Further the US Navy has been achieving constant improvements in landing effectiveness. So much so they have cut the number of arresting wires by a quarter on their latest carriers. They also have an automatic landing system trial underway (UCAS-D). It is not unreasonable to assume that the F-35C will be landing on carriers within 10 years hands off by pilots with a >99.99% success rate.

“Constant improvements in landing effectiveness” need a solid design. Obviously with the raft of F-35 program goof ups, what we have is a pattern of significant management incompetence.

Or that other non-issue called weight that was resolved by the 2004 redesign.
Without that redesign we might have ended with a clean Dave A crossing the 13,2 ton instead of 12+ ton, or a clean Dave B reaching the 15 ton instead of 13,5 ton , or (God forbides) a clean Carrier Dave reaching for the 16 ton mark instead of 13,6 ton!

Wait a minute…
What was it called? The CWIP?

And don’t forget all the dead weight in the A and C from the F135 engine because the base motor design has to be common with the STOVL appliances.

Stealth: To the best of my knowledge, the F-35 meets its signature requirements.

Hi Prom. Good points.

The bit about the F-35 signature meeting its “requirements” is possible and maybe even probable. This paper agrees that it will probably meet its requirements:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html

Yet, those requirements don’t account for emerging threat development since the JORD was signed off on.

If the threat is legacy surface to air and air to air as we think of ALLIED FORCE 1999 as an example, well, great stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_NATO_bombing_of_the_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/sum02/lambeth.html

However the design is pretty much obsolete when/if delivered. It is too weak to take on emerging threats and too expensive to use as a second tier fighter.

Maybe that same person should have pointed out to you ELP that the long nose gear only has direct influence on angle of attack when the aircraft is at rest on all three wheels. Which usually happens AFTER it has landed. The Cutlass has that long nose gear because it needs the high alpha for take off. It could land with a high approach angle of attack with conventional nose gear length. Just like many other aircraft do. Since the F-35 has excellent forward view it’s no surprise that the F-35C will have a high AOA for landing.

That response was in relation to somebody trying to erroneously make a connection that since the Cutlass could get aboard, so could the F-35C. Which if you read further, was an attempt by the F-35 fanbase that failed.

It is possible they will fix this: with luck. Maybe auto mode will help?

http://www.neptunuslex.com/2012/01/02/autothrottles/

Yet, that has limits does it not? And the F-35C will most likely have much narrower trapping limits on approach-speed etc.

The dumbassery of poor management of engineers hasn’t seemed to make a connection of why they breath air in their job;

Take a look at this pitching deck scenario and decide if a problem child aircraft design belongs in the fleet. Well this too is nighttime…and since the F-35 can’t fly at night, maybe it isn’t an issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTVj_ZSwxGE