.jpg)
Yak 141.
The world's first Supersonic STOVL airplane. Do you recognize the engine layout? Basically the same as the F-35. This airplane never went into production.
What does all this have to do with the price of tea in China? It boils down to the fact that (and I hate having to admit this) STOVL capability and the airplanes that the USAF and USN need are totally incompatible. You can share avionics, engine cores etc...but sharing airframes is a step too far.
The F-35. American built, Russian inspired, never proven and an eventual failure. How do we know? Because even the daddy's of this design (the Russians) abandoned it.
.jpg)
.jpg)
"Because even the daddy's of this design (the Russians) abandoned it"
ReplyDeleteThat's a little bit misleading. The Soviet Union collapsed, and by extension so did the Soviet Navy who were developing the Yak-141.
Even so Yakovlev design buro designed the F35 Nozzle for meager 1mio US ,you can bet when bill reached Us taxpayers paid 100x fold
ReplyDeleteYakovlev did NOT design the nozzle. Do a little research and you'll see the claim is absurd.
DeleteSferrin,
DeleteLockheed Martin did specifically buy out the YAK-141 design back in the 90s.
Main nozzle swivel is a 100% Russian design , as are many things in US aviation Boeing has a a huge design dept in Russia (cca 1000 engineers contracted at any one time). You have to admit that US is facing a brain drain as best brains now seem to be diverted to virtual world of selling bullshit on Wallstreet or corporate law firms instead of engineering and making something in real world.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe USN did a lot of analysis on this in some of the precursor programs that eventually led to the JSF. They found that combining VTOL and CTOL variants of the same plane was feasible but that CATOBAR for carriers required entirely different airframe stress and low speed flight profiles and thus CATOBAR should have a separate airframe.
ReplyDeleteThis analysis was thrown away as part of the general JSF stupidity. Additionally, trying to do all three roles in one airframe, instead of doing a separate airframe with shared systems for CATOBAR, led to the huge aerodynamic penalties the F-35 incurred when weapons bays were finally added. LockMart couldn't design for CATOBAR and VTOL and weapons bays though they probably could have done OK with any two of the three.
Almost forgot: also the Yak-141 arrangement is almost identical to what Convair proposed for the Convair 200 in 1973. Convair almost had their shot to build it, but the USN made a huge error and went for the Rockwell XFV-12 instead, which never got off the ground (almost literally).
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletesferrin. you know you're not going to get any of your comments on my blog so why do you keep trying? my house son. my rules. you're never welcome here. never.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Deletetoo funny! keep trying...
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteInteresting. I note that the YAK had two turbojet engines up front whereas the B features a 2700-lb "Rolls-Royce LiftSystem" which uses a 50" fan. Both provide about 19,000 lb thrust, but the B system probably requires more width in the fuselage (and weight?).
ReplyDeletefrom defensenews:
F-35 May Miss Acceleration Goal - Jan. 18, 2012
“Based on the original [transonic acceleration] spec, all three of the airplanes are challenged by that spec,” said Tom Burbage, Lockheed’s program manager for the F-35. “The cross-sectional area of the airplane with the internal weapons bays is quite a bit bigger than the airplanes we’re replacing.”
The sharp rise in wave drag at speeds between Mach 0.8 and Mach 1.2 is one of the most challenging areas for engineers to conquer. And the F-35’s relatively large cross-sectional area means, that as a simple matter of physics, the jet can’t quite match its predecessors.
“We’re dealing with the laws of physics. You have an airplane that’s a certain size, you have a wing that’s a certain size, you have an engine that’s a certain size, and that basically determines your acceleration characteristics,” Burbage said. “I think the biggest question is: are the acceleration characteristics of the airplane operationally suitable?”
http://www.defensenews.com/print/article/20120118/DEFREG02/301180013/F-35-May-Miss-Acceleration-Goal%5B/url%5D
Don Bacon
DeleteIt really is the issue of the thrust/weight, and a high bypass turbofan engine would provide more thrust per weight than the F-35B's lift fan.
The reason why the YAK-141 failed was the Soviet engines falling behind the West in engine thrust level, and the lack of sophicated electronics needed to control such a complex scheme in the Soviet Union. The concept itself is not flawed, but the technology needed for proper execution of the concept was lacking in the Soviet Union.
I believe the F135 engine is 40,000 lb thrust, the most of any fighter engine, so that's not a problem. I do wonder why the F-35 didn't stick with the narrower two turbofan design up front. Might as well blow two holes in the deck as one. :-)
DeleteDon Bacon
DeleteThe F-35B's engine thrust was downgraded to 38,000 lbs.http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f35/f-35b-stovl-variant.html But the real issue is that Rolls Royce failed to reduce the weight of the F-35B Lift Fan from the X-35B version, so their weight equation was off and the whole F-35B went into a weight growth death spiral.
Given that every pound of weight is precious, Lockheed Martin would have been better off fitting A turbofan engine in place of a lift fan, because a turbofan would deliver higher thrust per weight.
I'm saying two smaller turbofans.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteDon Bacon do some homework , issue as was not the electronics ,ruskis had an automated landing system already on the predecessors Yak 36 and 38 ,as the computers of the time were big they were actually inside the ship not the plane ,so on landing plane became remotely controlled. Big VTOL issue and cause of many crashes was always hot gas ingestion.
DeleteF35 wanted to avoid multi engine concept as multiple engines only increase likelihood of engine failiure, but fan ,crankshaft and gearbox arrangment hardly takes any of the risk out .
What the YAK-141 and the F-35B failures are teaching us is that one needs to keep the requirements for the STOVL to absolute minimum in order to keep the airframe weight low, and that STOVL airframes must be designed separate from CTOL/CATOBAR airframes. The moment the weight increases on an STOVL airframe due to increased requirements, the project fails becauses STOVL jets are extremely sensitive to weight increases.
ReplyDeleteBetter yet, now is the time for the USMC to consider abandoning operating fast jets off the LHDs, and move to small STOBAR carriers for fast jet operations. This would have the added benefits of the USN not putting all the eggs in a single basket by having a larger number of STOBAR carriers in place of fewer super carriers to distribute the risks. If you think about it, STOBAR carriers don't cost much more than LHDs, yet the STOBAR jets cost a fraction of STOVL jets so going STOBAR has a better return for the tax payer's money.
no. the issue isn't STOVL. the Harrier proved that it can be done and at a reasonable cost. the problem is implementation. additionally the idea of building real live jeep carriers is not going to fly. we have full size carriers with Marine aircraft on them. what needs to be done is to work out doctrine. do we need stovl jets to escort MV-22s when doing TRAP missions, embassy reinforcement or raids? the answer is yes. do we need to be able to do those missions when carriers aren't around? i think the answer is yes. so stovl stays. expensive stovl goes.
DeleteSolomon
DeleteThe Harrier was subsonic, nor was it able to defend itself from enemy air superiority fighters moving in for a kill. Even the British who were developing the supersonic successor of Harrier gave up due to high costs.
As for the marine fast jets operating off the super carriers, there are going to be only 8 ~ 9 super carriers if the Navy fully implements the sequester cuts, not enough to cover the globe because only half the carriers would be out in the sea at any given moment. So the arguement for cheap STOBAR type "Sea Control Ship" carriers is still valid because more of these types could be bought and operated for the cost of F-35Bs + LHD combos.
So when the USMC and the Pentagon mind set moves way from STOVL to STOBAR, a lot of problems can be solved and hundreds of billions of dollars could be saved.
you're showing the same bias that's present in the USAF. they always attempt to develop world class airplanes but second rate missile systems. the Brits proved that with a good airplane, great tactics, superior training and good missiles that the Harrier could more than hold its own.
Deleteit did in the Falklands and it can in the future. you want a sea control ship? i want a space based Marine Corps. both are fantasys. why build half a carrier when we're about to mothball real ones? sorry. you're conflating the issues. the USMC is to blame for this but still you're mixing apples and oranges. stovl isn't the issue. the issue is how we implemented it with the F-35.
Solomon,
DeleteThen what solution do you suggest to the USMC fast jet aviation problem? It is agreed that the F-35B is flawed beyond repair and the AV-8 isn't in production.
So when the current AV-8 fleet retires, then what?
the Harrier is viable until PAST 2030. match it up with the latest avionics, missiles etc and it will hold the line until a new built replacement can be fielded. the theory is sound, we just did a bad job of implementing it. the harrier can hold on a while longer.
DeleteSolomon,
DeleteThe AV-8 Harriers will start retiring in 2025, and it costs 10 years and tens of billions of dollars in development funding to bring out a new STOVL jet. This is very difficult to do in the ages of sequester and a neverending budget crisis where the congress looks at defense spending first to make spending cuts.
Another thing is the economy of scale. The Harrier was successful because it had a large number of users including the Royal Airforce/Navy, the Spanish Navy, the Italian Navy, the Indian Navy, the Royal Thai Navy, and the USMC, but the market is much smaller this time around, with the primary user being the Royal Navy(just 45), the USMC, and possibly the JMSDF. This would make less than half the volume that the Harrier enjoyed.
On the other hand, a STOBAR type jet CAN BE sold to non-maritime customers as F-16 replacements and build the economy of scale, especially when the F-35 is beyond the reach of the most F-16 operators who are likely to turn to Chinese solutions if $40~50 million fighter jets can't be had from the US.
So when it is concluded that STOVL jets are just too hard and too costly to do based on 5th gen capability requirement, then a more realistic option is to lessen the technical requirement on the jets and make the ship longer. When you take the Vertical Landing out of the technical requirement, the engineering becomes so much simpler and cheaper.
Hold up there Slowman, those Chinese jets have only ever won export orders to poor African nations and Pakistan and Burma.
DeleteChina still needs to prove their engines are up to snuff, althoug they are VERY cloase.
The Chinese also have to compete with the Russians, who are making come good stuff these days, with the Su-30 and Mig-35 series.
Instead, poorer western leaning nations will buy secondhand F-16s from the Europeans, or maybe new F-16s or Gripens. However, the Swedes aren't as nice allies as the USA, so I presume the F-16 will do well.
If you don't have the cash for an F-16, a South Korean F/A-50 or maybe a Textron Scorpion will do the job too.
I can imagine the ideal fast jet option for the USMC being a Naval Gripen with a 29,000 lbs thrust EPE+ engine with a 15 degree thrust vectoring nozzle operating off a stretched 280 m long America class LHD carrier fitted with arrest wires. Such a jet would be able to do everything that an F-35B was supposed to be able to do, but at a fraction of the cost.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteSlowman, the Sea Gripen only exists on paper ATM.
DeleteWho in the hell is going to pay for it's development, not to mention a thrust vectoring engien which will add cost an weight.
A Gripen carries less ordnance than an F-16.
Add to the fact that the Navy doesn't have the cash to redesign and enlarge an America class.
Have you ever seen--
ReplyDeleteRISING TO THE CHALLENGE
http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/F-35_2004_Year-In-Review.PDF
--taking 3,000lb out of the F-35B
Given the option of choosing between building Nimitz/Ford class carriers and building LHD sized carriers, the Navy is going to choose the Nimitz/Ford. It is a win/lose decision because as soon as the Navy gives any serious consideration to LHD-sized carriers, the budget hawks will be eyeing the cost of the already inflated Ford-class and ask the Navy why they are building two types of aircraft carriers AND if you are building a smaller one, why not just build smaller ones instead since they are cheaper?
ReplyDeleteThe Navy doesn't want Congress to question the role of carriers (even though they should), so LHDs will remain LHDs that might deploy some Harriers or F35s at times, but not purposely as carriers.
Amazingly. The pilot got out OK. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPOo1jOqZTA
ReplyDeleteRussian ejection seats are best in the world nothing in the west comes even close.
ReplyDeleteThis approach always seemed promising: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EWR_VJ_101
ReplyDeletegotta love the heat-seeker magnets on the wings :)
DeleteAnd it flew: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL5YcdPTiQQ
ReplyDeleteBut they apparently also encountered the hot-air ingestion phenomenon that plagued the Boeing entry decades later, as seemingly the case with the hard landing at the end of the video.
MV-22 mixes its exhausts plenty to avoid the challenge with its similar geometry.
On the other hand, carrying vertically-oriented engines around as de facto 'dead weight' for 98+% of the aircraft's given flight-time is not sound thinking - whether American, Russian, German etc. The DORNIER DO-31 went quite far in that department...
ReplyDeleteA DO-31 with two F-35B engine-configurations however could be the bigger and faster brother to MV-22 and become a major element of the USMC STOVL assets. Enough to study in Wikipedia and YouTube.
This one first since in English - but too short: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5yzzS0PnG8
Then the unarguable bit, however in that 'heathen tongue' over there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgodG97osuo
22-tons of weight with 5 tons of cargo, plus the weight of the wingtip lift-only engines.
Two F-35-B drivetrains would readily do 2-2.5 times that.
Developmental costs quoted as "less than that of a middle-class automobile..."
Once again, sol shows he knows nothing about Aircraft and Gas turbine engines. Be a man and admit if you are paid shill for Boeing and the F-18. If so fine, just truth in advertising.
ReplyDeleteRead View from the Hover by Farley - the ultimate harrier test pilot. He notes what a failer the Yak 141 and YAk 38 were because of their use of multiple Lift turbo jet engine - one fails and the pilot is Automatically ejected.
Comparing this to the F-35 shaft driven lift fan is simply idiotic. If you want to make this website a paid infomercial for the F-18 God bless, but again, be a man about it if you can't get the technology right....
How recent is that book?
DeleteI saw somewhere a second edition, 2008 I think.
DeleteAnd mister Houston, I don't see anything in sol post about what wonderful Yak plane was or comparing shaft driven lift fan with engine of 141. Do you see things that don't exist ... or maybe do you hear the voices too ?
hmm. Did you even read the title of this post: "F-35. American built, Russian inspired...never proven." This is a straw man linkage all the way.
DeleteStill would like an answer to the Boeing shill stuff. This Blog used to be Great - now it is an anti F-35 rant - a weak, technologically empty rant, but still seeming a paid infomercial for cobbled together f-18 with "stealth "pods..
you are a stupid little man. you come on my blog and accuse me of shilling for Boeing? amazing. real simple. either apologize or you're in the Sferrin camp and nothing you write will ever be posted here again. its just that fucking simple.
Deleteoh and because i decide to suffer a fool this one time.
NO YOU STUPID BASTARD. BOEING AIN'T PAYIN' ME SHIT.
lov ya, boy...
ReplyDelete