You're right, we can't visually tell if it's carrying anything, but it's a foregone conclusion that Dave B, the 70 stone man of the fighter community, wasn't carrying a single round of ammunition in those demonstrations and won't be for a long time (unless they have fixed the weight issues once and for all?).

I'm hoping our First Sea Lord might have seen the light on his visit to the Stennis Battle Group and with that in mind, is a Hornet in the hand worth a 'C' in the bush?

Was that ride in an F-18 just a 'tick in the box' or was there more to it?

If our first carrier were to be built with the cats and traps, then would we already be thinking about having to cancel this order and opt for the tried and tested F-18?

Is the F-35B still on probation and will this happen to the F-35C?

If we bolt the POW and the QE together end-to-end, maybe the JSF can land without needing to catch a wire...

I should think that spreadsheets are running hot, to determine whether the price difference between SH and Dave-C would pay for a second set of cats and arrester wires.

Shame he wasn't able to visit CVN-77

Glojo,

"is a Hornet in the hand worth a 'C' in the bush?"

Indeed it is. Actually a F35C may be worth several F18s. I'm sure someone here can tell us how many. You know what I mean.

In my view, F35B = too many moving parts, too many potential points of failure. F35C = wonderful if you REALLY need all that stealth, etc, but no good if it can't catch a wire.

Super Hornet appeals to me more and more every day. I might even rejoin to fly it!!!!:ok:


Torque, Nice one!

I've been out of the loop for a while on this one, but with the US defence cuts being implemented, does anyone know if Dave-B will survive? I've never understood the operational point of it, other than to keep the USMC happy.

And however problematic the tailhook saga (no, not *that* Tailhook Saga) is with Dave-C, I'm sure the USN will get it fixed because they're not going to want to run about in the Western Pacific without LO technology - and for them (at least in the manned world) Dave-C is the only game in town.

S41

The USN are in no great rush to get F35 at all. The SuperHornet E/F/G will provide all they need for some time.

Out of curiosity, is the tailhook / undercarriage distance significantly shorter than it was on the F-7U Cutlass:


or F-4D Skyray:


both of which, particularly the Cutlass, had similarly short-couped configurations to the F-35C?

Battleland: Vertically Challenged: Marine F-35 Engines’ Long Lead, Much Higher Cost

You may recall a couple of weeks ago when we reported, based on our own crude analysis of a Pentagon contract announcement, that the latest batch of engines for the Marine’s F-35 fighter would cost $129 million apiece, five times the $25 million sticker on the Air Force F-35 motor. The Marines’ higher cost is because its airplane is going to be able to make short take offs and land vertically. The Marine F-35 needs to be able to do this because its amphib aircraft carriers are smaller than the Navy’s (why the U.S. military needs the world’s two largest carrier fleets is a topic for another day).

Unfortunately, that amazing vertical jump in the Marine price tag doesn’t look like an aberration. On Friday, the Pentagon announced how much it is spending to buy so-called “long-lead items” for another batch of F-35 power plants (it’s the first contract in the list). This is stuff that takes awhile to make, so it’s ordered in advance of the actual engine contract:

• Air Force: $3.1 million per engine
  
• Navy: $5.3 million per engine
  
• Marines: $14.1 million per engine

Mind you: this is not the cost per airplane, nor the cost per engine. It is only the cost per engine of these ordered-in-advance items. Good to know that when it comes time to land in the poorhouse, we’ll be able to do so vertically.

BEags,

I wonder if it has more to do with TIME between main gear trampling the cable and the hook trying to catch it. Your vids show the very low approach speeds of the F-7U and the F-4D. So even with a relatively short gear-to-hook-shoe distance, the time is obviously significantly greater.

It also looks like the hooks hang very low on those two types - probably isn't room to put a longer hook on F35C. Some of the traps in those vids may even have been with the jet still airborne, so gear hadn't trampled the wire.

Just a couple of theories. Someone here will probably know better.

Courtney

You're very probably right, Courtney. I understand that it is indeed the effect of the main gear trampling the wire first which has caused the problem, because the cable dynamics are such that it isn't back at the correct deck height before the hook reaches it. As for approach speeds, the F-7U videoclip starts with a number of slow motion clips - see the guy 'running' in the background.

Presumably the F-35C needs a 'stealthy' hook fitting as well - so modification would cost $LOTS?

Yes, the UK will probably be far better off with an F-18E/F/G fleet if F-35C costs and delays keep increasing.

And isn't the F-35 a butt-ugly looking thing? It it looks good..... As witness the unsurpassed F-15C!

Further to my last, I've just found this on the "F-35 Cancelled, Then What?" thread. Posted by Engines on 17 Dec 11:

Engines gave a very comprehensive post about the whole hook issue and the problems with repositioning it, etc.

And YES, it's so ugly. Who'd want to be seen flying that?! :rolleyes:

Courtney

You'd hope that the LM design office had access to and NAVAIR read their own publication (Aircraft Carrier Reference Data Manual). Basic rules for hook/wire geometry are in there IIRC....

Judge for yourself. The red line is painted to represent approximate hook geometry (because actual photos of an F-35C
in hook down configuration, are hard to find). As for the Crusader. They certainly ironed out the snags with that one.:E

http://i797.photobucket.com/albums/y...CC09/t22-1.jpg

http://i797.photobucket.com/albums/yy258/BUCC09/t21.jpg

http://i797.photobucket.com/albums/y...UCC09/t800.jpg

Bucc,

Good answer. Nice pictures!

Courtney

Guys,

Further to my last on 17 Dec (Thanks Courtney!),

Having quickly looked at the arresting gear Mil Spec, I can't find a specific gear/hook distance requirement. There are a zillion other parameters there for various angles, clearances, etc., and the F-35C hook, as far as I remember, meets those.

I can confirm that the team designing the hook (which is LO - it retracts under a complex set of covers) were certainly fully aware of all the various specs. They had a couple of goes at getting a hook that did that, and one of the redesigns addressed a problem you can see on the Crusader picture (nice pic) which shows an effect called 'wheelbarrowing', where the hook is too low down on the aircraft. When it engages the wire, the effect is to pull up on the fuselage, lifting the mains off the deck, and leaving the aircraft sitting unstably on its front leg. The first hook design sat it too low, so a redesigned mounting yoke system was then used.

The hook system design was also exhaustively checked by the US Navy NAVAIR engineering and flying specialists before it was approved for manufacture.

THe USN specs are largely empirical and actually reflect the experience gained on aircraft like the F-7U and F-8U. By the way, the Cutlass landings were on a straight deck, and they had up to 12 wires at one stage to make sure they caught a wire - the options weren't too goog if they didn't.

The lesson here (sorry if I sound a bit schoolmasterish) is that getting 'cat and trap' to work with large high performance combat aircraft is really, really difficult. The USN make it look easy because they are damned good at it. It's also risky and takes a high degree of skill to do even when you get the kit right. I wonder whether our lords and masters really understood all that when they went for the C. (John Farley would have plenty to say on this, I'm sure). I'm not saying it's a wrong decision, we just need to get our heads around the reality of it. This thread is really helping to do that.

Best Regards as ever to all those on land and sea and air who are doing the job for real,

Engines

Courtney,
That from someone who flew Phantoms?!

Ouch. I walked right into that!

Engines,
Thank you for that post which makes a number of excellent points.

How sad that we have gone from a World leading nation regarding conventional aircraft carriers to a nation that has now lost all that type of experience**.

**Ark Royal de-commissioned in 1978 which was the last conventional carrier.
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship..._r09/unk_d.jpg