F-35C jet fighter unable to land on carriers

[Pilotguy]

"A design flaw in the US Marine Corps version of the F-35 Lightning II, which prevents it from landing on an aircraft carrier, could see the highly advanced vehicle grounded indefinitely.

­The F-35C, also known as the carrier variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (CV JSF), is one of several fifth-generation fighters developed under the JSF program. New documents reveal that the aircraft has a crucial flaw, which could prevent it from ever being able to land on a vessel.

A Pentagon Concurrency Quick Look Review (QLR) of November 2011 says that all eight run-in/rolling tests undertaken at NAS Lakehurst in August 2011 to see if the F-35C could catch a wire with the tail hook have failed. The tail hook is meant to catch one of several wires stretched across the deck, after which a special arresting engine kicks in to quickly slow the aircraft down.

In the case of the F-35C, the decades-old trick doesn’t work. The tail hook is located too close to the main landing gear, so the springs supporting the arresting cable don’t have enough time to raise it after the wheels run over it for the hook to engage."

http://rt.com/news/f-35-design-flaw-917/

[gateley]

1. Unbelievable. They've been manufacturing planes to land on carriers for how many years?

This made it all the way to completion with this flaw? All the minds and money that went into it, and oops. *shaking head*

[TheWraith]

4. No, it didn't make it anywhere close to completion.

They're in the prototype stage. The F-35 isn't scheduled to become operational for 5 years.

Also, this is Russia Today doing their utmost to make it sound the worst it possibly can.

[Warren DeMontague]

2. You mean the carrier version can't, actually, land on carriers? Whoops.

Still, I'd be interested in seeing a source that isn't rt.

[Pilotguy]

6. UPI

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2012/01/16/New-jet-fighters-cant-land-on-carriers/UPI-18471326736852/?sp

[Warren DeMontague]

12. Thanks.

Appalling.

[MrScorpio]

3. Of course, it can't...

This is why a "Cost Plus" clause is written into military weapons development contracts.

Gotta keep the money train-a-rollin'.

The best way to do this is build stealth jets that show up on radar, "air supremacy" fighters that can't be flown in the rain and carrier jets that can't land on aircraft carriers.

[jody]

5. F-35B is in trouble also. DoD failed with the multi purpose aircraft F-111, lucked out by chance

with the F-4 and has trouble with the F-35 variants.

Oh well, thank goodness the Taliban only have IEDs, AK-47s, no body armor, etc. to keep us stalemated aided by rules of engagement that cripple our troops.

[RC]

11. And we still can't win.

"Oh well, thank goodness the Taliban only have IEDs, AK-47s, no body armor, etc."

Even when we bomb their wedding parties and funerals and schools and...

[jody]

16. Been in combat myself. That's why I identify with the Marines who were fed up and said "Piss on it"!

Truly unfortunate that the corpses got in the way but that should be classified as friendly fire and collateral damage.

No sarcasm intended because they are my sentiments and those of buddies who've been there, done that.

Anyone who has been under fire or returned hostile fire sees the world differently than those who pontificate and procrastinate from the safety of luxurious offices.

[Posteritatis]

7. That sounds like one of those "a small child could spot this" design flaws. (nt)

[Curmudgeoness]

8. God damn it.....that is quite a design flaw....SNAFU.

This is un-fucking-believable....and we will pay for it. We will pay for it whether it is ever used, ever fixed, and no matter whose fault this little "flaw" is.

Your tax dollars at work.

[orpupilofnature57]

9. (QLR ) Quick look review , Who

pays for that flaw ,Healthcare ,Education ,Social Security ?

[jody]

10. "US Marine Corps version of the F-35 Lightning II" is the F-35B not F-35C. nt

[Pilotguy]

15. The F-35C is the carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter

[Pilotguy]

13. F-22 Raptor

The F-22 Raptor is having it's problems as well with environmental systems failures, specifically with the oxygen delivery system. The F-22 fleet was grounded twice in the last year.

[jody]

18. No sweat re oxygen, just restrict F-35s to less than 12k feet altitude. In the meantime DoD has

directed that all services replace legacy logistic systems that incorporate over 50 years of experience in policies and procedures with best-business practices ala Wal Mart etc.

Apparently presidents and their appointees to DoD don't understand that if a cheap part for an aircraft is not available, a combat aircraft doesn't fly, quite different than Wal Mart not having a roll of toilet paper on a shelf and loses a sale.

Hardly anyone acknowledges that DoD's failures with the F-22 and F-35 are complemented with equally disastrous failures in logistics.

[Laelth]

14. k&r for exposure. This is important. n/t

-Laelth

[pokerfan]

17. $56 billion

or about seven James Webb Space Telescopes.

[redqueen]

38. ...

[man4allcats]

19. Yet another engineering marvel!

Idiots!

[joshcryer]

20. 35 or so Democrats voted for this monstrosity, and continue to support it.

They must either be ousted or we must get twice as many new Democrats in the House to avoid it.

[orpupilofnature57]

25. While you're ousting and electing twice as many

Dems ,the pentagon enjoys Carte Blanche checking.

[DevonRex]

21. Isn't this fixable? Nt

[Angleae]

23. For only several billion dollars it can be fixed.

Lockheed won't fix it for free and the DoD doesn't have the balls to cancel the contract for it.

[pinboy3niner]

24. Lockheed says the fix is underway & should be retested in 2nd quarter of this year

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/01/dn-design-blamed-for-f35c-tailhook-issues-011712/

[DevonRex]

39. This is really a non-issue.

Thank you for the link. That's a pretty plane.

[gratuitous]

22. So we need to build more and bigger carriers?

Sorry, homeless and starving; we dan't take care of our own citizens, because we need to build some more boats.

[stevenleser]

41. No, that wouldn't help.

If you want to land aircraft without a tailhook, you would need a carrier capable of supporting an airport sized runway. That is several times the length of the ones we have now. Totally impractical.

[gratuitous]

42. How can you say that until we try it?

Or at least let a defense contract with a heueueuege up front payment to some deserving soul to make sure it's really, truly impractical? Think outside the box!

[Bucky]

26. How many billions?

All of it wasted.

[Kellerfeller]

45. Hardly

It is a design mod, but you don't simply give up the first time something doesn't go as you had hoped.

[Ganja Ninja]

27. The F4U Corsair wasn't considered Carrier worthy at first either.

Not every problem can be anticipated in the design stage.

[tammywammy]

28. Which is why they do testing

Lockheed Martin says a modified design is already in work. http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/01/dn-design-blamed-for-f35c-tailhook-issues-011712/

[teamster633]

31. The problem with the Corsair was forward visibility.

This couldn't really be considered a design flaw since the whole point of the aircraft was utilizing the huge R-2800 as a power plant. It's signature bent wings were themselves a compromise required to prevent the massive propeller that engine drove from striking the ground. The solution (which was discovered by the Brits) was to simply alter the landing approach.

[Ganja Ninja]

34. It had other problems too.

The landing gear didn't absorb the forces properly and would cause the plane to bounce on impact. That led to the tail hook missing arresting wires too. Eventually it all got figured out.

[oneshooter]

32. If they can land a C-130 on deck witout arrester gear

and then take it off the deck without cats. Why can't they do the same with a smaller aircraft?



http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c130_forrestal.asp

[DevonRex]

36. My father flew corsairs. God he loved that plane. Warts

and all.

[Ganja Ninja]

40. I can't imagine what it would be like to be an early 20 something ...

and have someone hand over one of them to you. It is probably my favorite fighter from WWII. I often wonder how well they would have done in Europe against the Germans. The Japanese considered them to be the best American fighter they faced.

[DevonRex]

44. He was 20 by a couple of months

when he signed up on Dec 8, 1941. He was a crop duster so he could fly and nothing scared him. We've got pictures of him on the carriers and at air shows he did to raise war bond money. And we have pictures of him with Pappy Boynton on some damn tiny island in the pacific. That's how I think of him. Tough as nails Marine Corps fighter pilot and also the sweetest dad on the face of the earth.

[chrisa]

29. This fighter will never see the light of day

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't this fighter also have a problem with giving oxygen to pilots? So, what does it do correctly? Does it actually fly? lol

Edit: Oh, that was the raptor, or whatever the heck it's called. Both probably made in China with styrofoam, used band-aids and chewed bubble gum.

[hootinholler]

30. This is what comes from cookbook engineering

Oh yeah, hey we need a hook on the bottom to catch a wire.

[leeroysphitz]

33. Whoops. n/t

[Evasporque]

35. make the tailhook longer....

duh......

[DevonRex]

37. They already are. See pinboy's reply to me above. Nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Most likely solution: Give more money to the MIC to develop a shinier model with more chrome.