Posted on 06/14/2013 12:05:47 AM PDT by Brad from Tennessee
The American F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft has its origins in a secret collaboration between Russia’s Yakovlev and Lockheed Martin of the United States.
The American F-35B – the naval version of the Joint Services Fighter – was not designed in Fort Worth, Texas, but in Moscow, Russia. The ‘unique’ lift fan and vectoring tailpipe that allows the F-35B stealth fighter to perform vertical takeoffs and landings (VTOL) was designed nearly three decades ago by Russia’s Yakovlev aircraft bureau for their supersonic multi-services fighter, the Yak-141.
The Yak-141 was a successful development of the older Yak-38 jump jet. A good example of Russia’s poor record in naval aviation, the Yak-38 was an apology of a fighter, being outperformed in almost every department by its Western rivals such as the highly successful British Sea Harrier.
As part of the Soviet Navy’s massive expansion under Admiral Gorshkov, in 1975 Yakovlev was ordered to develop a highly versatile aircraft. Having an unprecedented blend of supersonic speed, vertical take-off and landing capability and extended range, its main role would be to defend the Soviet Naval Fleet and shipping lanes. The aircraft would not only operate from aircraft carriers, but also from wheeled landing and takeoff platforms that could be placed throughout the country, allowing the Russian Air Force to come into the picture. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at indrus.in ...
Lockheed Martin focusing on the B model since it was the most critical version coupled with the Marine's definition of IOC being much lower than USAF or USN's definition of IOC.
the Marine's definition of IOC being much lower than USAF or USN's definition of IOC.(sic)
Much lower? That's highly subjective and history shows us that the Corps has always been willing to get into the fight with a Chevy instead of waiting for a Cadillac, unlike her sister services. Even the zoomies have shifted their IOC plateau opting not to wait for 3F; they'll go with 2B or 3i, unlike the Navy which is quite content with waiting for 2019. If they select 2B they'll be changing their IOC definition to the "much lower"(sic) definition used by the Marines.
To be clear, acquisition authorities of the services make requirements, that means the guys on active duty. Requirements come from warfighting commands and then eventually come to the Pentagon acquisition offices for prioritizing the programs.
Boeing and SAIC can lobby for a program but they can’t make a service (warfighter on up) make a requirement.
And Congress, they can’t tell a service to make such-and-such. They can dispute the PB and argue in the HASC/SASC and HAC and SAC committees funding priorities and amounts on programs/acquisitions already in the PB, but they can’t make a requirement out of whole cloth.
If the service truly doesn’t want something they just don’t include it in their submission to the PB, and if they list it in the PB, only then can the HASC/SASC and HAC/SAC argue money and numbers.
Certainly mismanagement and the usual defense contractor bloat is part of the equation. Doesn’t change the physics or technical challenge of making a S/TOVL variant of an aircraft that otherwise is conventional takeoff/landing.
As for the B variant being ready first, two things. First of all, Congress freed up another 4 or 5 billion to “git ‘er done”, to speed things along. Secondly, the B variant was given its own development team with a good chunk of that money because it was slowing down the program.
From Globalsecurity.org
“In short, two of the JSF variants, the Air Force version and the Navy’s carrier based version, are proceeding satisfactorily. By comparison, the Marine Corps’ short take-off and vertical landing variant is experiencing significant testing problems....As a result, I [DS Gates] am placing the STOVL variant on the equivalent of a two-year probation.”
“With regards to the development and test program (System Design and Development or SDD) the Secretary of Defense directed that the JSF program decouple testing of the Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing (STOVL) version (F-35B) from the Carrier Version (CV; F-35C) and Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL; F-35A) version, so that all would proceed as rapidly as possible. This would also prevent the STOVL version from delaying the other variants.”
And a short video for you!
Yasure, a short MS in Radiophysics ... and in Russki! Gee thanks!
Prof. Ufimtsev could have used a little good old Americanski PR! I hope he is sending a bill for royalties.
Thanks for the clarification. Writer might be confusing the Harrier vertical lift system with F-35B.
A torpedo by a Swordfish was the beginning of Bismark's end.
Not to mention what a strike force of “Stringbags” did to the Italian Navy at Taranto harbor...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.