Guys,
I did get some insight into the arresting hook design during my time on the F-35 programme, and I might be able to help the thread along.
First off - designing combat aircraft is hard. Designing combat aircraft to go to the deck is even harder. Designing a family of aircraft to include a deck landing and a STOVL aircraft - well, it's a big ask. But it wasn't LM's idea- it was the US DoD's strategy for an affordable tactical aircraft programme. LM, NG and Boeing all had to respond to that.
That's a decision that is open to comment and the most robust criticism - that's one of the things about open democracies. And the F-35 programme is one of the most openly reported there's ever been. That's a good thing, but it does lead to what I would respectfully call 'slightly less informed speculation'. In my posts, I try to add information as much as I can. So here goes.
The locations available for the arresting hook were driven by a number of factors, mainly the single engine design, which drives the hook lower down and further forward than on a twin engined aircraft. Modern aircraft have their C of Gs further aft than traditional designs, and going for stealth involves weapons bays - these two factors can drive the main gears aft.
The LM team knew that had a challenge with the arresting gear, and sought not only specifications but also active advice from the USN specialists. There were plenty of risk areas identified in the aircraft by the USN, but the hook system was not high up on the list in the early days.
The prosaic truth is that getting a fast moving aircraft to reliably and safely land by snagging a thin wire on top of a moving deck is one if the harder things to do in aviation. It often takes redesigns and repeated test, and this programme has had to do that. It looks as if thy are on the right track now.
Best regards as ever to all those trying to trap,
Engines