Okay, I've read some garbage on here before but this thread really takes the biscuit for uninformed mindless speculation
It appears that the 5bn contract to purchase joint strike fighter planes from America has a minor problem.In tests the plane has been unable to catch the arrestor cable. Owing to the arrester hook being too near the wheels. This means that the plane will need a significant redesign if possible? Another minor problem appears to be the inabilty to fire British Asraam missiles.
It's a development aircraft FFS, you'll get minor problems during development, after all it's what that phase is for. Oh, asraam uses the same launcher as the AIM9M so it'd be a software update for the MMU - no surprise really as it's been designed for AIM9 series.
Its serious FUBAR of biblical proportions , the designers knew that there was a design specification on the books that the tail hook had to be a minimum 13-16ft from the rear wheels to allow it to catch the wires and the JSF just had the hook far too close to the wheels. There are more fundamental problems as well such as using afterburner damages the tail of the plane so they can't use it just now if ever plus a lot of other problems.
MacDonald Douglass still make the excellent F/A:18D Super Hornet which is all we really need and its also a LOT cheaper to buy and maintain so we really should use this as an excuse to dump this aircraft and just order F18's as at least the money would let us buy enough for BOTH carriers as they are about half the price !!!
the hook doesn't need to be that far behind the wheels to take a wire - Tonka certainly doesn't. So the aircraft can't fly then, as it needs AB to take off.
The stories I have been told by bae personnel are that suitable modifications are being planned and that was why the papers were reporting that work had stopped on the two carriers to allow a redesign, obviously if it could work, to fly a redesigned typhoon from the deck.
Surprisingly I discovered that originally the tornado bomber was designed to operated from the old ark royal (if you believe the rumours from within the raf)!
Just the stories I have been told recently to add my pennies worth!
Too much redesign work needed to allow Typhoon to operate on a cat that you'd end up with a new aircraft, and Tonka was never designed to operate of a carrier, (it was in the original spec but was removed as impractical).
The final comment was the F35 can't turn, (the old F4 phantom could pull more Gs on a turn)
F4 was limited to 7.5G with anything more than AAMs fitted - not sure of F35, but I'd be surprised if it was less and would expect it to be higher.
Hi, I think the 'Old Technology' referred to the electronics which were valves not i/c circuits. But correct me if I am wrong.
And possibly hydraulic flying surface control rather than fly-by-wire.
I haven't seen valves use since I worked on the Lanc, so it really is 'old tech', (although IIRC the same PTR was used on the Shack too).
Even fbw uses hydraulics to move the surfaces, I think you mean as opposed to control rods and cables.
The Tornado was built for extremely short landings ( hence the clamshell over the engine to slow it down and it was tested with an arrestor hook ) and is strong enough so could have operated off the Ark , the Jaguar was tested as a carrier aircraft as it was in serious contention for both the Ark Royal and the French Carriers in the 70's
The clamshell thrust reverse on Tonka is to provide initial deceleration and reduce brake wear, the hook is not strong enough for anything but emergency landings, (funny that as it was designed that way), and in 7 RHAG landings I saw - 6 hooks were changed due to excess stretch/damage, and the hook on the Jaguar was the same.
I deleted the rest of the quote as it's pure fiction
Sorry if this post seems argumentative, it's not meant to be, but rather to correct some of the myths and hearsay being repeated as facts.
Mark.