Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

F-35B: Born in the USSR
Russia & India Report ^ | June 10, 2013 | By Rakesh Krishnan Simha

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 ...


TOPICS: Extended News
KEYWORDS: aerospace; f35b; jsf; navair; russia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last
To: A.A. Cunningham
Any idea why the F-35B is farther ahead than the A and C variants to the point that the B will achieve IOC prior to either?

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.

21 posted on 06/14/2013 7:34:48 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
The services are driving the focus not Lockheed and sequester is dictating what gets priority and what doesn't. NAVAIR is for all intents and purposes only mildly interested in the C and the same can be said for the zoomies and the A. During the Bs "probation", testing on the A and C wasn't accelerated. The zoomies have adopted a different philosophy and learned from the mistakes they made with the F-22 and NAVAIR would be quite content with buying more Super Hornets.

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.

22 posted on 06/14/2013 8:08:48 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro can't pass E-verify)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bulwyf

The Pe-2 could give ‘em a run for their money, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe-2


23 posted on 06/14/2013 11:04:07 AM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it gettingthe so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Vinnie

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.


24 posted on 06/14/2013 11:50:09 AM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

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.”


25 posted on 06/15/2013 5:41:37 AM PDT by DemforBush (Bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
A little light reading for you

And a short video for you!

They know not what they had!

26 posted on 06/15/2013 9:05:48 AM PDT by Tonytitan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tonytitan
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.

27 posted on 06/15/2013 9:20:17 AM PDT by Kenny Bunk ("Obama" The Movie. Introducing Reggie Love as "Monica." .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee
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.

Um, the Yak-141 didn't use a lift fan. It used two dedicated lift jets in addition to the main engine.

Lockheed did take a look at the rotation assembly for the main engine exhaust, I think they even licensed it for a little bit, but despite some cosmetic similarities didn't incorporate it into the design for the F-35.
28 posted on 06/15/2013 9:32:25 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

Thanks for the clarification. Writer might be confusing the Harrier vertical lift system with F-35B.


29 posted on 06/15/2013 9:49:19 AM PDT by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee
Thanks for the clarification. Writer might be confusing the Harrier vertical lift system with F-35B

You're welcome!

The leap from the Harrier to the Yak-38/Yak-141 is even larger tho. The Harrier's Pegasus engine uses rotating single-piece vectoring nozzles. The Yak-38 did use vectoring nozzles for the main engine (along with two liftjets forward), but the -141 used a 3-piece rotating rear nozzle assembly similar-looking to what the F-35 has.

There were a lot of different trials in the West with various lift technologies over the years - any design for a vertical-lift jet aircraft (especially one that's also supposed to be supersonic capable) is going to be very complex and involve a lot of trade-offs between the marrying of different technologies and capabilities.

The Yak-38 was probably closest (and they actually look very similar) to the German VAK-191, which used a combination of rotating nozzles (4) and lift jets (2 - positioned for and aft rather than clustered in a pair like with the Soviet jets). The McDonnell-Douglas JSF contender (which wasn't advanced to the flying demonstrations like the X-32 and X-35 were) had dedicated liftjets, but also (I think) rotating nozzles.
30 posted on 06/15/2013 10:06:39 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
The Brits still operated the Gloster Gladiator biplane fighter at the beginning of the war and operated the Swordfish and Albacore biplane torpedo bombers for the entire war.

A torpedo by a Swordfish was the beginning of Bismark's end.

31 posted on 06/17/2013 12:50:15 AM PDT by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub

Not to mention what a strike force of “Stringbags” did to the Italian Navy at Taranto harbor...


32 posted on 06/17/2013 6:26:36 AM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it gettingthe so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson