Read the forum code of contact
By: - 27th November 2013 at 02:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Surely the F-35B's lift fan represents a greater difference than any incidental similarities between the two aircraft? As I understand it the Yak-141 used the Lift+Lift/Cruise configuration in common with Grumman's JSF proposal and some of the later BAe Harrier-replacement proposals.
By: - 27th November 2013 at 05:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Surely the F-35B's lift fan represents a greater difference than any incidental similarities between the two aircraft? As I understand it the Yak-141 used the Lift+Lift/Cruise configuration in common with Grumman's JSF proposal and some of the later BAe Harrier-replacement proposals.There were US proposals similar to Yak's configuration back in the 1970s. If LM learned anything from its collaboration with Yak, it was what NOT to do. Still, I think Russians missed an opportunity by canceling the program. They might well have scooped the F-35B as a Harrier-replacement years ago and given themselves a few more options in naval aviation.
By: - 27th November 2013 at 06:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Still, I think Russians missed an opportunity by canceling the program.
I don't think they had much of a choice...
By: - 27th November 2013 at 11:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nor is there much to want.
By: - 27th November 2013 at 11:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There were US proposals similar to Yak's configuration back in the 1970s. If LM learned anything from its collaboration with Yak, it was what NOT to do. Still, I think Russians missed an opportunity by canceling the program. They might well have scooped the F-35B as a Harrier-replacement years ago and given themselves a few more options in naval aviation.
LM probably learned from the swivelling nozzle.
Tu160 - the Yak lift jets & F-35B lift fan are very different conceptually & mechanically. The Yak lift jets are separate turbojet engines, switched on just for take off & landing, & producing high-speed jet exhausts. The F-35B fan is a large fan driven by the main engine, pushing out large volumes of relatively low-speed air, which is ideal for VTOL.
By: - 28th November 2013 at 10:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There were US proposals similar to Yak's configuration back in the 1970s. If LM learned anything from its collaboration with Yak, it was what NOT to do. Still, I think Russians missed an opportunity by canceling the program. They might well have scooped the F-35B as a Harrier-replacement years ago and given themselves a few more options in naval aviation.
By: - 28th November 2013 at 15:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
it could tear your ass off the ground? : D
By: - 28th November 2013 at 17:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What was the full specs of the Yak-141 compared with the F-35B?
By: - 29th November 2013 at 00:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Paraly please make a comparison with overlapping side profile of the Yak141 and F35B or F35A to show the very similar design profile and shape of the 2 planes.
it could tear your ass off the ground? : D
well that XFV12 thing never flew once, they tried but it did not have enough power to take off,by contrast the 2 Yak141 prototypes flew many times and the design was fully sucssesfull and performance was as good or better than expected and the Yak141 was a generation ahead of the Harrier. The Only reason Yak141 was cancelled among many other great military designs of all types was the total economic and political collapse of Russia in 90's and the introduction of western style deRmocracy which to a significant degree has now been reversed which is good. The Yak141 would of been great for Russian VMF Navy it could of actually been used on Mistrals or even on Russian Kirov or Slava class cruisers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_XFV-12
By: - 29th November 2013 at 00:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lockmart didn't just learn from the Yak141 very innovative rotating tilting main engine design which was unique in the world at the time but they flat out copied and ripped it off from the Yak141 design,I watched a documentary where a Yak141 engineer even stated that the F35B main engine rotating mechanism is a copy of the Yak141 design.
I know that the Yak lift jets & F-35B lift fan are different design I even stated that in my initial post outlining that the lift engines are different but that's not very relevant as its the main engine rotating tilting mechanism that's the same as on the Yak141 that makes the whole design work, auxilialiry lift engines worked ok on the Yak 141 even though they did cause some problems burning the landing pads but that could easily be solved by using more heat resistant landing pads and the F35B main engine causes the same heat burn problem anyways.
Well you see the F35B lift fan is ALSO switched on just for take off & landing just like on the Yak141 in case you didn't know that,so what is your point here?
LM probably learned from the swivelling nozzle.Tu160 - the Yak lift jets & F-35B lift fan are very different conceptually & mechanically. The Yak lift jets are separate turbojet engines, switched on just for take off & landing, & producing high-speed jet exhausts. The F-35B fan is a large fan driven by the main engine, pushing out large volumes of relatively low-speed air, which is ideal for VTOL.
By: - 29th November 2013 at 08:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is no secret that Lockheed Martin and Yakovlev worked closely and cooperated in a joint development and research project in the early 90's on fighter vtol technology with Lockheed even granting money to Yakovlev in return for a technology transfer. Not surprisingly the lift mechanism on the F35B is virtually identical to the Yak141 where the rear engine rotates and pivots downwards in exactly the same way as on the Yak141,the only difference is the Yak141 had two smaller lift jets in the front behind the cockpit vs a single larger lift jet for the F35B.
Also the aerodynamic configuration and layout of the F35 is extremelly similar to the Yak141,the vertical stabilizer and wing shape is also very similar as is the shape of the fuselage. Yak141 wingspan is 33ft vs 35ft for the F35B and F35A. Both have quite small wings except the F35 wingloading is even heavier as its much heavier than the Yak141.
The length of the F35 at just 51ft is very similar to Yak141 if its massive rear fin extensions are not included.
It shouldn't come as a surprise if the "consulting" actually involved design documentation of Yak-141 and Yakovlev indeed helping in designing the new liftfan + engine setup. The other main thing is the propulsion and the Rolls Royce engine is most probably a "licence" produced R79 engine, but without the credit being given in public to the original designer and no royalty fee for license. They acquired the tech for peanuts in the early 90s like many other techs that came out of Russian bureaus.
Russian heart for a US rocketThe most important solution however, the one that helped speed up the project significantly, was the use of two Aerojet AJ-26 liquid-fuel engines. In the early 1990s, the US rocket and mission propulsion house Aerojet General had acquired the right to use two rocket motor designs by Samara-based NPO Trud (now known as JSC Kuznetsov, a member of Russia’s United Engine Corporation (UEC)) in the engine tender under the Lockheed Martin Atlas-3 launch vehicle program. The tender was eventually won by another Russian engine, the NPO Energomash RD-180, but the Samara motors also found their market niche. Aerojet had purchased 70 NK-33 and 18 NK-43 engines; 36 NK-33s and 10 NK-43s were subsequently delivered to the USA, priced at between $1 million and $4 million per unit, along with a complete set of design documentation for both models and a license to build the NK-33 in America.
The Aerojet upgrade of the NK-33, known as the AJ26-62, slightly differs from the Soviet baseline: it now has thrust-vectoring capability; changes have been made to the layout of feed lines; the powder charges in the electro-explosive devices and the rubber components have been replaced. But the core technology is essentially of Soviet design.
The potential of Antares proved to be so high that NASA decided not to wait for the testing phase: on December 23, 2008, OSC was awarded with the $1.9 billion Commercial Resupply Services contract to provide eight resupply missions to the ISS.
The first Antares launch became a milestone event for the Russian rocket propulsion industry. "The Russian NK-33 design has found its US customer," said UEC General Director Vladislav Masalov. "In the near future it will be installed on a Russian light rocket. The Soviet-era designers left us so massive a reserve of research and technology solutions that even now, four decades on, we use powerplants from that era on modern launch vehicles. Apart from utilizing the existing motors, we are working to resume their production at a whole new level of technology. I am convinced that our designers and engineers are capable of achieving this."
Also, few words on Russian research on EM catapult, so nothing to get surprised at if in the future someone comes and says that we had sold them our early research woks for peanuts in the 90s. The Russian work on EM is understandable as steam cats would have been troublesome in the Northern winter and would have freezed up where as an EM cat would not have faced such a problem.
In this context it would be relevant to develop electromagnetic catapult, which is more advanced than steam one. Take note that development work on such catapult started in our country as early as 80's, well before the U.S. The Institute of High Temperatures in cooperation with Central Aerohydrodynamics Institute and Mikoyan Design Bureau had been holding research project named Shampun (lasted almost 15 years) oriented on electromagnetic takeoff and landing system. Supposedly, that system was designed for future aircraft-carrying ships and ground-based mobile airfields.
By: - 29th November 2013 at 09:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The other main thing is the propulsion and the Rolls Royce engine is most probably a "licence" produced R79 engine, but without the credit being given in public to the original designer and no royalty fee for license. They acquired the tech for peanuts in the early 90s like many other techs that came out of Russian bureaus.
Now that is most definitely büll$hit...
By: - 29th November 2013 at 14:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
... The Russian work on EM is understandable as steam cats would have been troublesome in the Northern winter and would have freezed up where as an EM cat would not have faced such a problem.
Hmm. I think this can be overstated. If it's cold enough for the catapults to freeze up beyond the ability of antifreeze & heaters to deal with, & yet not so cold that the sea's iced over, I think there's a good chance that ice on deck & upperworks from sea spray will halt flying whatever type of catapult is fitted.
By: - 29th November 2013 at 14:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...
Well you see the F35B lift fan is ALSO switched on just for take off & landing just like on the Yak141 in case you didn't know that,so what is your point here?
My point is that it is not derived from or related to the Yak-141 lift system, as you suggested.
Auxiliary lift engines, as on Yak-141, have been around for many years, in prototypes built & flown in a few countries (I can think of three German types which flew in the 1960s, for example), but the F-35B lift fan is a novel concept. It's not a separate engine.
By: - 29th November 2013 at 15:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
. The Yak141 would of been great for Russian VMF Navy it could of actually been used on Mistrals or even on Russian Kirov or Slava class cruisers.
I don't think any jet V/STOL aircraft, including YAK-141, YAK-38, Harrier, Sea Harrier or F-35B would do much good on a cruiser class ship like a Slava or Kirov (or similar sized western ship). While such a jet could take of or land on a cruiser sized ship, being actually able to operate from such a ship with a usefull payload is entirely different. While many trials have been carried on small ships, I think it was more of a feasibility study or publicity stunt. I do not know what kind of payload a YAK-141 could carry in pure VTOL mode, but imagine there would be some compromise in fuel or weapons carried. I do agree that STOVL on full deck amphibious ship like the Mistral or LHA is/would have been quite usefull.
I agree that the YAK-141 was impressive, and a vast improvement over the YAK-38.
I do find the size similarites between the F-35B and the YAK-141 interesting, but that is more likely due to requirements than the F-35 borrowing from the YAK-141. If you require a single engine STOVL aircraft with single pilot, certain wespons loads, radar, range, size requirements (like elevator sizes on LHA/LHD, weight requirements, performance, etc, many designers would come up with something quite similar in size to the YAK-141 or F-35B.
By: - 29th November 2013 at 15:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My point is that it is not derived from or related to the Yak-141 lift system, as you suggested.Auxiliary lift engines, as on Yak-141, have been around for many years, in prototypes built & flown in a few countries (I can think of three German types which flew in the 1960s, for example), but the F-35B lift fan is a novel concept. It's not a separate engine.
Hawker Aircraft were going to put the Rolls Royce RB-108 lift fan into the Harrier but stuck with the Pegasus engine as that was more advanced in design terms. That was back in the 1960s. Oh by the way the whole concept of vertical take of was made by a Frenchman called Michael Wibult who designed a set of centrifugal flow turbojets.
By: - 29th November 2013 at 16:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Paralay please make a comparison with overlapping side profile of the Yak141 and F35B or F35A to show the very similar design profile and shape of the 2 planes.
: Круто:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]223345[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]223348[/ATTACH]
By: - 29th November 2013 at 17:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yak-141 and advanced Yak vs F-35B
[ATTACH=CONFIG]223347[/ATTACH]
http://paralay.com/lfsyak/super_yak.jpg
By: - 30th November 2013 at 01:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thank You vey much Paralay,your work and contribution is much appreciated!
: Круто:[ATTACH=CONFIG]223345[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]223348[/ATTACH]
Yak-141 and advanced Yak vs F-35B[ATTACH=CONFIG]223347[/ATTACH]
First of all I did not suggest that the lift fan on the F35B is the same but I actually said its different from the Yak141,I said the highly innovative rotating tilting main engine mechanism is exactly the same and ripped of from the Yak141 and that's what makes the whole VTOL system work, reread my post. The auxiliary lift fan design on F35B might be different and connected to the main engine but that's not really very relevant as its not that much better or more efficient in terms of weight and performance than the original Yak141 2 lift jets which also worked fine. :
My point is that it is not derived from or related to the Yak-141 lift system, as you suggested.Auxiliary lift engines, as on Yak-141, have been around for many years, in prototypes built & flown in a few countries (I can think of three German types which flew in the 1960s, for example), but the F-35B lift fan is a novel concept. It's not a separate engine.
There are no similar sized ships of the type as the Kirov Battlecruisers,Kirov weigs 28,000 tons fully loaded about twice as much as the US ddg1000,Kirov carries 3 Ka27 helos so if 1 of them was replaced by a Yak141 it would not be a problem,Yak141 does not need to carry a heave air to gound load to be effective,it can carry R27 and R77 BVR missles and would be very usefull for destroying or in peace time chasing away those pesky maritime aircraft such as P3 or various naval helicopters or even a small group of fighter bombers trying to attack the Kirov battle group.
I don't think any jet V/STOL aircraft, including YAK-141, YAK-38, Harrier, Sea Harrier or F-35B would do much good on a cruiser class ship like a Slava or Kirov (or similar sized western ship). While such a jet could take of or land on a cruiser sized ship, being actually able to operate from such a ship with a usefull payload is entirely different. While many trials have been carried on small ships, I think it was more of a feasibility study or publicity stunt. I do not know what kind of payload a YAK-141 could carry in pure VTOL mode, but imagine there would be some compromise in fuel or weapons carried. I do agree that STOVL on full deck amphibious ship like the Mistral or LHA is/would have been quite usefull.I agree that the YAK-141 was impressive, and a vast improvement over the YAK-38.
By: - 30th November 2013 at 18:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
First of all I did not suggest that the lift fan on the F35B is the same but I actually said its different from the Yak141,I said the highly innovative rotating tilting main engine mechanism is exactly the same and ripped of from the Yak141 and that's what makes the whole VTOL system work, reread my post. The auxiliary lift fan design on F35B might be different and connected to the main engine but that's not really very relevant as its not that much better or more efficient in terms of weight and performance than the original Yak141 2 lift jets which also worked fine. ...
You said -
"the only difference is the Yak141 had two smaller lift jets in the front behind the cockpit vs a single larger lift jet for the F35B".
That is not true. As I have pointed out, more than once, the lift fan is NOT a "lift jet". One might as well say that a helicopter is the same as the Yak-141. Just because it rotates & provides lift does not make it the same. The difference in the way they work is completely relevant - because it disproves your claim of "the only difference".
You've also ignored the roll posts, which stabilise the F-35B in VL & provide a little lift. There is no equivalent on Yak-141, AFAIK.
There are major differences in the engineering & the solutions to the problems of STOVL. The only real similarity is the swivelling nozzle of the main engine.
Posts: 157
By: Tu 160 - 27th November 2013 at 01:11
It is no secret that Lockheed Martin and Yakovlev worked closely and cooperated in a joint development and research project in the early 90's on fighter vtol technology with Lockheed even granting money to Yakovlev in return for a technology transfer. Not surprisingly the lift mechanism on the F35B is virtually identical to the Yak141 where the rear engine rotates and pivots downwards in exactly the same way as on the Yak141,the only difference is the Yak141 had two smaller lift jets in the front behind the cockpit vs a single larger lift jet for the F35B.
Also the aerodynamic configuration and layout of the F35 is extremelly similar to the Yak141,the vertical stabilizer and wing shape is also very similar as is the shape of the fuselage. Yak141 wingspan is 33ft vs 35ft for the F35B and F35A. Both have quite small wings except the F35 wingloading is even heavier as its much heavier than the Yak141.
The length of the F35 at just 51ft is very similar to Yak141 if its massive rear fin extensions are not included.