Uh-oh, Navy F-35C can't land on aircraft carriers

This article is about the new F-35C not being able to land on British aircraft carriers, but it sounds like the same tail-hook design flaw will apply to U.S. carriers too.

My understanding is the F-35 is really 3 totally different jets. The F-35A is the one for the Air Force, the F-35B is the USMC vertical landing jet to replace the Harriers, and the F-35C is the Navy version of the F-35A with stronger landing gear and tail-hook.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086974/Royal-Navy-spends-50bn-new-fighter-jets-land-aircraft-carriers.html

Royal Navy spends £50bn on new fighter jets... but they can't even land on aircraft carriers.

A new fighter plane which is to be used by the UK and U.S. military has a design flaw which prevents it from landing on aircraft carriers, it has emerged.
The flaw in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will come as a huge embarrassment to the Royal Navy which is expected to take delivery of 50 of the planes by 2020 at a cost of about £5 billion.

Leaked documents from the Pentagon have revealed that the arrestor hook of the JSF - which is used to stop the plane during landing - is too close to the wheels.

According to The Sunday Times, the Pentagon report reveals that eight simulated landings have failed and it says a 'significant redesign' of the aircraft is needed.
It says the future of the aircraft is at risk.

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has refused to comment on the leaked report but a spokesmen told the newspaper that defence secretary Philip Hammond has discussed the issue with the U.S government.

The spokesman insisted that Britain 'remains committed to purchasing the carrier variant of the JSF.'
Arrestor cables are used to rapidly decelerate fighter jets as they land on aircraft carriers.
The cable catches onto a hook at the back of the aircraft which stops the plane from overshooting into the sea.

But it has emerged that on the F-35C - the new carrier variant of the JSF - the arrestor hook is just 7ft from the rear wheels of the jet resulting in the arrestor missing the hook.
On aircraft currently with the U.S navy, this distance is 18ft which means it has plenty of time to catch the cable.

The leaked report - called the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Concurrency Quick Look Review - now warns that there could be major consequences to the aircraft's structure because of the design flaw.
It goes on to warn that the entire F-35C programme may have to be scrapped if a redesign is to costly or results in too many technical issues.

The report also revealed a number of other areas of concern which included that it may be unable to fire British Asraam air-to-air missiles.
According to The Sunday Times, the report adds that there was a high likelihood of future failures which had not yet been identified.

The government was criticised when it scrapped the Royal Navy's Harrier aircraft in 2010.
The shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy, told the newspaper: 'An island nation like ours should be able to operate aeroplanes from an aircraft carrier.
It's essential we know how long we will be without carrier strike capability.'
.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Here's an interesting picture of a FA-18's tailhook location versus the new F-35C's tailhook.

Notice how close the end of the F-35C's tailhook is to the main wheels.
.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

This seems like a pretty big mistake to make and I'm surprised it wasn't caught during the preliminary design stages.

 

Wow, I'm going to be following this story. I can't believe something as important as that wasn't caught during design (or at the very least in testing).

 

Lockheed will find a solution.

In the past, it was claimed the F-14, would not be able to land on the boat. It is true, the F-14, could not operate from the Midway class carriers. ...just like Smoky, could not operate from the Essex class ships.

 

We still have plenty of FA-18s right? Problem solved.

 

Another interesting article that talks about the problem (about 2/3 the way down).

http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/12/brief-history-of-tailhook-design.html

It seems the contractors' solution is to play with the hook point and damper pressure. Seems to me like a band-aid thrown onto a fundamental airframe problem...

Another issue is that because of the delays, the F-35C is already in Low rate initial production while still in developmental testing, meaning any airframe changes will have to be applied to aircraft already produced.

 

Is this only an issue for the UK's carrier? I believe their carrier is much smaller than the US carriers, and was originally designed only for VTOL aircraft (think Harrier).

 

To me, it just looks like the F-35C tailhook is just too short. I think if they lengthen it a bit that it will work fine.

 

It's VTOL. Why does it need a tail hook?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7cAmCCmObw[/ame]

 

It is NOT VTOL, it's STOVL. Short Take off, VL. Not all of them are, either.

Some are conventional TOL.

But, I don't know why it's a problem with the British as they are converting from the terrible Harrier, which is VTOL.

Maybe there are some situations, like high load or ??? that require a conventional landing.

 

Isn't the solution rather simple? Just add a longer hook and it'll catch the wire more easily.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

Ah, you got there before me.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

The issue is the tail hook. That's for landing.

That video shows one landing on a ship. If it can't take off, how they gonna get it off the ship?

 

Ha! I beat you both to the solution, but I typed it out and then decided against posting for fear of over simplifying the issue and looking dumb. Glad others had the same idea I did!


Mark

 

+1

What were they thinking? [Or not thinking I guess......]

Seems like such a fundamental requirement that someone, somewhere should have noticed very early on.

Oh well, a few more million tax payer dollars will get 'er done - "No problem!"

Cheers,
Ian

 

Read the second line of post #1.

 

This one?

 

Yes. The one in the video you posted is the B version. It lands vertically and can take off on a very short runway. It's designed for small carriers / amphibious assault ships like the Wasp and short, improvised airfields.

The C version, which is what this thread is about, is a more conventional carrier jet. It designed to take off using a catapult and land using an arrestor hook.

Two very different aircraft, despite the outward similarity.

 

The only reason I can think of that would prohibit just lengthening the hook would be that it has to fold up into the body of the jet for stealth purposes. Maybe a longer hook won't fit?

I don't have any in depth knowledge about the airframe, but I would think that they can come up with some solution to fix this that won't cause them to scrap the entire program.

 

I would guess the short hook is designed to stow away inside to the body to reduce radar return.

So how about a telescoping hook? It can lower from the body, then extend to the required length. When raised, it can telescope down to the shorter length required to fold up inside the body. Someone just make sure I get my commission check when they implement this solution.

 

Ok, so why not just use the B version then? What's the benefit of the C version?

 

The Brits were going to use the B version, but decided to switch, apparently. The difference is that the C version can carry more fuel and weapons, and is generally more capable. And, there have been a lot of rumors that the VTOL system has been problematic.

 

Well. It sounds like the plane just isn't ready.

I always wondered how much payload affected VTOL.