Forum: Program and politics

Am I missing something here? Is this some higher Navy brass insisting the 35 be able to catch a hook to land on a carrier--just like all the other "drive the damn thing onto the deck in a controlled crash" aircraft?

Didn't the Government spend billions on this aircraft just to get it to come to a hover--or a slow crawl and then on to a landing? I'm sure an experienced jocky could bring the thing over the fantail at a slow crawl or a fast walk and touch down just long enough to allow the hook to engage the wire--just to satisfy those that insist it must hook the wire like all other past--less capable aircraft.

What's the old story? Something about not seeing the tree's (new tech) for the forrest (old hat)--

Geeeez!

F-16.net Sponsor

Here is a rehash of most of what is in this thread that LM thinks will fix the 'no hookee lookee catchee' problem. We have to await test results though.

Lockheed F-35C Tailhook Getting a Redesign after Landing Failures Shane McGlaun - Jan 18, 2012

http://www.dailytech.com/Lockheed+F35C+ ... e23812.htm

“The tailhook is missing the arresting wire and is being redesigned

The ambitious F-35 program is finally moving along at a decent clip after delays that have driven up costs and slowed the project down. A new issue is now being addressed with the carrier based version of the F-35 called the F-35C. In flight testing an issue arose where the hook that grabs the arresting wire on the aircraft is often missing the wire. Lockheed Martin has announced that it has traced the issue with capturing the arresting wire to the design of the tailhook. Lockheed Martin says that efforts to fix the problem are well underway. The good news is that the issue is with the design of the hook itself, not with any of the systems the F-35C. "The good news is that it’s fairly straight forward and isolated to the hook itself,” said Tom Burbage, Lockheed program manager for the F-35 program. “It doesn’t have secondary effects going into the rest of the airplane."

The issue being the tailhook design alone means that Lockheed will not have to make more extensive and expensive repairs or changes to the design of the tailhook system having to do with the doors that hide the tailhook for stealth. Lockheed notes that all other tailhook system components are good.

“What we are trying to do is make sure that we got the actual design of the hook is optimized so that it in fact repeatedly picks up the wire as long the airplane puts itself in position to do that,” he said. Lockheed, the Naval Air Systems Command and F-35 Joint Program Office have already started the modifications to the tailhook. “We’re modifying the hook to accommodate what we found so far in test,” Burbage said. “The new parts, we expect to have them back in the next couple of months.”

Tests of the F-35C with the new tailhook design should begin in Q2 2012. In 2013, the F-35C is slated to start sea landing trials where Lockheed notes, "the real testing begins." Burbage dismissed any claims that the F-35C will be unable to land on a carrier. Part of the issue with the tailhook on the F-35C is that it is much further forward towards the main landing gear than other naval aircraft due to the need to cover the hook for stealth. The first F-35C flew in 2010.”

vineyardman wrote:

Didn't the Government spend billions on this aircraft just to get it to come to a hover--or a slow crawl and then on to a landing?

No. Billions of dollars have been spent as a total on three separate models of F-35, only one of which has that ability, and most of the money has been spent on various other traits, not just that one.

The ability you're talking about is unique to F-35B, which will be flown by the U.S. Marines and some foreign navies. To do that, it has an extra fan behind the cockpit to pull air in at the top and blow it out the bottom (powered by the engine), small extra air outlets from the engine under the wings, and a jointed main engine outlet that can bend down. F-35C, which will be flown by the American and British navies, does not have those features, can't launch or land the way F-35B can, and isn't meant to. What it's designed for is launching by catapult and landing by cable. To do that, it has a catapult attachment in the front, a cable-snagging hook in the back, tougher suspension, and larger wings (to reduce its minimum forward air speed). Its engine has no swiveling outlet, extra outlets, or fan attached.

(Version A includes no specializations for launching or landing with limited runways; it only uses full long runways on land.)

Your question and its implied lack of familiarity with the differences between versions B and C suggests that you might wonder what the point is of going through the trouble of making version C at all. The answer is that it avoids the sacrifices that must be made in the design and operation of any plane that can do what F-35B can do (including Harrier). Pointing the engine's thrust down just isn't nearly as powerful or efficient at creating upward force to hold the plane up as is the more conventional method for airplanes: pointing the thrust straight back to push the plane forward so the wings create lift by moving through the air. So the plane uses up fuel several times faster when it's in that mode, which shortens its range a lot, and it can't lift as much weight. On top of that, it requires extra equipment to be built in to the plane, which becomes just dead weight once the plane's switched into forward flight mode, and takes up space that could have been used for something else, such as more fuel (which means more range) and/or more payload.

Thus, version C, by sticking to only forward flight like most planes do, is able to carry more weapons than version B, and carry them a lot farther. They could drop C and use B instead without having to deal with catapults or arresting cables, but then they'd be throwing away a lot of capability for delivering weapons to targets, which is the whole point of having any of these planes at all. The only catch, and the only reason why anybody would use B instead of C, is that C needs some help to launch and land, so the ship needs to be big enough for it and have catapults and arresting cables installed. A plane like F-35B simply becomes the only option left for ships that can't support something like F-35C, or for sites on land without long enough runways for conventional launches & landings.

Interesting observation about da hook....

F-35 boss: We’ll fix the jet — just let us do it By Philip Ewing, March 12th, 2012

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/03/12/f-35- ... z1ov2u1ig2

RADM Venlet quote: “...The F-35C’s tail hook? That’s “a damping/bouncing issue that we could not have found before, & have fixes for now,” Venlet said....”

Last edited by sufaviper on Mar 15, 2012 - 02:27 PM; edited 1 time in total

A friend that habitually watches the JRB Ft. Worth runways claims he saw an F-35C fly yesterday. If memory serves that should be CF-3, as no other F-35C are close to delivery that I can think of and CF-3 was returned to Ft. Worth a few months back. What that means to me is the CF-3 has the new hook solution and just flew with it.

Again this is hear-say from a friend who likes to watch the runway from across the lake (I trust them on the F-35, although I haven't gained confidence on thier ability to distinguish A, B, or C). Hopefully some confirmation either way will come soon. Just thought I would let you know what I heard from the rumor mill.

Sufa Viper

spazsinbad wrote:

Interesting observation about da hook....

F-35 boss: We’ll fix the jet — just let us do it By Philip Ewing, March 12th, 2012

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/03/12/f-35- ... z1ov2u1ig2

RADM Venlet quote: “...The F-35C’s tail hook? That’s “a damping/bouncing issue that we could not have found before, & have fixes for now,” Venlet said....”

In other words, it's a bent bit of metal, not rocket science Smile

Yes but the modified hook needs to be tested successfully which seems a probable outcome even if not rocket science.

My friend said he saw the F-35C again during his lunch break yesterday. I'm more inclined to believe it was actually a "C" as he told me it was escorted by 2 F-18's, which I believe only happens on ferry flights to and from PAX. So I am thinking CF-3 could be back at PAX as of yesterday.

Anyone know more?

Sufa Viper

Forum: Program and politics

U.S. Navy and U.K. Royal Navy F-35 unable to get aboard ship