HH, Courtney and others
Sorry to you if I wasn't clear - my comment was aimed those who inferred that LM had 'got the design all wrong' in terms of wheel to hook distance - they designed a hook system that met all the USN design guidelines and requirements (with the active involvement of the USN experts) but, as you correctly point out, it failed on initial tests.
My 'take' is that they will fix the issue with the point redesign and changes to the damper - but if those don't work, LM are on the 'hook' (sorry) to fix it. My guess for any next step would be some sort of extending hook system. that gets a greater wheel to hook point distance. The challenge they face is that there is not much structure back there to hang a hook from without getting it close under the end of the jetpipe.
Actually, the statement 'it's only a hook and we''ve been building them for years' might be a bit simplistic. First, this is an arresting hook system for use on board ships, not the simple emergency systems fitted to some jets - it's a complex and highly loaded piece of design, and the basic challenge is non-trivial. On top of that, this one has to be fully retractable inside a set of LO doors - that added another layer of challenges. Add in whipping wires and a very variable set of engagement conditions, and you have a complicated problem. As I've already sort of said, just because something looks simple doesn't mean it is.
Bottom line - LM will fix it because they have to. And the USN will make sure that they get it right.
Best Regards as ever to those who do the trapping
Engines