$50 billion F-35 Thunderpig UNABLE to land on flattops

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I say keep the fighter as-is and just call it the Doolittle Joint Strike Fighter

Oh this made me smile! Thank you!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I say keep the fighter as-is and just call it the Doolittle Joint Strike Fighter

Now, that is funny right there.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

What's the betting the UK government finds money to either a) navalise the Typhoon, or b) cancel the carriers?

How about © sell the flattops (such as to Brazil, Argentina, India, ...)?

I say keep the fighter as-is and just call it the Doolittle Joint Strike Fighter

Why do you wish to insult Jimmy Doolittle?

[Dan and Judy 614]

How about © sell the flattops (such as to Brazil, Argentina, India, ...)?

Why do you wish to insult Jimmy Doolittle?

No insult to Doolittle.

He pioneered the tactic that would be required with these planes. Please see " Doolittle raid"

Edited January 18, 2012 by Dan and Judy

[Pooky 3,807]

No insult to Doolittle.

He pioneered the tactic that would be required with these planes. Please see " Doolittle raid"

The Doolittle Raid of 1942 involved flying B-25 Mitchell medium bombers from the deck of the USS Hornet to bomb Tokyo, with no possibility of landing back on the aircraft carrier after the raid.

So how, exactly, did he pioneer the tactics to be used with the Thunderpig?

[Boiler 45,662]

There seems to be no problem with taking off.....

[luckytxn 2,264]

There seems to be no problem with taking off.....

Problem one of the few things it doesn't have a problem doing.

[Boiler 45,662]

There are plenty of prior examples of military planes that could take off but not land, this is nothing new.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

There are plenty of prior examples of military planes that could take off but not land,[on an aircraft carrier and without blowing up] this is nothing new.

Kamikazes?

[Ban Hammer 13,401]

Kamikazes?

seems like a pretty expensive cruise missile then....

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

seems like a pretty expensive cruise missile then....

Nah, just land them in Iran and then politely ask for them to be returned.

[Dan and Judy 614]

The Doolittle Raid of 1942 involved flying B-25 Mitchell medium bombers from the deck of the USS Hornet to bomb Tokyo, with no possibility of landing back on the aircraft carrier after the raid.

So how, exactly, did he pioneer the tactics to be used with the Thunderpig?

Well to spell it out, The Thunderpig would take off from the aircraft carrier with no possibilitity of landing back on the aircraft carrier after their mission.

In the mean time, I am basking in the appreciation of at least 3 people that got the joke right off the bat.

[slim 1,530]

Moving the arrestor hook, sounds like a straightforward change. I don't see why that would be so complex.

For the same reason the A-10 isn't going anywhere. Specific roles of certain things. It's not hard at all to move a hook a few feet. But, when you talk about changing the entire weight distribution of an airframe a lot more than just "move it back" comes into play. It's quite possible moving the hook back would shred the plane into two pieces once it's caught on the wire. The front could just "pop off" since there's not enough structural integrity forward of the wings. Perhaps the engine is in the way. Maybe there's just nowhere to put it!

I don't know for sure, but I know it's not like simply moving part x to location b.

In the mean time, I am basking in the appreciation of at least 3 people that got the joke right off the bat.

It was a great joke.

Maybe we could suggest a redesignation. Something like the F/A-25B?

[Laser1 63]

For the same reason the A-10 isn't going anywhere. Specific roles of certain things. It's not hard at all to move a hook a few feet. But, when you talk about changing the entire weight distribution of an airframe a lot more than just "move it back" comes into play. It's quite possible moving the hook back would shred the plane into two pieces once it's caught on the wire. The front could just "pop off" since there's not enough structural integrity forward of the wings. Perhaps the engine is in the way. Maybe there's just nowhere to put it!

I don't know for sure, but I know it's not like simply moving part x to location b.

It has just occurred to me that if Lockheed has already made the tooling for building the F-35, fixing that may be a problem. If it only needs a design change, then Lockheed should just need time to fix it.

[slim 1,530]

It has just occurred to me that if Lockheed has already made the tooling for building the F-35, fixing that may be a problem. If it only needs a design change, then Lockheed should just need time to fix it.

They've already produced several test models. It's way past the design stages.