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

TLAM Strike · 01-17-12, 01:26 PM

Quote:

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.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-carriers.html

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

It gets better:

Quote:

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!!

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

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

kraznyi_oktjabr · 01-17-12, 01:35 PM

Quote:

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?

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

TLAM Strike · 01-17-12, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

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!

Oberon · 01-17-12, 02:02 PM

So...those F-18s....

krashkart · 01-17-12, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

So...those F-18s....

You can't have those. We'll be... ehm

... shipping the scrap to Africa for processing.

EDIT:

Looks like we have another Tailhook scandal on our hands.

Aesthetica · 01-17-12, 02:41 PM

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!

TLAM Strike · 01-17-12, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krashkart

Looks like we have another Tailhook scandal on our hands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aesthetica

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:

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

Osmium Steele · 01-17-12, 03:10 PM

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 · 01-17-12, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

krashkart · 01-17-12, 03:43 PM

How about bunny rockets? Bunny rockets and sticky bombs.

There should also be an auto-drip coffeemaker and Pez dispenser integrated in the cockpit somewhere. Would there be enough room for those?

TLAM Strike · 01-17-12, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

No doubt the final result would be this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord_magerius

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

Why am I reminded of this:

Falkirion · 01-17-12, 04:56 PM

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 · 01-17-12, 07:32 PM

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

TLAM Strike · 01-17-12, 08:04 PM

One other possibility the UK might consider:

]
Maybe they could arrange a trade: 1 Eurofighter for 1 Tomcat?

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

Platapus · 01-17-12, 08:46 PM

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)

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.

01-17-12, 03:10 PM	#8
Osmium Steele Ace of the Deep Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Upper midwest USA Posts: 1,101 Downloads: 22 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ In the month of July of the year 1348, between the feasts of St. Benedict and of St. Swithin, a strange thing came upon England... My U297 build thread

01-17-12, 03:43 PM	#10
krashkart Navy Seal Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,292 Downloads: 100 Uploads: 0	How about bunny rockets? Bunny rockets and sticky bombs. There should also be an auto-drip coffeemaker and Pez dispenser integrated in the cockpit somewhere. Would there be enough room for those? __________________ sent from my fingertips using a cheap keyboard

01-17-12, 08:04 PM	#14
TLAM Strike Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Rochester, New York Posts: 8,633 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 6	One other possibility the UK might consider: ] Maybe they could arrange a trade: 1 Eurofighter for 1 Tomcat? How would the RN feel about having a better carrier based plane than us for the first time? __________________

01-17-12, 08:46 PM	#15
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,361 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	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) 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. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

01-17-12, 02:02 PM	#4
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	So...those F-18s....

01-17-12, 02:41 PM	#6
Aesthetica Swabbie Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Britain Posts: 8 Downloads: 15 Uploads: 0	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!

01-17-12, 04:56 PM	#12
Falkirion Ace of the Deep Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Melbourne, AUS Posts: 1,043 Downloads: 34 Uploads: 0	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.

01-17-12, 07:32 PM	#13
magicstix Captain Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Nuclear submarine under the North Pole Posts: 481 Downloads: 1 Uploads: 0	Par for the course with Lockheed. Too big to succeed.