A new fighter plane which is to be used by the UK and U.S. military has a design flaw which prevents it from landing on aircraft carriers, it has emerged.
The flaw in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will come as a huge embarrassment to the Royal Navy which is expected to take delivery of 50 of the planes by 2020 at a cost of about £5 billion.
Leaked documents from the Pentagon have revealed that the arrestor hook of the JSF - which is used to stop the plane during landing - is too close to the wheels.
[image: Problems: The newest version of the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35C, (pictured) has a design flaw which means it cannot land on aircraft carriers]
*Problems: The newest version of the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35C, (pictured) has a design flaw which means it cannot land on aircraft carriers
*
According to The Sunday Times, the Pentagon report reveals that eight simulated landings have failed and it says a 'significant redesign' of the aircraft is needed.
It says the future of the aircraft is at risk.
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has refused to comment on the leaked report but a spokesmen told the newspaper that defence secretary Philip Hammond has discussed the issue with the U.S government.
The spokesman insisted that Britain 'remains committed to purchasing the carrier variant of the JSF.'
Arrestor cables are used to rapidly decelerate fighter jets as they land on aircraft carriers.
[image: Talks: Defence secretary Philip Hammond has discussed the issue of the F-35C with his U.S counterpart Leon Panetta]
*Talks: Defence secretary Philip Hammond has discussed the issue of the F-35C with his U.S counterpart Leon Panetta*
The cable catches onto a hook at the back of the aircraft which stops the plane from overshooting into the sea.
But it has emerged that on the F-35C - the new carrier variant of the JSF - the arrestor hook is just 7ft from the rear wheels of the jet resulting in the arrestor missing the hook.
On aircraft currently with the U.S navy, this distance is 18ft which means it has plenty of time to catch the cable.
The leaked report - called the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Concurrency Quick Look Review - now warns that there could be major consequences to the aircraft's structure because of the design flaw.
It goes on to warn that the entire F-35C programme may have to be scrapped if a redesign is to costly or results in too many technical issues.
The report also revealed a number of other areas of concern which included that it may be unable to fire British Asraam air-to-air missiles.
According to The Sunday Times, the report adds that there was a high likelihood of future failures which had not yet been identified.
The government was criticised when it scrapped the Royal Navy's Harrier aircraft in 2010.
The shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy, told the newspaper: 'An island nation like ours should be able to operate aeroplanes from an aircraft carrier. It's essential we know how long we will be without carrier strike capability.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086974/Royal-Navy-spends-50b...
On Jan 15, 9:27 pm, Affa <Affajee...@aol.com> wrote:
> They came to power promising to sort out and prevent government
> 'aquisitions' failures, to make them accountable, to make them
> better ......... ?
Labour ordered the Planes, you and the village idiot are assuming they
will take delivery and pay for useless kit like Labour did with the
Chinnocks
It was your bloody lot that ordered the chinooks with the wrong software locky so stop trying to put the blame on everyone else...And as for paying for rotten kit which bunch of arseholes forced our troops to have that piece of crap better known as the SA80 and ordered our military the fucking Nimrod which cost billions and then still had to procure AWAC at even more billions?
Simple James they like to line the pockets of their cronies for the little Asdas they receive...The MOD buy more worthless junk than all the other government departments put together and that includes the money wasted in the NHS..
> Simple James they like to line the pockets of their cronies for the little
> Asdas they receive...The MOD buy more worthless junk than all the other
> government departments put together and that includes the money wasted in
> the NHS..
On Jan 15, 9:57 pm, jamesmordal <cadi...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> It really is that simple Jon and that's a crime against the British
> people, in my book.
It the inefficient public sector James, the MOD even today employs
over 80.000 people, at the height of the British Empire when we ruled
a third of the planet the combined Foreign Office and Ministry of War
employed a tenth of that amount
> On Jan 15, 9:57 pm, jamesmordal <cadi...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > It really is that simple Jon and that's a crime against the British
> > people, in my book.
> It the inefficient public sector James, the MOD even today employs
> over 80.000 people, at the height of the British Empire when we ruled
> a third of the planet the combined Foreign Office and Ministry of War
> employed a tenth of that amount
> They came to power promising to sort out and prevent government
> 'aquisitions' failures, to make them accountable, to make them
> better ......... ?
And your heroes are still procuring it even though they know it isn't fit for carrier use, what's the navy going to do tow a small country around the seas so their aircraft have somewhere to land? Oh but sill me after your lots recent cuts there is bugger all to tow it with is there?
it's still in the pipeline and hasn't yet been produced- ''my'' heroes
can now ensure that they aren't paying for planes (ordered by your
heroes)which are seemingly unfit fit for purpose
On Jan 16, 8:37 am, Jonksy <jon...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> And your heroes are still procuring it even though they know it isn't fit
> for carrier use, what's the navy going to do tow a small country around the
> seas so their aircraft have somewhere to land? Oh but sill me after your
> lots recent cuts there is bugger all to tow it with is there?
Oh so yet again you never read the link.....The spokesman insisted that Britain 'remains committed to purchasing the carrier variant of the JSF
And as for my heroes they haven't been in power YET, but of course you carry on using the same unimaginative ploy for anyone who can see the tories for what they are, so what you gonna do now play the leftie envy card?...ROFLMAO
Long before Werrity or Fox assuming that they were involved Affa. Do
you recall Phillip Greens report on the MOD it was scathing especially
of the purchasing department which was not fot for purpose. Frankly it
was the civil servants and little to do with either political party
like so many other things
On Jan 15, 10:20 pm, Affa <Affajee...@aol.com> wrote:
Frankly it was the civil servants and little to do with either
political party like so many other things
Yes; I know Whitehall has its skeletons in the cupboards, but your
excuse for Liam Fox doesn't hold water when he was meeting with arms
dealers 'in private'.
Not any excuses Affa unlike many I am ready to blame anyone regardless
of which party they belong to although I have to say you are surmising
about the mans guilt without any proof except that he is a Tory who
incidently got the sack
On Jan 16, 5:07 pm, Affa <Affajee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 12:16 pm, jar <jar...@aol.com> wrote:
> Frankly it was the civil servants and little to do with either
> political party like so many other things
> Yes; I know Whitehall has its skeletons in the cupboards, but your
> excuse for Liam Fox doesn't hold water when he was meeting with arms
> dealers 'in private'.
I have to say you are surmising about the mans guilt without any proof
except that he is a Tory who incidently got the sack
Getting the sack is part of the proof, what we know remains unanswered
is further proof.
I do of course surmise that he guilty which is entirely based on
circumstantial evidence and because there are no satisfactory
answers ........ people have gone to the gallows based on similar
evidence!
I surmise further ......... he was not alone, is not alone, and the
culpability extends even higher than his esteemed (former) place.
Friends in high places, friends with their own involvement,
guaranteeing his escape.
