New problem with the F-35C

47
A graph ("marked") illustrating the distance in feet from the wheel base of the main landing gear to the point of contact of the brake hook of the main deck aircraft aviation US Navy (c) US Department of Defense


Erik Palmer's material appeared on the web site www.f-16.net, informing about the identified new serious problem in the design of the F-35C fighter, the deck version of the Lockheed Martin F-35 (JSF) aircraft being created for the US Navy. Palmer reports on a US Department of Defense document dated November 2011, indicating that all eight landings of the third F-35C prototype (CF-03 aircraft) on an aircraft carrier deck simulator (an analogue of NITKA) based on the US Navy aviation in the first tests of August 2011 of the year were unsuccessful - in none of the eight cases did the F-35C hook catch on the arresting cable. Thus, the aircraft showed its complete inability to land on the aircraft carrier.

These facts became known earlier, but in this case it is revealed that the design features of the F-35С became the cause of failure with hooking the hook: an unusually small distance between the touch point of the hook and the main landing gear of the entire 7,1 foot (about 2,18 meter). Therefore, the hook does not work efficiently and is unable to ensure reliable gripping of the arresting cable. For comparison, for the F-14D deck fighter the distance between the point of contact of the hook and the main landing gear was 22 feet, and for F / A-18E / F it is 18,3 feet.

It is noted that in spite of the fact that the parameters of the requirements for the design of hook deck aircraft are detailed in the US military standards MIL-A-181717C and MIL-D-8708C, they were inexplicably ignored by the designers of Lockheed Martin. The problem with the location of the hook on the F-35С looks serious and difficult to remove, as it is connected with the main elements of the aircraft structure. Moving the hook will be considerable difficulties due to the strength problems of the tail of the aircraft, and it is unclear whether it will be feasible.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

47 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    11 January 2012 11: 13
    Keep it up! What can I say.
    1. Tjumenec72
      +4
      11 January 2012 13: 41
      Pindos sawing butterflies for the most part - professionals)))
      already in the sixth generation began drinking plans to do)))
      1. +3
        11 January 2012 13: 45
        Let them do the 6th generation; I'll see how they (again in vain) spend money. With their destroyers only in Hollywood and act in film. wink
        1. +1
          11 January 2012 14: 47
          Oh, if they were spending money or resources, and not colored paper.
  2. Net
    Net
    0
    11 January 2012 11: 14
    Well, a kamikaze squadron can already be created smile
  3. +9
    11 January 2012 11: 17
    Yes, apparently the F-22 price record will still be broken !!!
  4. +6
    11 January 2012 11: 28
    Well, just like a cylinder, you get it and you learn something new. A jamb on a jamb, mdaaa. wink
  5. +17
    11 January 2012 11: 33
    There is no more joy than the grief of "potential" friends! Give the F-35 for the cost of a space shuttle!
    1. 0
      12 January 2012 01: 44
      wink wink wink wink wink
      Cool joke!
  6. +5
    11 January 2012 11: 44
    recalls the case with the most expensive and most super-duper F-117, for a zilch check, it is clear that the Lokhids need to earn money so far with only sweet promises, but how successful!
  7. -8
    11 January 2012 12: 01
    It’s good of course that the potential adversary is not doing well, but after all, Pak F on max screwed up be as healthy as you can.
    And how much is a pack fa?
    1. Tyumen
      +4
      11 January 2012 12: 59
      Well, you compared. The clap in the engine and the inability to land where it should be.
    2. +5
      11 January 2012 13: 06
      Quote: Kyrgyz
      but after all and pak fa on maxa screwed up be healthy as.

      And what is there to be healthy? Ef thirty-fifth made the first flight back in 2006 g - and so far neither fish nor fowl. T-50 made its first flight in 2010. Feel the difference? And there was no tragedy at MAKS, the engine surging.
      Quote: Kyrgyz
      And how much is a pack fa?

      And no one knows. But what is cheaper at least 2 times - do not go to the fortuneteller. The point is that the development of the F-35 has already cost 56 billion dollars. And it is far from complete. For example, the total development costs of F-35 will be in the 60 billion area. So it turns out that if Americans release 1000 F-35 each of them will cost = the cost of materials and assembly of the aircraft + 60 million for its development (60 billion / 1000 pcs = 60 million)
      And the PAK FA, you won’t believe, was developed for 60 billion rubles (i.e., 2 billion dollars) - in other words, even if we assume that they are produced by 200 units (and there are so many different types, one wants to buy India) that in the cost of the aircraft development costs amount to only 10 million
      1. -5
        11 January 2012 13: 29
        Do you think what kind of surging is this ?, the whole world screwed up, then it can be bullshit and the face is already smeared, who will buy a car that stalls at the presentation? this is not garbage, it’s a blow to the image and the technical side is secondary here.
        Well, the question of price and economy is still open, the F35 is planned to disperse in a larger circulation than the T50 and, as a deck car, it is needed only by the states, everyone else will order a regular car and everything is ok, the price is only horseback, but if we don’t stall at the start and we would sell more than half the price
        1. +3
          11 January 2012 14: 44
          Quote: Kyrgyz
          Think of a surge of garbage what ?, the whole world screwed up,

          "Fucked up" for numerous "experts" on Internet forums :))) But here's the thing, these "experts" never buy fighters. For specialists, no tragedy happened.
          Quote: Kyrgyz
          Who will buy a car that stalls at the presentation?

          MAX T-50 not for sale
          Quote: Kyrgyz
          But the question of price and economy is still open,

          Well, yes, it is open - just the fact that the cost price of the F-35 is much higher, as it were, self-evident.
          Quote: Kyrgyz
          If we had nothing glohlo at the start, maybe we would have sold more expensive than two times less

          Do not confuse the selling price with the cost price. I wrote to you about the cost price - i.e. how much is the plane. How much can it be sold is a completely different question.
          1. -2
            11 January 2012 15: 24
            The incident with the stalled T50 flew around all thematic publications in order to create a negative image for the product, specialists are just people and they have bias opinions and demand for thematic publications that describe the fiasco at the presentation, this is not a trifle from the point of view of starting sales. And the presentation is always the start of sales, we take orders so to speak, and here the fucking factory owner is request , India sold it even though there is no aircraft yet. And in some rich countries, specialists can finally buy based on what they write in gloss
            1. +2
              11 January 2012 16: 29
              Quote: Kyrgyz
              A presentation is always the start of sales.

              Which (again I say) the surge t-50 had no effect. MAKS is an exhibition-demonstration of technologies in order to attract partners. What really was before MAX?
              And there was only information about the T-50 flights and not very clear footage. And then the experts "rattled", shouting that they say there is no T-50 in the Russian Federation, and that its engines are old, and its avionics are old, and in general there is only one body from the fighter of the future, and even that is indistinct. And not a single serious import specialist can confirm or deny this lie to the end, having only a photo and a newsreel in his hands.
              In response, ours are exhibiting at the MAKS T-50. And any specialist (and there are many of them at MAKS) sees that the engines are new (albeit intermediate), that a significant part of the avionics is also new, and that the "experts" who have been "talking" are not blushing, and the aircraft really has little time left to mass production. Here THIS is the result. And experts (not "nabizhih", but real experts) around the world now know that the T-50 is not bullshit.
              And the fact that the engine died out - so no one said that the serial model is being demonstrated.
              In general, do not confuse the PAK FA with Coca-Cola.
          2. 0
            12 January 2012 01: 49
            Surge IS NOT YOUR OWN ENGINE! There will NOT be such engines on serial ones! And then, I agree with Andrey from Chelyabinsk, this is nonsense because the T-50 is not ready yet! All flights now are running around the equipment!
        2. +1
          11 January 2012 15: 05
          Quote: Kyrgyz
          but if we didn’t stall at the start, maybe we would sell more than half the price

          nothing smart guys finalize, we still have them
          and why judge strictly, the machine is still experimental
      2. Jaguar
        0
        11 January 2012 22: 19
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But what is at least 2 times cheaper - do not go to a fortuneteller

        do you think PAK-FA will be a little more expensive than the Su-30?
  8. 0
    11 January 2012 12: 02
    Lockheed Martin - I almost love this company already.

    Now we need to hold an information campaign on the topic of how Lockheed Martin does not give a damn about the USA
  9. +3
    11 January 2012 12: 05
    Great news, "wonderful plane" .... Everything is super .... In other versions of this aircraft, I hope there are no less stocks than in this version ....
  10. The comment was deleted.
    1. +2
      11 January 2012 13: 07
      Wrong and strong. On the development of F-35 ALREADY was spent over 56 billion wink wink wink
      1. alatau_09
        +2
        11 January 2012 13: 20
        Here are the last figures of the cost of the 35th program:
        "The F-35 has already become the most expensive US weapons program, which is estimated at about $ 385 billion. But this price may still rise as the fighter needs" multimillion-dollar fixes. "

        http://gunm.ru/news/bessmyslennyj_popil_babla/2012-01-03-781

        The unit price today with deliveries for 2015 is 115 million bucks ...

        A trifle, but nice ...))
        1. +2
          11 January 2012 14: 46
          385 billion - if you take with the price of the production of the fighters themselves. And 56 billion is the cost of development :)))
  11. 0
    11 January 2012 12: 39
    indeed, this failure of sworn friends pleases. The more money they invest there, the better it will be. Let them smack America’s head)
  12. +1
    11 January 2012 12: 40
    As far as I remember, the F-35 was designed with vertical take-off and landing. Comrades, there are people here who can explain why he needs a conventional landing system? I do not know these subtleties.
    1. Tyumen
      +2
      11 January 2012 13: 02
      Vertical take-off and landing are some of the most complicated procedures. They didn’t really learn on the Hornets, but here’s such a child prodigy.
      1. 0
        11 January 2012 14: 42
        Quote: Tyumen 35
        They didn’t really learn on the Hornets,

        about the hornet with a vertical can a link?
        did not hear
    2. +4
      11 January 2012 13: 12
      developed 3 aircraft modification
      F-35A - the most common aircraft for the US Air Force
      F-35B - this is the one you are talking about, with a short takeoff and vertical landing. Why it is needed - it is absolutely impossible to say (since the vertical lines are the worst TTX)
      Ф-35С - the same Ф-35А but for basing on aircraft carriers (the hull of other materials so that there is no corrosion on the old moist air, folding wings, hook for the aerofinisher, etc.)
      1. Jaguar
        0
        11 January 2012 22: 13
        F-35V for base on UDC, replacement of obsolete Harriers
    3. 0
      11 January 2012 14: 38
      Quote: FullBack
      Why does he need a conventional landing system? I do not know these subtleties

      also not very strong, but with vertical take-off, so much fuel is scorched that the radius is small (Yak-38), the engines are usually take-off and marching, more are needed, the system is much more complicated, etc., etc.
      not for nothing that cars with a vertical line try to take off according to the usual or at least with a short take-off if possible
  13. Igor
    +1
    11 January 2012 13: 05
    Quote: FullBack
    As far as I remember, the F-35 was designed with vertical take-off and landing.

    Should also be with conventional engines.
    Quote: FullBack
    Comrades, there are people here who can explain why he needs a conventional landing system?

    Even if he has engines with vertical take-off, he needs these hooks, otherwise he will jam the engines and will have to land the plane not vertically but horizontally.
  14. orion-sticks
    +1
    11 January 2012 13: 23
    Only a beautiful airplane can fly well. The F-35 is a bit of a go-getter. And it is "invisible" only for American taxpayers.
  15. gagar1n
    -1
    11 January 2012 13: 42
    you need to attach the hook to the nose wink

    Tyumen35,
    and where does the horn?
    1. Tyumen
      0
      11 January 2012 14: 23
      Lied, forgot. What is their vertical armament?
      1. +1
        11 January 2012 14: 53
        maybe a Harrier?
  16. coast
    0
    11 January 2012 13: 43
    and soon they will not land vertically and fall, most likely our project was sold to them, now they swell there with lava and then the project is minimized. Well English they will make them a new aircraft carrier and no birds for him and don’t know when it will be
    1. +2
      11 January 2012 14: 48
      Quote: bereg
      Projects most likely we sold them

      wink wink wink - and you really do not know that we sold them a documentary on the vertical Yak-141?
      True, the United States has a different approach, but some kind of relationship (such as the location of the nozzles) is still visible :)))))
  17. +1
    11 January 2012 13: 45
    Comrades, thank you, clarified.
    1. +1
      12 January 2012 02: 01
      That’s why the minus slammed a man?
  18. ares3
    0
    11 January 2012 13: 58
    Quote: Tyumen 35
    They didn’t really learn on the Hornets, but here’s such a prodigy

    Not on the Hornets, but on the harriers.
    1. Tyumen
      0
      11 January 2012 14: 25
      Yes, I was wrong.
  19. dred
    -3
    11 January 2012 15: 14
    Painfully expensive car, it turned out. Besides UWB, who else would buy this car?
  20. coast
    -1
    11 January 2012 20: 19
    Tjumenec72,
    the sixth generation isn’t, this is already too much, firstly, a major war must be unleashed, secondly, it is necessary for 5 to participate there, and in the third, what is needed for 6, no one knows how or doesn’t know in pendosy, they revealed that they want him but who
  21. suharev-52
    0
    11 January 2012 21: 42
    Well. And someone moaned, that only we "scoops" have missed everything ... whether everything is lost. We can do nothing. It turns out that Pindostan is only good in Hollywood. So guys, we’ll have some more fun.
  22. Freedom eagle
    -5
    11 January 2012 22: 05
    Quote: Victor
    There is no more joy than the grief of "potential" friends!

    Your slogan is unstable, and one-to-one looks like this:
    It’s not scary that my hut burned down with my wife and children - I am glad that my cow died from a neighbor.

    Quote: Denis
    recalls dealing with the most expensive and most super-duper F-117, to check zilch

    I have long been convinced that your "knowledge" in aviation is close to zero. You'd better just read aviation literature, and not write nonsense here.

    Quote: Kyrgyz
    Pak fa on max screwed up be as healthy as.

    "Edenichka", by the way, was smashed at MAKS, and for the evil would-be patriots, I'm glad of that.
    Quote: AlexiusKit
    Great news, "wonderful plane" .... Everything is super .... In other versions of this aircraft, I hope there are no less stocks than in this version ....

    The shoals of the T-50 are above the roof, but no one will tell you about them, because in Rashke everything can only be good. Well, if something is wrong, then "it's the Pindos to blame!"
    Quote: Dimka off
    that this failure of sworn friends pleases.

    Read in the beginning about your burnt hut and your neighbor’s dead cow.
    Quote: Tyumen 35
    Vertical take-off and landing are some of the most complicated procedures. They on hornets you don’t really learn

    WHAT !!!!!

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    and you really don’t know that ours sold them a vertical document Yak-141?

    Lies! Sold the documentation only on the rotary nozzle assembly.

    And the Americans will cope with the problems, the plane will go into the world, and will be the most massive 5th generation fighter.

    1. 0
      12 January 2012 02: 06
      Quote: Freedom Eagle
      I have long been convinced that your "knowledge" in aviation is close to zero. You would be better


      You would have better studied the Great and the Mighty before teaching.
    2. +2
      12 January 2012 10: 49
      ABOUT! Ptyts proud flew :)))
      Quote: Freedom Eagle
      I have long been convinced that your "knowledge" in aviation is close to zero. You'd better just read aviation literature, and not write nonsense here.

      Yep Apparently, therefore, 117 and removed from service in 2008.
      Quote: Freedom Eagle
      The jambs at the T-50 are above the roof, only no one will tell you about them,

      And then who told you about them, you are our stray drake? wink
      Quote: Freedom Eagle
      Lies! Sold the documentation only on the rotary nozzle assembly.

      Yeah. And about the cooperation of Yakovlev and Lockheed in 90, did you forget? Can you give an inventory of what was transferred to the United States during this cooperation?
  23. +2
    11 January 2012 23: 20
    quote = Freedom Eagle] I have long been convinced that your "knowledge" in aviation is close to zero. You would be better off just reading aviation literature, and not writing nonsense here. [/ Quote]
    I started reading back in 90, and so in the "Foreign Military Review" there is about the attack on Panama, even then!
    and where did this landlord show itself well?

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"