The model provided by -the manufacturer- correction NAVAIR (thanks OP!), stated that the cable will bounce up after having been hit by the landing gear. Thus the hook design made sense. The cable jumps up and over the hook. Plane arrested.
Instead, again as the article states, the cable is actually being pressed tightly against the flight deck and the elevated hook nose makes the entire hook get thrown up in the air when drawn over the tight cable, back towards the plane and would even destroy some parts of the monitoring mechanisms, so violently did that happen.
They also provide the new design, which is basically the old design and that is also why the techs that saw the new hook for the very first time (and know about the cable I presume) instantly said "That ain't gonna work!".
Minor correction, the wire dynamics model was provided by Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), the Navy engineering organization in control of research, development, test, evaluation, and sustainment of Navy aircraft.
I would actually love to know if someone on the hook design team questioned the model. I guess we won't know but I also it doesn't hurt to ask.
Like did someone go: odd, why would that cable go up and not tighten when waves are sent through it towards the outward attachments? But was inevitably shut down and didn't have "access to the customer" to ask/verify.
Like one of the first things to ask for when having to design this that comes to my mind is: I want high speed camera footage of current arrestor in action at the customer site!
Even if two different aircraft have the same space constraints for the hook (which is a pretty big if), they have different mass and deceleration characteristics (i.e. minimum and maximum approach velocity) during landing- changing the force exerted on the hook. Designing a lighter hook for the lower loaded aircraft is VERY desirable for high tech fighter jets- every ounce saved is better range, better agility, etc.
As far as the little lip at the very tip of the hook- it looks to me like the initial design was trying to minimize any risk of digging into the flight deck and causing damage- this is just a guess though.
“After the LSO finished what he had to say and left the ready room my B/N allowed that he might fly with me again. Me, I was still shaking inside.
The next morning I went up on the flight deck before flight ops started and walked to the aft edge of the deck. I was looking for something and found it.
About one foot from the end, there was a single, shiny, brand new, solitary hook imprint in the deck.”
Due to the planes and to the rest of the tailhook (the shank, etc.), they could hit at different angles, speeds, etc. That's just a guess, however.
Each plane costs ~$100 million and the entire program will cost over $1 trillion when it's done. Performance needs are extreme: They need to land in all sorts of adverse, imperfect conditions - damage to the plane, the carrier, the wire, the personnel; bad weather; bullets and missiles flying around. It seems worthwhile to design the highest-performing tailhook for this plane, rather than to save a few bucks.
Also, IME people doing something this sophisticated don't miss those really simple, obvious issues that we happen to be able to observe and grasp from the outside.
They designed for the F-35B as the "baseline" with carrier requirements secondary. Also, the engineers knew but, "their concerns would have just as likely been ignored." This reference was 2012, when they knew it was a problem but before OP was fixing it.
A more interesting question is do the cables (size, positioning, tension) vary by aircraft? Can any carrier-capable aircraft land on any carrier in the US fleet?
Or are all of those tail hooks bespoke designs because reasons?