F-35C Unable to Get Aboard Ship, really?

[navyao]

Maybe this is old news but I just read the article and was surprised. I thought all was well since they were testing it with EMALS...You'd think the engineers that designed the carrier version would ensure that it would have the capability to trap aboard a carrier.

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

 

[phrogdriver]

What was the line about,"It can only be flown in the daytime?" I'm guessing that's just an OT&E restriction being taken out of context, but still.

How does a carrier aircraft get this far along without anyone making sure the tail hook works?

On the bright side, if the C can't hook, maybe the Navy will need to buy the B version, too!

 

[Brett327]

Old news, kind of, but the overall report that was leaked a few months ago does reveal some significant hurdles to overcome. It's not as doom & gloom as some would have you believe. The airframe is still essentially in developmental testing, so you have to expect a certain number of issues. What's unique about the JSF is that they've decided to enter LRIP before all the kinks are worked out, so the worry is that if the costs of tweaking the aircraft are significant, that has to be applied to all the LRIP airframes and not just a couple prototypes.

Brett

 

[Pags]

What was the line about,"It can only be flown in the daytime?" I'm guessing that's just an OT&E restriction being taken out of context, but still.

Not to pick nits, but to clarify the JSF is currently going through DT and isn't in OT yet. Not too surprising that early DT flights would have a day VFR restriction on it.

 

[phrogdriver]

Not to pick nits, but to clarify the JSF is currently going through DT and isn't in OT yet. Not too surprising that early DT flights would have a day VFR restriction on it.

That makes sense. Again, it just seems as if we're pretty far along in this process to still be in DT.

 

[Flash]

The report that graphic linked the article was pulled from also has the design of the tailhook tested and the new one they plan to put on the F-35C will likely have a better chance at catching the wire. This blog post has the graphic with the old and new tailhooks, the old was was supposed to reduce 'cable shredding' (?). If the new hook doesn't work well, well........

Brett is dead on about the testing and LRIP. The thinking was that since the aircraft design has gotten so advanced that we could take the risk of doing LRIP during testing because they supposed to get a lot of things right from the beginning and testing would be nice and smooth. But alas to use the old quote "the more things change......"

As for the 'expert' cited in the article, Peter Goon, he has been a loud and sometimes shrill critic of the JSF for several years and is by no means unbiased. But hey, engineers are never wrong, are they?

 

[Swanee]

Anything from F-16.net needs to be taken with very large grains of salt.

 

[Fog]

My armchair solution: extend the length of the a/c by 3-5 ft, add more gas & a 2nd seat (NFO, of course), and then we'd have the no-shit all-weather attack a/c this platform was intended to be. Whatever it is, the F-35 is not a fighter first (JMHO), of course).

 

[flaps]

for reference... the tomcat had concurrent DT/OT and production deliveries.

seemed to work out fine except for that flat spin thing.

 

[Flash]

My armchair solution: extend the length of the a/c by 3-5 ft, add more gas & a 2nd seat (NFO, of course), and then we'd have the no-shit all-weather attack a/c this platform was intended to be. Whatever it is, the F-35 is not a fighter first (JMHO), of course).

I have seen a graphic from Lockheed depicting a two-seat F-35 with conformal jamming pods, just a proposal for now but something that could pop up down the road (the Israelis already inquired about a twwo-seat but with no other interest they didn't want to be alone eating the development costs for it).

 

[bert]

Adding on a second seat would be stupidly expensive and nobody is going to want to shoulder that cost. The EA mission is going to be considered a great candidate for moving to a UAS.

 

[Recovering LSO]

interesting comment in Flash's link about the hook point being too pointy. The author incorrectly believes the word "shredding" was a typo for "shedding". They meant shredding. Many many years ago the EA-6B had a tailhook redesign because the leading edge of the hook was too sharp. It is believed this had something to do with a few mishaps, both ashore and afloat, when the E-28 gear or the cross deck pendant split or parted.

This is why you'll notice almost all hook points are rounded off or smooth on the leading edge.

this message has been brought to you by the dept of useless trivia.

 

[scoolbubba]

this message has been brought to you by the dept of useless trivia.

You putting together a transfer packet to VP land? You'll do fine here with those kind of inane knowledges!

 

[PropAddict]

You putting together a transfer packet to VP land? You'll do fine here with those kind of inane knowledges!

Needs more power sources and un-measurable numbers.

 

[Flash]

interesting comment in Flash's link about the hook point being too pointy. The author incorrectly believes the word "shredding" was a typo for "shedding". They meant shredding. Many many years ago the EA-6B had a tailhook redesign because the leading edge of the hook was too sharp. It is believed this had something to do with a few mishaps, both ashore and afloat, when the E-28 gear or the cross deck pendant split or parted.

This is why you'll notice almost all hook points are rounded off or smooth on the leading edge.

this message has been brought to you by the dept of useless trivia.

I hadn't heard the term before and thought that might be what it was, thanks for knowledges!

Adding on a second seat would be stupidly expensive and nobody is going to want to shoulder that cost. The EA mission is going to be considered a great candidate for moving to a UAS.

For flexible, responsive and 'dynamic' EA it would be a challenge for a UAV to do it since it would require a link, and links can be jammed or spoofed by......EA.