The F-35 a flop?

[Skud]

http://rt.com/news/f-35-design-flaw-917/

Design flaw: not enough room for functioning tailhook for carrier landings...unfixable without major restructuring. Folks cancelling orders, etc. Ouch...a cool 50 billion down the chute?

[Quamin]

Shoulda beta tested one - duh!

[Donziboy2]

Erm, VTOL?????

[Apache Warrior]

Erm, VTOL?????

I thought The Marines were the only ones who got the F35 with VTOL?
Apache

[goldenfooler]

I thought the VTOL couldn't be used on something with a large payload?

[Rand{CLR}]

I thought The Marines were the only ones who got the F35 with VTOL?
Apache

They are, and the biggest known issue with the F-35 program to date has been the failure of the design teams to figure out engineering issues affecting the VTOL system. That variant is the one most likely to be cancelled. I'd want to see other sources before deciding on this particular hook issue.

-Rand

[goldenfooler]

I thought that madhatter had pictures showing the VTOL working... come on man chime in.

[Qicmee]

If you want too much detail, link below is from an aviationweek.com blog.
Apparently, marketing & politics got ahead of competent project management.
My new headline: Eager politicians again surprised that facts matter.
Ares Homepage

[Skud]

If you want too much detail, link below is from an aviationweek.com blog.
Apparently, marketing & politics got ahead of competent project management.
My new headline: Eager politicians again surprised that facts matter.
Ares Homepage

Gosh, it's quite unusual to see the Pentagon throwing billions at a program, regardless of benefit/progress. Well, at least it's not being wasted on education, infrastructure, or healthcare!

[Devilguns]

Might be Pentagon Wars going on....

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144550/

[Skud]

Might be Pentagon Wars going on....

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144550/

Lol

[NateTheBrewer]

I thought that madhatter had pictures showing the VTOL working... come on man chime in.

They have had videos or years of the things hovering, but I imagine that VTOL is:

1. Probably even more dangerous landing and taking off on a ship bucking in stormy seas as a helocopter... Watch some of those things land on stormy seas on Youtube, it looks pretty intense. I am no aviator but this could have something to do with it...

2. VTOL probably takes more fuel then a traditional takeoff and landing, since normally speed is augmented by the catapult, and lift is taken care of by the wings, versus all that fuel being burned for lift. In landing, you glide in using less fuel and hit the deck, and are immediately stopped by the tailhook, versus having to burn all that additional fuel in hovering onto the deck.

3. Takeoff and landing by way of VTOL take longer than traditional methods.

Anybody that knows something more than my highschool physics think any of these could have to do with it?

[Apache Warrior]

Pilots do not glide in to a landing on carriers. And when landing the pilot goes to full throttle as soon as he hits the deck. If he misses a cable he has the power to get back in the air, come around and do it again.
Apache

[NateTheBrewer]

Pilots do not glide in to a landing on carriers. And when landing the pilot goes to full throttle as soon as he hits the deck. If he misses a cable he has the power to get back in the air, come around and do it again.
Apache

Thank you for the correction... Highschool physics for the fail... I always thought glide path meant that. The plane would still theoretically use less fuel since the wings are still taking care of some lift to keep it from descending too quickly, right?

[Apache Warrior]

If I remember correctly, most modern jet fighters can not remain stable in the air below 95 mph or so.
Apache