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

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

Discussion in 'Aviation Chat' started by toggie, Jan 15, 2012.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

Page 1 of 3
  1. toggie

    toggie F1 World Champ
    Owner Silver Subscribed

    Nov 30, 2003
    19,036
    Virginia
    Full Name:
    Toggie (Ron)
    #1 toggie, Jan 15, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    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
     
  2. toggie

    toggie F1 World Champ
    Owner Silver Subscribed

    Nov 30, 2003
    19,036
    Virginia
    Full Name:
    Toggie (Ron)
    #2 toggie, Jan 15, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    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
     
  3. 1_can_dream

    1_can_dream F1 Veteran

    Jan 7, 2006
    8,051
    Colorado
    Full Name:
    Kyle
    #3 1_can_dream, Jan 15, 2012
    This seems like a pretty big mistake to make and I'm surprised it wasn't caught during the preliminary design stages.
     
  4. White Knight

    White Knight Formula 3

    Aug 22, 2011
    1,531
    Ogden, UT
    Full Name:
    Todd S.
    #4 White Knight, Jan 16, 2012
    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).
     
  5. ralfabco

    ralfabco Two Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa

    Mar 1, 2002
    28,029
    Dixie
    Full Name:
    Itamar Ben-Gvir
    #5 ralfabco, Jan 16, 2012
    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.
     
  6. 2NA

    2NA F1 World Champ
    Consultant Owner Professional Ferrari Technician

    Dec 29, 2006
    18,221
    Twin Cities
    Full Name:
    Tim Keseluk
    #6 2NA, Jan 16, 2012
    We still have plenty of FA-18s right? Problem solved.
     
  7. mcbuff

    mcbuff Rookie

    Dec 27, 2010
    24
    Full Name:
    Kevin
    #7 mcbuff, Jan 16, 2012
    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.
     
  8. donv

    donv Two Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 5, 2002
    26,107
    Portland, Oregon
    Full Name:
    Don
    #8 donv, Jan 16, 2012
    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).
     
  9. Gatorrari

    Gatorrari F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Feb 27, 2004
    16,461
    Georgia
    Full Name:
    Jim Pernikoff
    #9 Gatorrari, Jan 16, 2012
    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.
     
  10. Jason Crandall

    Jason Crandall F1 Veteran

    Mar 25, 2004
    6,375
    ATL/CHS/MIA
    Full Name:
    Jason
    #10 Jason Crandall, Jan 16, 2012
    It's VTOL. Why does it need a tail hook?
    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7cAmCCmObw[/ame]
     
  11. rob lay

    rob lay Administrator
    Staff Member Admin Miami 2018 Owner Social Subscribed

    Dec 1, 2000
    63,971
    Southlake, TX
    Full Name:
    Rob Lay
    #11 rob lay, Jan 16, 2012
    you think the military and Lockheed Martin can do everything that's required to get the F-35 flying, but not capable of fixing this?
     
  12. Tcar

    Tcar F1 Rookie

    Jan 2, 2010
    4,739
    Denver, Albuquerque
    #12 Tcar, Jan 16, 2012
    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.
     
  13. NeuroBeaker

    NeuroBeaker Advising Moderator
    Moderator

    Oct 1, 2008
    40,016
    Huntsville, AL., USA
    Full Name:
    Andrew
    #13 NeuroBeaker, Jan 16, 2012
    Isn't the solution rather simple? Just add a longer hook and it'll catch the wire more easily.

    All the best,
    Andrew.
     
  14. NeuroBeaker

    NeuroBeaker Advising Moderator
    Moderator

    Oct 1, 2008
    40,016
    Huntsville, AL., USA
    Full Name:
    Andrew
    #14 NeuroBeaker, Jan 16, 2012
    Ah, you got there before me. :eek:

    All the best,
    Andrew.
     
  15. Jason Crandall

    Jason Crandall F1 Veteran

    Mar 25, 2004
    6,375
    ATL/CHS/MIA
    Full Name:
    Jason
    #15 Jason Crandall, Jan 16, 2012
    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?
     
  16. joker57676

    joker57676 Two Time F1 World Champ

    Apr 12, 2005
    23,767
    Sin City
    Full Name:
    Deplorie McDeplorableface
    #16 joker57676, Jan 16, 2012

    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
     
  17. Fast_ian

    Fast_ian Two Time F1 World Champ

    Sep 25, 2006
    23,397
    Campbell, CA
    Full Name:
    Ian Anderson
    #17 Fast_ian, Jan 16, 2012
    +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
     
  18. Crawler

    Crawler F1 Veteran

    Jul 2, 2006
    5,018
    #18 Crawler, Jan 16, 2012
    Read the second line of post #1.
     
  19. Jason Crandall

    Jason Crandall F1 Veteran

    Mar 25, 2004
    6,375
    ATL/CHS/MIA
    Full Name:
    Jason
    #19 Jason Crandall, Jan 16, 2012
    This one?
     
  20. Crawler

    Crawler F1 Veteran

    Jul 2, 2006
    5,018
    #20 Crawler, Jan 16, 2012
    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.
     
  21. 1_can_dream

    1_can_dream F1 Veteran

    Jan 7, 2006
    8,051
    Colorado
    Full Name:
    Kyle
    #21 1_can_dream, Jan 16, 2012
    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.
     
  22. nathandarby67

    nathandarby67 F1 Veteran
    Owner

    Feb 1, 2005
    8,349
    Mississippi
    Full Name:
    Nathan
    #22 nathandarby67, Jan 16, 2012
    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.
     
  23. Jason Crandall

    Jason Crandall F1 Veteran

    Mar 25, 2004
    6,375
    ATL/CHS/MIA
    Full Name:
    Jason
    #23 Jason Crandall, Jan 16, 2012
    Ok, so why not just use the B version then? What's the benefit of the C version?
     
  24. donv

    donv Two Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 5, 2002
    26,107
    Portland, Oregon
    Full Name:
    Don
    #24 donv, Jan 16, 2012
    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.

     
  25. Jason Crandall

    Jason Crandall F1 Veteran

    Mar 25, 2004
    6,375
    ATL/CHS/MIA
    Full Name:
    Jason
    #25 Jason Crandall, Jan 16, 2012
    Well. It sounds like the plane just isn't ready.

    I always wondered how much payload affected VTOL.
     
Page 1 of 3

Share This Page