MAKO69 Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 Catching some waves on the www, found and thought I'd share. http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/year-2013-news/may-2013-navy-world-naval-forces-maritime-industry-technology-news/1044-saab-promotes-its-qsea-gripenq-a-possible-naval-variant-of-the-gripen-ng-fighter-jet-.html
+MigBuster Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 Suppose it comes down to how much needs to be modified - if its a case of moving hook position and painting it Smurf blue then it could be a goer.
+JonathanRL Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 You will notice that the skins seem rather familiar ;-)
+JediMaster Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 It will take a lot more than a hook, folding wings, redesigned gears, enhanced corrosion protection, local airframe strengthening, and lots of testing. It will take money.
MAKO69 Posted January 10, 2014 Author Posted January 10, 2014 It will take a lot more than a hook, folding wings, redesigned gears, enhanced corrosion protection, local airframe strengthening, and lots of testing. It will take money. I'm sure it will take some buckage, but the fact remains that it is a little robust strike fighter that was designed to work out of ruff strips and back country roads. I think the gear might be all set. Have you seen how thick the mains and front gear are, and if you see the next gen concept Gripen the gear look even more robust. I think this plane is over engineered to begin with. This might be one of those planes that may be easier to convert, modify, or build new carrier capable from the current design.
+JediMaster Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 Gear strengthening is probably the least difficult part of navalizing a plane, really.
Centurion-1 Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 Found this pic on the net, couldn't resist.. 1
B52STRATO Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 I hope that Saab will not be faced with the "F-35C syndrome".
fallenphoenix1986 Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 Unless they decide it has to land like a daintly little fairy (vertically) then I think they'll manage. From a technical point of view it should be do-able, don't see a business case for it myself though, the only potential markets for a light naval fighter are Brazil & India and unfortunaly for Saab the Indians have it covered indigenously with the already built naval variant of the Tejas. Craig
+JediMaster Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 That's the B, not the C. The C's major issue was the relative placement of the hook and main wheels causing it to miss catching the cables on touchdown.
+SayethWhaaaa Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 That's the B, not the C. The C's major issue was the relative placement of the hook and main wheels causing it to miss catching the cables on touchdown. Would that really be a big deal to rectify, considering all variants are already capable of landing unassisted within 300 feet?
+daddyairplanes Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 "Same engine as the F/A-18". Interesting as a second choice if the F-35C manages to get itself cancelled.....
+JediMaster Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 Would that really be a big deal to rectify, considering all variants are already capable of landing unassisted within 300 feet? Given the size and margins of landing on a moving carrier deck, I think you'll find most pilots who've done traps answer a resounding "yes!" The problem is that the F-35's main gear is farther aft than pretty much any other carrier-designed plane has been. From rear wheels to tip of the exhaust is a very short distance relatively speaking, and I guess no one realized that the gear hitting the cables and causing them to pop up off the deck is what allowed the hooks to work on nose wheel-equipped planes (as opposed to the old tail draggers) until the C kept failing to catch the wires. The design was of course largely based on the needs of the 35B (CoG and all that). The Harrier never had a hook (plus had that bicycle layout) and no other carrier jets have ever been STOVL. So you can make the convincing argument that had the design not been mandated to work for both uses the main gear would've been farther forward in the naval model and it wouldn't have occurred. A definite "joint design" fail.
fallenphoenix1986 Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 Surely a stinger hook would make some sense in the case of the F-35, would allow for a longer hook arm length than provided by the current design thus increasing the distance from gear to hook tip. Craig
+JediMaster Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 All I've seen is "the hook has been redesigned." I've not seen any before/after pics or heard any actual details on the changes.
+SayethWhaaaa Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Oops. Jedi, even though I quoted you directly, I was thinking of the Gripen when I spoke of the 300ft thing. Not the F-35C. It was late, i was tired, brain had already shut down...
+JediMaster Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Well, the comment still applies. Whichever plane it is, stopping in 300 ft on a flat stationary runway isn't the same thing as doing it on a moving, possibly pitching and/or wet deck! I think a hook is just the only safe way.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now