't work, and it won't fire our missiles, and they won't give us the source code for the AI assisted targeting and avionics, so we can't reprogram it for anything else we build, AND it might come pre installed with a "hacker backdoor" go-code remote control on/off switch...

Arghhhhhhhh!

:Kaleun_Mad:

[TLAM Strike]

Looks like we have another Tailhook scandal on our hands. :k_rofl:

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/6232/rimshot.jpg (http://instantrimshot.com/classic/?sound=rimshot)

At $130+ million a pop, we'd have been better off trying to build our own "5th gen" update of the Harrier. You can only update an airframe so far. At the end of the day the Harrier will still be a subsonic 1970s aircraft. The UK might be stuck buying the competition:
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/9193/j15july10.jpg
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9047/15f06fc8e13448ebad95fb0.jpg
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/3485/frenchdassaultrafalefig.jpg
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/5892/superhornetonflightdeck.jpg

That or try to slap a tail hook on the Eurofighter.

[Osmium Steele]

They should open up the design process to flightsimmers. I'd bet they'd come up with a working design in 102 days.

Hey, if a bunch of gamers can map an entire genome, an airplane should be cake.

[Lord_magerius]

They should open up the design process to flightsimmers. I'd bet they'd come up with a working design in 102 days.

Hey, if a bunch of gamers can map an entire genome, an airplane should be cake.

That's pretty damn true, just get gamers to do it. They'd do it for the sheer fun of it, though the chances of OMFG rockets being sneaked in there as a primary armament does increase :haha:

[krashkart]

How about bunny rockets? Bunny rockets and sticky bombs. :yeah: There should also be an auto-drip coffeemaker and Pez dispenser integrated in the cockpit somewhere. Would there be enough room for those? :hmmm:

[TLAM Strike]

They should open up the design process to flightsimmers. I'd bet they'd come up with a working design in 102 days. No doubt the final result would be this:
http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/6241/fa22ncatshot1s.png

That's pretty damn true, just get gamers to do it. They'd do it for the sheer fun of it, though the chances of OMFG rockets being sneaked in there as a primary armament does increase :haha:
Why am I reminded of this:
http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/591/36305.jpg

[Falkirion]

TLAM I'd take 2 of those over a Typhoon anyday. But then again I just love the Flanker and Rafale.

Pretty glaring oversight to mess up the position of the hook, you'd have thought that given America's power comes from the air groups on carriers that the hook position would've been one of the things looked at closely.

[magicstix]

Par for the course with Lockheed. Too big to succeed.

[TLAM Strike]

One other possibility the UK might consider:
http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/7250/iriaff14arefueling.jpg]
Maybe they could arrange a trade: 1 Eurofighter for 1 Tomcat? :haha:

How would the RN feel about having a better carrier based plane than us for the first time? :O:

[Platapus]

One of the issues is that in order to improve its LO capability, the tail hook retracts into a compartment with a door (similar to how some landing gear works).

The door/compartment could only be made so big to fit with the other stuff and they thought it was long enough and it is long enough for some landing attitudes but not all. And we all know about Naval Aviator attitudes when it comes to landing (rimshot):D

This was a system engineering bo-bo and one that will be difficult to fix. There is already talk about single use extending tail hooks. Expensive but might be the only way to make it work. :(

[TLAM Strike]

One of the issues is that in order to improve its LO capability, the tail hook retracts into a compartment with a door (similar to how some landing gear works). Honestly they should not be bothering to stealth the back of the plane so much. No point in being invisible to someone you just bombed. :hmmm:

[TarJak]

And how much will this cost to fix? Gotta love the DOD.

[Schöneboom]

General Smedley Butler got it right: War is a racket!

[TLAM Strike]

And how much will this cost to fix? Gotta love the DOD.

Lets see to fix it they need....

1 roll of duct tape... DoD cost $900
1 length of pipe... DoD cost $1,500
1 metal coat hanger... DoD Cost $11,000

Total cost of repair: $13,400 per aircraft
480 F-35Cs to be built so $13,400 * 480 = $6,432,000

Far less than it would take to fit them with a cup holder and pez dispenser that has been suggested.

:03:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Lets see to fix it they need....

1 roll of duct tape... DoD cost $900
1 length of pipe... DoD cost $1,500
1 metal coat hanger... DoD Cost $11,000

Total cost of repair: $13,400 per aircraft
480 F-35Cs to be built so $13,400 * 480 = $6,432,000

Far less than it would take to fit them with a cup holder and pez dispenser that has been suggested.

:03:
:har: I just can imagine pilots faces when they see this "poorman's tailhook"! :haha:

[TarJak]

Lets see to fix it they need....

1 roll of duct tape... DoD cost $900
1 length of pipe... DoD cost $1,500
1 metal coat hanger... DoD Cost $11,000

Total cost of repair: $13,400 per aircraft
480 F-35Cs to be built so $13,400 * 480 = $6,432,000

Far less than it would take to fit them with a cup holder and pez dispenser that has been suggested.

:03:


You forgot the labour 3500 man hours per aircraft at $1500 per hour so an additional $5,250,000 per aircraft.:D

[Catfish]

I take it the F-35"B" does not need a hook:
(Good video i think)
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Ki86x1WKPmE
But then it is an expensive system, to say at least.

" ... The F-35 is designed to be the core tactical fighter aircraft for the U.S. military, with three versions for the Air Force, Navy, and the Marine Corps.
Each plane clocks in at around $90 million ..."

"The F-35 is meant to be the future of U.S. tactical airpower, but the program harks back to the Cold War, when we faced an aggressive great power rival."

" ... Washington intends to buy 2,443, at a price tag of $382 billion. ..."

The jet's initial cost has now risen from 90 million to 130 million per unit.
Military cuts ? Really ?
For that money, you might have bought Australia. The continent.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/the-f-35-a-weapon-that-costs-more-than-australia/72454/

[Blood_splat]

That's a lot of money just to bomb the shat out of the Taliban. :O:

[Catfish]

That's a lot of money just to bomb the shat out of the Taliban. :O:

Lol

"In a decade's time, the United States plans to have 15 times as many modern fighters as China, and 20 times as many as Russia."

And then it's time to pay back the US debt, to China. :hmmm:

[Takeda Shingen]

Waste is waste. And we're just gonna keep shovelin' more money into this disaster of a project. Sacred cows, baby. Sacred cows.

[soopaman2]

Tailhook:1 million dollars

People to theorize it might work: 500k

People to actually test it: 2 million

Congressional lobbies:10 million


Fiscally sound, now lets cut cost of living raises on SS, our seniors don't need money as bad as we need another airplane.

While we are at it, we will lower taxes on the ultra rich job creators, who created so much jobs for us recently, and raise property taxes on the working class to cover this "patriotism"

Cake! Let them eat cake!

[Platapus]

Honestly they should not be bothering to stealth the back of the plane so much. No point in being invisible to someone you just bombed. :hmmm:

The people you just bombed are not the threat. The threat is the people you did not just bomb. :know:

[TLAM Strike]

The people you just bombed are not the threat. The threat is the people you did not just bomb. :know: Solution: bomb everyone. :03:

I take it the F-35"B" does not need a hook:
Yes the B is the VTOL version the C is the conventional carrier based version. But the B has shorter legs and a lower max payload.

[soopaman2]

Or just drop a bomb on congress.

I forgot, you can't get all of them in the building at one time ever...

Only job I know, where showing up is optional...

[krashkart]

The threat is a ferret wielding an automatic rifle. :know:

Fixed. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=258&pictureid=4486

[Aesthetica]

I take it the F-35"B" does not need a hook:

Yeah F-35-A is the standard land based version, the B is the STOVL version with a back end designed by BAE, lower payload, shorter range, but it can take off from old RN style ski-ramp short carriers, and land vertically on same, makes it ideal for the Gator Navy, like a stealthed 5th generation super Harrier (that was the theory behind us ordering 80 of them). The C is the CATOBAR version for use on the US's super carriers, it has a beefier airframe, and larger wing area, to withstand the shock of a tailhook arrested landing, and lower it's stall speeds etc.

Problems however, reports about cracks in the airframe's structural components, not enough to ground it, but enough to shorten the life span of each craft, and push up maintenance costs, the tail hook scandal, etc.

Worst thing about the whole concept... As was mentioned in an earlier post, you can only upgrade an airframe so much before it becomes obsolete, 20-30 yrs tops, but the F-35 program is claimed to have a 50 yr upgradability program, despite the fact that technological progress is accelerating.

They are justifying the massive cost of this program by claiming that they will still be in service (albeit later varients, F-35-M's etc.) in 2070!

It's become less about making something that works right, and more about corporate fingers in the cash pie. They even talked about changing the engines used, at a very late date, that was canceled saving $3 billion, but they are not done messing yet it seems. I get a feeling that either these things will arrive in 2020 with a whole host of defects, or they will be put back to 2025-2030.

Meanwhile it's struggle on with desperate late model rebuilds of existing airframes like the F-15, 16 and 18.

I'm dreading the howls of laughter from "Crab Air" when they finally see what WAFU are getting for their new flattops.

SNAFU...

[TLAM Strike]

Meanwhile it's struggle on with desperate late model rebuilds of existing airframes like the F-14, 16 and 18.

Rebuilds of F-14s? I though all the F-14s in the Free World were taken to the desert and chopped in to little pieces. :hmmm:

[magicstix]

Rebuilds of F-14s? I though all the F-14s in the Free World were taken to the desert and chopped in to little pieces. :hmmm:

Some are in reserve. He probably meant F-15.

[Gargamel]

The b-52 has been in service for that long. Produced 1955-1962.

And the c130 was introduced in 1957, also still in service.

C5, 1970.

[magicstix]

The b-52 has been in service for that long. Produced 1955-1962.

B-52 comes from a more golden time, a time of the A-10, the F-14, the F-18, the F-4, and the F-15, when aerospace contractors weren't gigantic and bloated, with pictures of Senators doing unmentionable things to goats... Those days are long gone.

[TLAM Strike]

B-52 comes from a more golden time, a time of the A-10, the F-14, the F-18, the F-4, and the F-15, when aerospace contractors weren't gigantic and bloated, with pictures of Senators doing unmentionable things to goats... Those days are long gone.

The F-14 might be a bad example. Grumman was huge for its day. It was the Lockheed of its time. Just look at what they built:
F4F Wildcat
F6F Hellcat
F7F
F8F
TBF Avenger
AF Guardian
F9F Panther
F9 Cougar
F-11 Tiger
F-111B
F-14
E-1 Tracer/E-2 Hawkeye
C-1 Trader/C-2 Grayhound
S-2 Tracker
A-6 Intruder
Gulfstream I/II
X-29
OV-1 Mohawk
The Apollo Lander!
A submarine! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Franklin_%28PX-15%29)
They designed and built THIS:
http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/2695/smalluspstruck.jpg
and this:
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/143/grummankabmasterhostessi.jpg
and this:
http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/7897/grummanfirecat1988.jpg
these:
http://img815.imageshack.us/img815/5007/upstruck804051.jpg
FCOL These Too:
http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/8366/trimetflxiblebuiltbus.jpg

Gumman made the canoe from Deliverance!! :haha:

Gumman put the wings on the Space Shuttle... they wanted to build the who thing! :03:

[Gargamel]

Gumman made the canoe from Deliverance!! :haha:

Gumman put the wings on the Space Shuttle... they wanted to build the who thing! :03:
*grumman

:p

But seriously, great canoe. I wrapped one around a tree once, hammered it back out, little duct tape, finished our trip. Had it welded back later.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I can't tell if it's incompetence, corruption, or both.

I've been railing against the F-35 on interweb forums for a few years now when the opportunity presents itself.

Does anyone here think F-35C will go to sea operationally? I think if so, it will be in very small numbers. I say buy more Super (Slow) Hornets to get us by (the F-18Cs and below are TIRED) as a stop gap until UCAV-N can take over.

PD

[PeriscopeDepth]

FCOL These Too:
http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/8366/trimetflxiblebuiltbus.jpg

Gumman made the canoe from Deliverance!! :haha:

Gumman put the wings on the Space Shuttle... they wanted to build the who thing! :03:

Hey, I ride one of those every week day!

PD

[TLAM Strike]

*grumman

:p
:haha: Yea I wrote that at like midnight. I really need to stop posting so late. :haha:

[gimpy117]

:nope::nope::nope:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9016442/Navys-5bn-Harrier-jet-replacement-unable-to-land-on-aircraft-carriers.html


Seriously people? How long have planes been landing on carriers? 100 Years? And STILL you get something that simple wrong!? :damn:

It gets better:

What you expect us to let you use your own missiles on those planes? Got to buy the AMRAAMs! Fund American jobs!! :03:


F-16.net has a great write up with graphics and everything:

http://f-16.net/news_article4494.html

well, it's called be a high enough level contractor with the US government and you can do whatever you want. yay fascism!

[Gargamel]

But honestly, IMO, we won't know the answer for another 30 years. Well just have to wait and see if it turns into one of those great success stories, or another dod flop.