Military Review

"Lockheed Martin" promises to fix the brake hook F-35C

33
"Lockheed Martin" promises to fix the brake hook F-35C



"Military Parity". The Lockheed Martin company created a new brake hook design for the F-35C aircraft to speed up the long-awaited process of entering the aircraft in the fleet, representatives of the company and the US Navy said.

Representatives fleet they also said that they would have to re-equip the landing craft decks due to the heat and noise created by the F-35B vertical landing aircraft.

“I can promise you there will be no problems with the acquisition of the 260 F-35C Navy and 353 F-35B ILC,” said Vice Admiral David Dunaway, Chief of Command aviation systems of the Navy.

One of the problems with the original design of the brake hook F-35C was that it had to retract inside the aircraft in order to increase the stealth performance of the aircraft.
On tests, the brake hook was not able to catch on the aerofinishing aircraft carrier cables.

“Our initial design failed to meet expectations,” said Lorraine Martin, executive vice president of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program. “The part of the brake hook that captures the cable is redone along with the“ holding damper ”mechanism, which holds the hook down on the deck.

She said that the new design will be tested this summer at the Naval Forces base in Lekharste (pc. New Jersey), test flight tests are expected at the end of the year.
Originator:
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/04/10/lockheed-promises-tailhook-fix-to-navys-f-35c/
33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs April 15 2013 07: 04 New
    +2
    "One of the problems with the initial design of the F-35C brake hook was that it had to be tucked inside the aircraft to increase the stealth performance of the aircraft."

    And now will not be cleaned?
    1. Gemar
      Gemar April 15 2013 07: 14 New
      +3
      Quote: Jurkovs
      And now will not be cleaned?

      Now it will be an inflatable! wassat
      1. neri73-r
        neri73-r April 15 2013 10: 38 New
        0
        Now he will not be!
        1. Rus2012
          April 15 2013 19: 34 New
          0
          Quote: neri73-r
          Now he will not be!

          ... will sit upright if there is enough fuel :)))
          If not, the pilot's catapult will help them!
    2. 755962
      755962 April 15 2013 11: 52 New
      0
      Quote: Jurkovs
      One of the problems

      Here you cannot get away with one problem ..
      The US Air Force, as we know it, no longer exists

      According to internal documents at the disposal of the Air Force Times, from April 9, 2013, the US Air Force will begin to withdraw advanced combat units to the reserve, due to cuts and the need to adapt to budget cuts.

      The order to remove from flight will affect 17 squadrons belonging to various Air Force units.


      http://mixednews.ru/archives/34816
    3. Lord of the Sith
      Lord of the Sith April 15 2013 14: 03 New
      0
      Yes, they scored on stealth, they are still fighting the Papuans, at least they should complete the project and start production, so they no longer count on stealth or maneuverability, since the Papuans do not have good air defense systems and fighter aircraft. But this is a very good friend of them in the confrontation with China, Iran, Russia. Since these countries have better air defense and have regiments of fighter aircraft.
  2. Gemar
    Gemar April 15 2013 07: 05 New
    0
    I can promise you that there will be no problems with the 260 F-35C Navy and 353 F-35B ILC

    Well, who would doubt it! It would be better if the Americans were worried that there were fewer problems during the operation. And they will be! It is impossible to create a universal fighter-bomber-attack aircraft of vertical take-off and landing. Yes, and inconspicuous and maneuverable ... And without any problems ...
    1. Phantom Revolution
      Phantom Revolution April 15 2013 08: 16 New
      +2
      Loch kids martin money only to upgrade hundreds of f -22 will make 7 billion.
      So the problems will be no less, everyone wants to eat.
      1. vadson
        vadson April 15 2013 23: 29 New
        0
        Quote: Phantom Revolution
        Loch kids martin money only to upgrade hundreds of f -22 will make 7 billion.
        So the problems will be no less, everyone wants to eat.

        eat? Yes, they snickered at all ... the whole world has been robbed for more than a century
  3. Gemar
    Gemar April 15 2013 07: 05 New
    0
    I can promise you that there will be no problems with the 260 F-35C Navy and 353 F-35B ILC

    Well, who would doubt it! It would be better if the Americans were worried that there were fewer problems during the operation. And they will be! It is impossible to create a universal fighter-bomber-attack aircraft of vertical take-off and landing. Yes, and inconspicuous and maneuverable ... And without any problems ...
  4. Vanek
    Vanek April 15 2013 07: 07 New
    +4
    Fleet officials also said that they will have to refit the landing craft decks due to the heat and noise generated by the aircraft vertical landing F-35B.

    We ourselves create difficulties for ourselves to overcome with pride.
    1. Tersky
      Tersky April 15 2013 07: 39 New
      +5
      Quote: Vanek
      We ourselves create difficulties for ourselves to overcome with pride.

      Vanya, hi ! Well, as if for comparison -
      1. Vanek
        Vanek April 15 2013 07: 50 New
        +3
        Victor hi

        Quote: Tersky
        for comparison


        Yeah, I also smiled when I saw a similar picture. Only there it was different.

        - TU 160 - four times cheaper and two times more efficient.
      2. Phantom Revolution
        Phantom Revolution April 15 2013 08: 21 New
        +4
        The picture is not correct, 1 is stealth, most likely here the comparison of Tu-160 with B-1B is more correct. its value is 282 million. Characteristics xs.
        1. Retx
          Retx April 15 2013 12: 58 New
          +1
          I will quote "Wikipedia"
          B-1 is precisely a bomber in the original sense of the word, and it carries bombs mainly, while the TU-160 operates with the chthonic X-55 and X-555, which fly 3-5 thousand kilometers at extremely low altitude, with X -555 is able to fly into the specified window of the specified house and incinerate the wrong stool in a stool warehouse. X-55 is not so accurate, but it doesn’t need to, because it’s nuclear. If you do not compare technical parameters, then the United States does not have analogues of its native Tu-160. For:
          B-1B was sawn from the old B-1A project to a long-range bomber (along with the B-2 as a replacement for the B-52) and ideologically is an ersatz of the B-2 stealth, and also drank the dough.
      3. Wedmak
        Wedmak April 15 2013 10: 22 New
        +1
        B-2 seems 19, one of them fell on takeoff.
        1. Lord of the Sith
          Lord of the Sith April 15 2013 14: 09 New
          +1
          20, and there were 21 on Guam crashed on takeoff

      4. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 15 2013 11: 55 New
        -4
        The only thing they have comparable is the quantity. Neither the STELS technology, nor the wide range of guided weapons in the Tu-160 has. But the speed of air defense today cannot be fooled ...
        1. Retx
          Retx April 15 2013 13: 13 New
          +1
          What, excuse me, with a macar will the enemy air defense knock down Tu 160?
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas April 15 2013 16: 31 New
            -2
            Air defense aircraft on a tip from ground-based radars or AWACS aircraft. Or do you think that the 2500 km range of the Kyrgyz Republic is enough to defeat targets in the United States and remain outside the interception zone of air defense fighters? All movements of our "strategists" are monitored and intercepted by air defense fighters in neutral waters, giving an occasion to the "patriots" for comments like "gee pissed!" But in reality this means that the "strategists" will not be able to complete the combat mission.
            1. Bashkaus
              Bashkaus April 15 2013 21: 36 New
              +2
              There is a saying "not every bird reaches the middle of the Dnieper."
              And so,
              Math homework for 1st grade students:
              Problem number 1
              Given:
              1-strategic missile carrier Tu160 with 12 missiles X555
              X555 missile range is 2000km
              2-American stealth fighter F22 raptor
              1100km combat radius
              AIM-120C AMRAAM 200km missile range
              3-System Patriot heaped modification
              The missile range is 80km (men, you yourself understand that it’s not serious), let's round up at least 100?
              Question No. 1 What is the total distance the air target is hit by US air defense systems, if an F22 plane taking off from a beach on the ocean, at maximum removal launches an AIM-120C AMRAAM rocket, and when the rocket also flies to its maximum range, while the warhead is launched by a patriotic missile system , which will also launch its rocket.
              Question No. 2 Is it physically feasible for the US air defense systems to destroy the Russian Tu160 missile carrier by removing at least 1500 km from the shoreline of the Light of Democracy?

              Problem number 2
              If the Americans are not stupid, how many barges with the air defense systems installed on them will they need to surround their “island” and prevent the breakthrough of the Russian Tu160 and Tu95 missile carriers?

              Task No. 3 (already more complicated) since need to find the circumference
              how much time and kerasin will be spent by a Russian bomb carrier if it is about to fly around an American ship with an air defense system, the radius of which is 100 m)))
              1. vadson
                vadson April 15 2013 23: 35 New
                0
                our bird is good and beautiful, flies excellently, but it’s too painful for the adversary to burke with aegis
        2. xmel2003
          xmel2003 April 15 2013 14: 34 New
          0
          Before you write, study the material.
    2. Russian knight
      Russian knight April 15 2013 07: 49 New
      +2
      Quote: Vanek
      Fleet officials also said that they will have to refit the landing craft decks due to the heat and noise generated by the aircraft vertical landing F-35B.

      We ourselves create difficulties for ourselves to overcome with pride.



      Well, how many of them will be able to actually perform combat missions? And the cost of operation and maintenance on the aircraft carrier itself, where will they stand? This plane will never be the main one. Too expensive and in general its effectiveness is a big question.
    3. Bashkaus
      Bashkaus April 15 2013 21: 11 New
      0
      Yes, I also wanted to ride on the account of this phrase. If you translate this into Russian, it turns out something like this: "we created flying crap, but it's easier to build a new aircraft carrier for it than to bring it to mind"
  5. UFO
    UFO April 15 2013 07: 30 New
    0
    Submit them to the court "For copyright infringement on the Yak-141." angry
  6. Krapovy32
    Krapovy32 April 15 2013 07: 44 New
    0
    That's even the Chinese admit that if the T50 and F35 meet in real combat, then the F35 is doomed to die good . Build - build, cut money, cut money. Soon you will overdo it and you will not be up to planes am
    1. Burbulator
      Burbulator April 15 2013 08: 49 New
      +5
      Well, on paper, the Russians have long been doing everything.
      I am convinced that the Chinese also always go to their headquarters cards in the winners.
    2. Yeraz
      Yeraz April 15 2013 11: 00 New
      +5
      Quote: Speckled32
      That's even the Chinese admit that if the T50 and F35 meet in real combat, then the F35 is doomed to die good . Build - build, cut money, cut money. Soon you will overdo it and you will not be up to planes am

      Well, actually with the T50, which is just being created and it is not known how many problems it will reveal as a result of further tests, the enemy will be F22, which really is, which will still be modernized.
      Therefore, to compare an existing thing with a non-existing one, I consider it a stupid occupation.
      1. Bashkaus
        Bashkaus April 15 2013 21: 44 New
        +1
        what's the difference, the T50 will have problems or not (although they definitely are and will be) when even the Su35 can successfully troll the F22 raptor. Of course, he (Su35) won’t be a winner, only a fight with such an opponent is more expensive for himself.
  7. Krasnoyarsk
    Krasnoyarsk April 15 2013 07: 57 New
    +4
    Given that amers actively rivet f-35, and ours only at the prototype stage, there is no reason for pride.
  8. Mikhail Topor
    Mikhail Topor April 15 2013 08: 29 New
    +2
    Quote: Krasnoyarets
    Given that amers actively rivet f-35, and ours only at the prototype stage, there is no reason for pride.

    Considering that our 4 ++ do 5 of them before they enter the air-to-air missile strike zone, we continue to be proud of ours. This is for weapons.

    The design is also a lot of questions. As in avionics. The use of a single IMHO engine does not increase survival. But the main drawback of the F35 is of course the price.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas April 15 2013 11: 58 New
      -1
      “considering that our 4 ++ do 5 of them before they enter the air-to-air missile strike zone” - in your imagination, probably yes.
    2. patsantre
      patsantre April 15 2013 15: 51 New
      -1
      You probably personally did?
  9. JonnyT
    JonnyT April 15 2013 09: 01 New
    0
    Wait and see!
  10. Vtel
    Vtel April 15 2013 09: 22 New
    +1
    All the same, he "hacks." They are licking it painfully, they are afraid of losing money.
  11. Canep
    Canep April 15 2013 09: 36 New
    -1
    In general, about a trillion bucks has been invested in the F-35 program, and no one will say how much time or money is needed. If they want to pay back the development, then when ordering 1000 aircraft, the price of one will be more than a billion bucks.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre April 15 2013 15: 51 New
      +1
      Read even more murzilka, a trillion is the cost of the entire program, which will continue for at least another 20 years.
  12. Canep
    Canep April 15 2013 09: 36 New
    0
    In general, about a trillion bucks has been invested in the F-35 program, and no one will say how much time or money is needed. If they want to pay back the development, then when ordering 1000 aircraft, the price of one will be more than a billion bucks.
    1. Canep
      Canep April 15 2013 10: 47 New
      0
      Sent once from where the bifurcation I do not know.
      1. Gemar
        Gemar April 15 2013 10: 53 New
        0
        Quote: Canep
        Sent once from where the bifurcation I do not know.

        You are not the only one to double ...
  13. igordok
    igordok April 15 2013 12: 05 New
    +3
    It seems to me that Americans who are passionate about stealth technology will come to the conclusion that the best invisible plane is the one that does not fly at all. soldier
    1. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk April 15 2013 12: 53 New
      +1
      If the F-117 flew, then anything can be made to fly.
  14. Mikhail Topor
    Mikhail Topor April 15 2013 13: 02 New
    -1
    Quote: Nayhas
    “considering that our 4 ++ do 5 of them before they enter the air-to-air missile strike zone” - in your imagination, probably yes.

    Read the performance characteristics of the air-to-air weapons of ours and Americans. Learn a lot of new things.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre April 15 2013 15: 54 New
      -2
      You probably don’t know, but before you shoot the racket, you also need to find the target. Need to explain that the inconspicuous raptor will see the Su-35 much earlier?
      Oh yes, the performance characteristics of missiles. Aim-120S has a range of 180 km, RVV-SD 120 km.
      R-77? 300km? Given its overload, it is only against aircraft AWACS and KR.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 15 2013 16: 46 New
        0
        It’s still a matter of homing. Those. in the ability of the ARLGSN of the V-V missile to independently detect the target, because the airborne radar does not support the entire site. It is clear that for radars of small diameter the capabilities are much more modest than for airborne radars, and here the magnitude of the EPR of the target is of great importance.
  15. Alikovo
    Alikovo April 15 2013 13: 41 New
    +3
    he will still be a flying hatchet.
  16. newcomer
    newcomer April 15 2013 18: 24 New
    -2
    Quote: UFO
    Foreman
    UFO IS Today, 07:30 AM New

    Submit them to the court "For copyright infringement on the Yak-141"

    Yep, exactly!!! right into the basmanny. Have you ever thought that our “miracle workers” at least paid a penny “for copyright infringement” when they made a “gun”, a Maxim machine gun, a Makarov pistol, a Tu-4 bomber and much, much more including an atomic bomb?