Forum: Program and politics

Allowcowboy, That's if the move does not stress that part of the plane? It probably depends on the structural components in that part of the F35 have enough margin to play around with. Stress calcs away!. And a faired tail hook under the engine nozzle. Another Bump to add? Hopefully not an impact on stealth?

F-16.net Sponsor

thebigfish wrote:

Allowcowboy, That's if the move does not stress that part of the plane? It probably depends on the structural components in that part of the F35 have enough margin to play around with. Stress calcs away!. And a faired tail hook under the engine nozzle. Another Bump to add? Hopefully not an impact on stealth?

@thebigfish...... I totally agreed with you that certain areas of F-35C would have to be beefed up structurally and the mold lines of the bottom F-35C would have to be altered too. This isn't some thing you want to do unless as a last resort.

Cheers!

I'm curious about a telescoping hook concept.. can one be built strong enough to trap a F-35?

popcorn wrote:

I'm curious about a telescoping hook concept.. can one be built strong enough to trap a F-35?

It would be very difficult to make fail safe.

alloycowboy wrote:

popcorn wrote:

I'm curious about a telescoping hook concept.. can one be built strong enough to trap a F-35?

It would be very difficult to make fail safe.

I can't imagine the stresses involved.. still some clever engineering, advanced metallurgy... who knows? Would love to be fly on the wall during the SDD team's brainstorming sessions.

maus92 wrote:

The RN needs real AEW, ala E-2D - can't do that with skijump. The UK should buy/lease some Super Hornets if they need an interim aircraft (or permanent replacement if LM can't fix the -C.)

Considering they were going to be getting the F-35B up until a few months ago, why would they want F-18s?

I thought the decision to get the F-35C was made a year ago, or am I wrong?

tacf-x wrote:

I thought the decision to get the F-35C was made a year ago, or am I wrong?

You're correct- F35C was selected as part of the 2010 SDSR.

stobiewan wrote:

tacf-x wrote:

I thought the decision to get the F-35C was made a year ago, or am I wrong?

You're correct- F35C was selected as part of the 2010 SDSR.

You're right, it just seemed shorter. They certainly were planning to get the B far longer than they've since been planning to get the C.

The point still stands too; the F-35B is a better plane than the F/A-18 in basically every way, and quite capable of taking off from and landing on ships. And the British have had extensive experience with STOVL carrier operations. They picked the C for its better performance relative to the F-35B, but prior to switching to the C, they hadn't been planning on switching from the F-35B to the legacy F/A-18. If the F-35C is cancelled, the only sensible choice for the RN is to go back to the B model, which had been a quite satisfactory option for them for many years.

Telescoping might be a problem, but extending with a hinge in the middle of it like your knees or elbows wouldn't be too challenging; the thing's already on a hinge.

Oops, wrong thread...

kingalbert wrote:

The funny thing is that according the above graphic the distance between the rear wheels and the tailhook is really short!! LOL!

Not really. Shorter than the 18's yes but s longer distance than on JSF anyhow.

Fact is the UK will get new jets for its carriers and if something bad happens to the F-35C there's several options on how to deliver alternative airborne jets to the RN. No drama.

Right up to the point we forked out for EMALS/AARG, stripped out the ski jump and generally spent a minor fortune setting up for CATOBAR ops, then yes, the B model was still an option. I think by the time we've done that, switching back to the B model would be politically hard to swallow.

The RAF still needs a 5th Gen platform and the RN would need something to fly off carriers, so B would seem to tick most boxes however,

Ian

river_otter wrote:

stobiewan wrote:

tacf-x wrote:

I thought the decision to get the F-35C was made a year ago, or am I wrong?

You're correct- F35C was selected as part of the 2010 SDSR.

You're right, it just seemed shorter. They certainly were planning to get the B far longer than they've since been planning to get the C.

The point still stands too; the F-35B is a better plane than the F/A-18 in basically every way, and quite capable of taking off from and landing on ships. And the British have had extensive experience with STOVL carrier operations. They picked the C for its better performance relative to the F-35B, but prior to switching to the C, they hadn't been planning on switching from the F-35B to the legacy F/A-18. If the F-35C is cancelled, the only sensible choice for the RN is to go back to the B model, which had been a quite satisfactory option for them for many years.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the Navy wound up using the B? Twisted Evil

Just for argument sake. IF the F-35C becomes unusable with the other two variants being OK - let us imagine a few years down the track - after the CVFs are more or less fitted with AAG and EMALS - it will be no great loss to switch to F-35Bs on the flat deck because the arrestor gear and catapult will enable the E-2 and UAVs. No? Perhaps then later if F-35C fixed or equivalent will be optional again?

Forum: Program and politics

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