超级军网F35-C 悲剧啦 (终于可以贴附件和链接啦！)
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/28 15:24:44
被证明不能降落在航母上。原因是尾钩和后起落架距离太短，不是尾钩太短。细节见21楼（多谢）。
链接：http://www.f-16.net/news_article4494.html
该图比较了主要舰载机尾钩和后起落架距离：
F35-C: 7.1 英尺
TA-4J: 9.4
X47-B: 10.3
F-18: 18
E-2C: 28.9
EA-6B: 30
原文提到设计人员承认失误，但是认为是项目管理的问题。项目组在进行重组解决管理问题，但是该重组在2012年才能完成。原文悲观认为F35-C会因此被取消。如果这样英国人面临新航母没有舰载机的问题。（因为二手的harrier都被美国人买走了。）
Edit: 终于可以贴附件和链接啦！
被证明不能降落在航母上。原因是尾钩和后起落架距离太短，不是尾钩太短。细节见21楼（多谢）。
链接：http://www.f-16.net/news_article4494.html
hooklocationC.jpg (242.58 KB, 下载次数: 0)
下载附件 保存到相册
该图比较了主要舰载机尾钩和后起落架距离：
F35-C: 7.1 英尺
TA-4J: 9.4
X47-B: 10.3
F-18: 18
E-2C: 28.9
EA-6B: 30
原文提到设计人员承认失误，但是认为是项目管理的问题。项目组在进行重组解决管理问题，但是该重组在2012年才能完成。原文悲观认为F35-C会因此被取消。如果这样英国人面临新航母没有舰载机的问题。（因为二手的harrier都被美国人买走了。）
Edit: 终于可以贴附件和链接啦！
一句话+没链接，LZ你才要悲剧。
图片看不到
not yet.
求真相。。。。图都是X的
没有发表链接的权利。没有使用相册的权利。
January 8, 2012 (by Eric L. Palmer) - The U.S. Navy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) known as the F-35C is at serious risk of never being able to land aboard an aircraft carrier. This also poses a risk to the U.K. aircraft carrier program which is supposed to use the F-35C at the end of the decade.
CF-1 takes off on its first flight on June 6, 2010. Pilot for the 57 minute flight was Lockheed Martin Test Pilot Jeff Knowles.
Back in 2007, a Lockheed Martin year in review video stated that the F-35C carrier variant (CV) JSF had passed critical design review (CDR). The video and similar public statements said, "2007 saw the completion of the critical design review for the F-35C. The completion of CDR is a sign that each F-35 variant is mature and ready for production."
Yet, a November 2011 U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) quick-look report relating to engineering challenges arising from what is being called “concurrency issues” revealed that all eight run-in/rolling tests undertaken at NAS Lakehurst in August 2011 to see if the F-35C CV JSF could catch a wire with the tail hook have failed.
The report also mentions that the tail hook on the F-35C CV JSF is attached improperly to the aircraft. The distance from the hook to the main landing gear is so short that it is unlikely the aircraft will catch the landing wires on a ship's deck. This graphic from the review explains part of the problem. It illustrates the distance between the main landing gear and the tail hook of previous warplanes qualified to operate from aircraft carriers and compares these distances with that found on the F-35C CV JSF. In this regard, the report refers to the F-35C CV JSF as “an outlier”.
An industry expert who is a graduate Flight Test Engineer (FTE) of the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School (USNTPS), Peter Goon, stated that, "Given the limited amount of suitable structure at the back end of the JSF variants, due primarily to the commonality that was being sought between the three variant designs and the fact that the STOVL F-35B JSF is the baseline design, there was always going to be high risk associated with meeting the carrier suitability requirements."
He also points to well known and well understood military specifications that address tail hook design requirements, such as MIL-A-81717C and MIL-D-8708C.
(update: the first one should read MIL-A-18717C not MIL-A-81717C as first reported)
When asked how such things could have been missed, Peter suggested they likely weren’t, at least by the engineers, but their concerns would have just as likely been ignored.
He said this should come as no surprise, given the level of stove-piping that had been applied to the F-35 program's engineer community and the dominance of “form over substance” and “a total indifference to what is real” being hallmarks of the program – “Affordability is the cornerstone of the JSF Program” being but one example.
It is highly probable that this design fault could be the last straw for the F-35C. The program will attempt some more rolling tests with a different hook design, but this does not address the problem of the poor location of the tail hook on the airframe.
Other F-35 program problems identified in the QLR Report included the helmet visual cueing which is seriously affected by design issues and airframe buffet in the heart of the combat envelope. Also, all F-35 variants suffer from paper-thin weight margins, unsafe fuel dumping, flight restrictions on diving, speed and proximity to lightning hazards to name a few. And, it can only be flown during the daytime.
An August 2011 DOD F-35 program briefing revealed that the engineers will have to be reorganized because they were not getting access to all the information/data they needed for design nor, it would appear, were organised and structured in an environment that was being properly managed and transparent. This reorganisation should complete in 2012.
The program's pilot training program was supposed to start at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida in 2011 after previous delays. With the design issues mentioned above, pilot training is effectively grounded due to safety concerns. There is no known date when pilot training can start. This along with the aircrafts engineering defects strongly suggest that it will be a long time until military services see any F-35 variant in a go-to-war configuration.
January 8, 2012 (by Eric L. Palmer) - The U.S. Navy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) known as the F-35C is at serious risk of never being able to land aboard an aircraft carrier. This also poses a risk to the U.K. aircraft carrier program which is supposed to use the F-35C at the end of the decade.
CF-1 takes off on its first flight on June 6, 2010. Pilot for the 57 minute flight was Lockheed Martin Test Pilot Jeff Knowles.
Back in 2007, a Lockheed Martin year in review video stated that the F-35C carrier variant (CV) JSF had passed critical design review (CDR). The video and similar public statements said, "2007 saw the completion of the critical design review for the F-35C. The completion of CDR is a sign that each F-35 variant is mature and ready for production."
Yet, a November 2011 U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) quick-look report relating to engineering challenges arising from what is being called “concurrency issues” revealed that all eight run-in/rolling tests undertaken at NAS Lakehurst in August 2011 to see if the F-35C CV JSF could catch a wire with the tail hook have failed.
The report also mentions that the tail hook on the F-35C CV JSF is attached improperly to the aircraft. The distance from the hook to the main landing gear is so short that it is unlikely the aircraft will catch the landing wires on a ship's deck. This graphic from the review explains part of the problem. It illustrates the distance between the main landing gear and the tail hook of previous warplanes qualified to operate from aircraft carriers and compares these distances with that found on the F-35C CV JSF. In this regard, the report refers to the F-35C CV JSF as “an outlier”.
An industry expert who is a graduate Flight Test Engineer (FTE) of the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School (USNTPS), Peter Goon, stated that, "Given the limited amount of suitable structure at the back end of the JSF variants, due primarily to the commonality that was being sought between the three variant designs and the fact that the STOVL F-35B JSF is the baseline design, there was always going to be high risk associated with meeting the carrier suitability requirements."
He also points to well known and well understood military specifications that address tail hook design requirements, such as MIL-A-81717C and MIL-D-8708C.
(update: the first one should read MIL-A-18717C not MIL-A-81717C as first reported)
When asked how such things could have been missed, Peter suggested they likely weren’t, at least by the engineers, but their concerns would have just as likely been ignored.
He said this should come as no surprise, given the level of stove-piping that had been applied to the F-35 program's engineer community and the dominance of “form over substance” and “a total indifference to what is real” being hallmarks of the program – “Affordability is the cornerstone of the JSF Program” being but one example.
It is highly probable that this design fault could be the last straw for the F-35C. The program will attempt some more rolling tests with a different hook design, but this does not address the problem of the poor location of the tail hook on the airframe.
Other F-35 program problems identified in the QLR Report included the helmet visual cueing which is seriously affected by design issues and airframe buffet in the heart of the combat envelope. Also, all F-35 variants suffer from paper-thin weight margins, unsafe fuel dumping, flight restrictions on diving, speed and proximity to lightning hazards to name a few. And, it can only be flown during the daytime.
An August 2011 DOD F-35 program briefing revealed that the engineers will have to be reorganized because they were not getting access to all the information/data they needed for design nor, it would appear, were organised and structured in an environment that was being properly managed and transparent. This reorganisation should complete in 2012.
The program's pilot training program was supposed to start at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida in 2011 after previous delays. With the design issues mentioned above, pilot training is effectively grounded due to safety concerns. There is no known date when pilot training can start. This along with the aircrafts engineering defects strongly suggest that it will be a long time until military services see any F-35 variant in a go-to-war configuration.
要相册干鸟？？有上传附件功能的
翻墙看了下楼主的图，很无语。很久以前的图就不说了，内容是尾钩长度对比；这都能推导出无法着舰？犀利的逻辑
尾钩离后起落架距离为历史上最短。最难在甲板上降落。英国人估计要着急了
kurutoga 发表于 2012-1-10 22:20 ![]()
没有发表链接的权利。没有使用相册的权利。
LZ你服役一年了怎么还是个列兵啊。
洋文看不懂。好歹把大意翻译一下吧，拜托。
没有发表链接的权利。没有使用相册的权利。
LZ你服役一年了怎么还是个列兵啊。
洋文看不懂。好歹把大意翻译一下吧，拜托。
kurutoga 发表于 2012-1-10 22:20 ![]()
没有发表链接的权利。没有使用相册的权利。
LZ虽然提供了原文，但还没有提供链接，依然是要杯具的
你可以把链接去掉http发上来
斑竹也是认可的
没有发表链接的权利。没有使用相册的权利。
LZ虽然提供了原文，但还没有提供链接，依然是要杯具的
你可以把链接去掉http发上来
斑竹也是认可的
原文链接去掉http仍然不行。
www<dot>f-16<dot>net＜slash> news_article4494<dot>html
www<dot>f-16<dot>net＜slash> news_article4494<dot>html
看不懂呀看不懂，
kurutoga 发表于 2012-1-10 22:28 ![]()
原文链接去掉http仍然不行。
wwwf-16net＜slash> news_article4494html
帮你补链接
www.f-16.net/news_article4494.html
原文链接去掉http仍然不行。
wwwf-16net＜slash> news_article4494html
帮你补链接
www.f-16.net/news_article4494.html
http://lt.cjdby.net/thread-1306352-1-1.html
貌似没什么新信息啊，还是去年11月那个报告里提及的尾钩问题，这不都讨论过了么
坐等讨论，肥电是无数人心中的宝，必有火热交锋刚刚看到的消息， 这么快就被转了？
尾钩问题还不容易解决嘛，just a piece of cake!
Yet, a November 2011 U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) quick-look report relating to engineering challenges arising from what is being called “concurrency issues” revealed that all eight run-in/rolling tests undertaken at NAS Lakehurst in August 2011 to see if the F-35C CV JSF could catch a wire with the tail hook have failed.
然而，2011年11月美国国防部的一份与所谓“并发问题”的工程挑战相关的报告指出，2011年8月F-35C在NAS Lakehurst进行的所有八次尝试用尾钩钩住拦阻索的测试都失败了。
然而，2011年11月美国国防部的一份与所谓“并发问题”的工程挑战相关的报告指出，2011年8月F-35C在NAS Lakehurst进行的所有八次尝试用尾钩钩住拦阻索的测试都失败了。
It is highly probable that this design fault could be the last straw for the F-35C. The program will attempt some more rolling tests with a different hook design, but this does not address the problem of the poor location of the tail hook on the airframe.
很可能这个设计缺陷会成为（压断）F-35C项目的最后一根稻草。该项目将尝试一种不一样的尾钩设计并进行更多的测试，但是这并不能解决机身承力框架上尾钩位置不对的问题。
很可能这个设计缺陷会成为（压断）F-35C项目的最后一根稻草。该项目将尝试一种不一样的尾钩设计并进行更多的测试，但是这并不能解决机身承力框架上尾钩位置不对的问题。
http://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1293036
f35c尾钩与甲板的夹角已超过45度，必然失败。
http://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1293036
f35c尾钩与甲板的夹角已超过45度，必然失败。
我还以为坠毁了 白欢喜一场
坐等韩五记大神来解读，如果lz不悲剧的话
kurutoga 发表于 2012-1-10 22:20 ![]()
没有发表链接的权利。没有使用相册的权利。
可以在连接中加上空格比如 h tt p://
没有发表链接的权利。没有使用相册的权利。
可以在连接中加上空格比如 h tt p://
是啊，某些人一定会出现为35正名的……
图还是挂了
美国人说我上F-35B，英国航母按垂直起降设计了
美国人说我不上F-35B了，英国航母改成电弹了
美国人说我不搞F-35C了，英国人。。。。。
美国人说我不上F-35B了，英国航母改成电弹了
美国人说我不搞F-35C了，英国人。。。。。
百病良医小白兔 发表于 2012-1-10 23:32 ![]()
美国人说我上F-35B，英国航母按垂直起降设计了
美国人说我不上F-35B了，英国航母改成电弹了
美国人说我不 ...
英国人只好台风改，要不买阵风M
美国人说我上F-35B，英国航母按垂直起降设计了
美国人说我不上F-35B了，英国航母改成电弹了
美国人说我不 ...
英国人只好台风改，要不买阵风M
chenpi_ye 发表于 2012-1-10 23:23 ![]()
是啊，某些人一定会出现为35正名的……
哥们，我留意你很久了，只要和F-35有关的帖子，您除了说别人是“工作者”外，我就没见过您有什么高见；您要是真有本事，就拿出来说说嘛；人家“工作者”可是论据充分、条理清楚；而您除了讥讽就是讥讽，就不怕时间长了，被大家看透你的本质？
是啊，某些人一定会出现为35正名的……
哥们，我留意你很久了，只要和F-35有关的帖子，您除了说别人是“工作者”外，我就没见过您有什么高见；您要是真有本事，就拿出来说说嘛；人家“工作者”可是论据充分、条理清楚；而您除了讥讽就是讥讽，就不怕时间长了，被大家看透你的本质？
LZ火星来的吧
球电太苦了，要背上那么多责任。减负是必然的
都是因为JJ太小，所以出现功能障碍嘛。根本设计思路的旷世低级错误造成的先天不足
悲摧的MD。在球电上白白浪费几千亿美刀，还连累了大批跟班国。最重要的是浪费了N年时间，直接给我鳖战机领域的赶超提供了旷世机遇。
悲摧的MD。在球电上白白浪费几千亿美刀，还连累了大批跟班国。最重要的是浪费了N年时间，直接给我鳖战机领域的赶超提供了旷世机遇。
呵呵 中秋压力减轻不少啊
期待ABC3型全挂算了
期待ABC3型全挂算了太好了，美军威武！
尾勾加长不就行了
悲催~~~太悲催了，大英这个MD的忠实跟班终于被MD忽悠到坑里去了~！~！航妈停下还来得及吗？要不就造好了直接封存，等落伍的时候拿来拆拆卖钢铁用
关注！低级错误？
F-35在外形设计上的特点是有很大的离去角，从设计上来说其思路是利用低速高攻角可控性来降低进场和着陆速度，同时由于机身较短也可以降低停机占用面积。这个设计实际上被JSF的两种飞机X-32和X-35所共同采用，也是X-32失败的主要原因。X-32被迫从无尾三角翼改为后掠翼常规布局，一个重要原因是之前为了达到足够低的进场速度攻角选取太大，导致飞行员向下视野不佳。所谓F/A-18E/F尾钩与起落架相对位置问题，主要看看其离去角就知道了，其离去角只有15度。F-14由于有固定腹鳍所以离去角更小，但是变后掠翼设计使其有降低进场速度的条件。如果对于F-35C的尾钩设计有疑问不是去寻找看上去最常规的设计，而是去看与F-35C最相近的设计，这就是TA-4J，天鹰基础上改出来的教练机。TA-4J采用三角翼正常布局，其机身同样较短，离去角也是相当大，要不是为了给主翼增加攻角，前起落架增长，离去角还会更大。但是以A-4如此之短的拦阻钩与主轮距离，从来没有听说过A-4系列的着舰存在什么问题。
其实报告说得很清楚，2011年12月用蒙特卡洛方法进行的新阻拦钩设计被认为是成功的，将在2012年4月进行重新试验，如果不成功再想其他办法。新的设计重新调整了阻拦钩的形状，主要是钩子相对更平坦，更容易抄到处于低位的阻拦索，钩子上的调整实际上只有0.5英寸。相信做每一次试验的时候，都有高速照相机在旁边伺候，到底出现了什么问题，洛马和海军显然是最清楚的。
F-35在外形设计上的特点是有很大的离去角，从设计上来说其思路是利用低速高攻角可控性来降低进场和着陆速度，同时由于机身较短也可以降低停机占用面积。这个设计实际上被JSF的两种飞机X-32和X-35所共同采用，也是X-32失败的主要原因。X-32被迫从无尾三角翼改为后掠翼常规布局，一个重要原因是之前为了达到足够低的进场速度攻角选取太大，导致飞行员向下视野不佳。所谓F/A-18E/F尾钩与起落架相对位置问题，主要看看其离去角就知道了，其离去角只有15度。F-14由于有固定腹鳍所以离去角更小，但是变后掠翼设计使其有降低进场速度的条件。如果对于F-35C的尾钩设计有疑问不是去寻找看上去最常规的设计，而是去看与F-35C最相近的设计，这就是TA-4J，天鹰基础上改出来的教练机。TA-4J采用三角翼正常布局，其机身同样较短，离去角也是相当大，要不是为了给主翼增加攻角，前起落架增长，离去角还会更大。但是以A-4如此之短的拦阻钩与主轮距离，从来没有听说过A-4系列的着舰存在什么问题。
其实报告说得很清楚，2011年12月用蒙特卡洛方法进行的新阻拦钩设计被认为是成功的，将在2012年4月进行重新试验，如果不成功再想其他办法。新的设计重新调整了阻拦钩的形状，主要是钩子相对更平坦，更容易抄到处于低位的阻拦索，钩子上的调整实际上只有0.5英寸。相信做每一次试验的时候，都有高速照相机在旁边伺候，到底出现了什么问题，洛马和海军显然是最清楚的。
估计结局不会真的杯具。不可能被一根棒子絆死的。