Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Quote:

Especially when you consider they had to meld three aircraft into one. No one has EVER done that before

Not in a Stealth Design with a weapons bay. The Yak141 was a good start though in about 1990.
Cancelled for lack of money in the early 1990's.

F-16.net Sponsor

rkap wrote:

Quote:

hb_pencil
Did you actually read the Ahern report? Can you point me to where it talks about maneuverability?

"The operational testers cited unsatisfactory progress and the likelihood of severe operational impacts for survivability, lethality, air vehicle performance, and employment."

Can you tell us all what they mean by "AIR VEHICLE PERFORMANCE". Surely that includes maneuverability?
It also says "operational impacts". If there was an easy fix why use the word "operational". The concurrent production was not cut back to just a trickle if they were only minor issues.

Actually the OT report referred specifically to the F-35A range being below the KPP and the F-35C's acceleration, not the Aircraft's maneuverability. There were some maneuverability issues, but its nowhere near what the original poster suggests.

rkap wrote:

Quote:

Especially when you consider they had to meld three aircraft into one. No one has EVER done that before

Not in a Stealth Design with a weapons bay. The Yak141 was a good start though in about 1990.
Cancelled for lack of money in the early 1990's.

I just read through the Wikipedia entry. It was designed as a supersonic VTOL, but I don't see a CTOL or CV variant, or am I missing something? Kind of a non-sequitur there, since the whole point of what you quoted was that on top of everything else they had to make three disparate aircraft from one basic airframe.

And just for the record, the collapse of the USSR was a very good thing for humanity. It should be celebrated. Of course, the EU is trying to recreate it in Europe, but that's another matter... Very Happy

stereospace wrote:

rkap wrote:

Quote:

Especially when you consider they had to meld three aircraft into one. No one has EVER done that before

Not in a Stealth Design with a weapons bay. The Yak141 was a good start though in about 1990.
Cancelled for lack of money in the early 1990's.

I just read through the Wikipedia entry. It was designed as a supersonic VTOL, but I don't see a CTOL or CV variant, or am I missing something? Kind of a non-sequitur there, since the whole point of what you quoted was that on top of everything else they had to make three disparate aircraft from one basic airframe.

The Yak-141 was financed in part by Lockheed-Martin as part of a technology transfer program after the fall of the USSR. The problems with Soviet technology and manufacturing limited the aircraft in many ways, but even before LM's funding, it was a conceptually rather advanced aircraft for its day, and a lot of its ideas went straight into the F-35. The F-35's basic weight/aerodynamic layout was based on the Yak-141. The 3-bearing swivel nozzle patents were directly licensed from Yakolev. The Yak-141 itself was able to go supersonic, and it was able to take off and land vertically, but the prototypes themselves never managed to do both in the same flight. Development of better engines may one day have allowed that (though better engines are not really one of Russia's strong suits). There wasn't much point though. Sukhoi was politically favored within Russia and Yakolev never got the funding to continue development of a the Yak-141 into an actual fighter even before the collapse of the USSR. Lockheed-Martin's re-design of the basic layout to be stealthy, use divertless intakes, replace the separate forward lift engines with a lift fan coupled to the main engine for safety and efficiency, and contain otherwise modern technology also produced an aircraft that was in all ways better than the Yak-141 itself could ever have been developed into by the USSR/Russia, even with LM's help.

If Russia had fully funded development of the Yak-141 instead of the MiG-1.44 and developments of the Flanker, it would've probably been produced in only one basic airframe. But with slight modifications it would've likely been very competent in both CTOL and STOVL/VTOL operation. Basically, it was designed to be STOVL/VTOL specifically for naval operations, though its advanced aerodynamic layout probably would've made it a very effective aircraft compared to legacy designs from Sukhoi and others. So it could've served in all three roles the F-35 fills, and may have had some slight modifications to each role (I could see a straight pipe replacing the swivel nozzle in land-based planes used only in CTOL mode), but wouldn't have been produced in three variants quite as different as the three F-35s. Basically, it would've been like if the US bought only the F-35B and operated it with all three services. If the F-35A and C were cancelled today, an all-F-35B force would still dominate every other aircraft in the world except the F-22. (The US is buying enough of each variant that the performance advantages of the A and probably C do almost certainly outweigh the cost and concurrency issues.)

Thanks for the background on that. Fascinating.

LM was not involved in the development of the Yak-141 (Yak-41M) before it flew. All that LM did was pay to have the Yak fly at an airshow and promise to do some follow-on development, which never happened.

btw, Rolls-Royce designed and built the 3-bearing nozzle for the F-35, not LM and certainly not with Yak's help.

http://www.google.com/patents/US4679732
http://www.google.com/patents/US7770379

Yak did not even invent the 3-bearing nozzle as there are patents going back to Germany in 1966.

http://www.google.com/patents/US3443758
http://www.google.com/patents/US3418809

And Boeing in 1963 before that:

http://www.google.com/patents/US3260049

stereospace wrote:

Thanks for the background on that. Fascinating.

Facinating and very much fantasy. Oh well.

SpudmanWP wrote:

LM was not involved in the development of the Yak-141 (Yak-41M) before it flew. All that LM did was pay to have the Yak fly at an airshow and promise to do some follow-on development, which never happened.

btw, Rolls-Royce designed and built the 3-bearing nozzle for the F-35, not LM and certainly not with Yak's help.

http://www.google.com/patents/US4679732
http://www.google.com/patents/US7770379

Yak did not even invent the 3-bearing nozzle as there are patents going back to Germany in 1966.

http://www.google.com/patents/US3443758
http://www.google.com/patents/US3418809

And Boeing in 1963 before that:

http://www.google.com/patents/US3260049

One only need look at the Convair 200 (which became GD then part of LM) to see the Yak-141 design is hardly original.

tacf-x wrote:

... I'd trust the F-35 to intercept enemy fighters and outmaneuver them more than the Super hornet as I'd imagine time to altitude and speed are vastly superior.

Define "vastly superior"

Quote:

SpudmanWP
LM was not involved in the development of the Yak-141

All True - Yak hoped LM would become involved. From what I read at the time LM paid Yak about 400million for access to there technology. Certain Political matters I imagine would have stopped any joint development deal going ahead for certain but Yak was desperate for funding and ready to try anything. That is what I read anyway - at the time. This all was going on at the concept stage of the F35 in the 1990's.
Just how much it helped LM develop the F35 concept is hard to say apart from the fact they both have the same airframe type layout.
I don't see what "sferrin" is getting at in his comment. Many have dreamed of a VTOL top line fighter in concept but nobody had come near to building one. The Harrier was the best up until then. The Convair 200 was supposed to be a VTOL PLUS but in terms of airframe layout would it have worked? The Yak 141 and F35 concept are completely different in terms of airframe - very similar and they work. Yak deserves some credit for coming up with an airframe concept for a Supersonic VTOL that did work. [4 built]. Once you have a good VTOL concept fighter as "river_otter" says modifying it to a CTOL fighter would be relatively easy. Getting the VTOL without paying too much of a penalty in terms of performance is the hard part. That of course is one of the big questions about the F35 - have they paid too much of a price in other areas to achieve the VTOL variant? That will be answered one day.

Quote:

stereospace
And just for the record, the collapse of the USSR was a very good thing for humanity. It should be celebrated. Of course, the EU is trying to recreate it in Europe, but that's another matter

What has that got to do with aircraft?

Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

An F-15 pilot's view of A2A (F-35 has what is needed)