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.

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:

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]

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]

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]

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

[krashkart]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by krashkart

Looks like we have another Tailhook scandal on our hands.

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.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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:

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

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