Russian not have V/STOL Airplane

[Weta43]

They got rid of the harriers to curry favour with the US by buying F-35.

 

The Sea Harrier served in the Falklands War, and the Balkans conflicts; on all occasions it mainly operated from aircraft carriers positioned within the conflict zone. Its usage in the Falklands War was its most high profile and important success, when it was the only fixed-wing fighter available to protect the British Task Force. The Sea Harriers shot down 20 enemy aircraft during the conflict

(...)

The Sea Harrier FA2 featured the Blue Vixen radar, which was described as one of the most advanced pulse doppler radar systems in the world; the Blue Fox radar was seen by some critics as having comparatively low performance for what was available at the time of procurement.[25] The Blue Vixen formed the basis for development of the Eurofighter Typhoon's CAPTOR radar.[27] The Sea Harrier FA2 also carried the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile, the first UK aircraft to be provided with this capability. An upgraded model of the Pegasus engine, the Pegasus Mk 106, was used in the Sea Harrier FA2; in response to the threat of radar-based anti aircraft weapons electronic countermeasures were added.[25] Other improvements included an increase to the air-to-air weapons load, look-down radar, increased range, and improved cockpit displays.[18]

[Mars Exulte]

Zhukov - the Yak uses a seperate lift engine, no? the F35 only has one engine, like a Harrier.

 

I should have been more specific. I was referring to the Yak-38 which had a primary engine for forward thrust and two smaller lifr jets in the front that were deadweight in forward flight. Just looked at diagram. Two tiny engines in front directed downward and one rear engine with Harrier style pair of nozzles. Always wondered why they didn't just copy it outright.

 

 

The Yak-141 AND F-35B both have a rear nozzle that rotates downward and a large lift fan **incorrect, Yak does not have lift fan, still has two crappy lift jets** in the fuselage, the two work in tandem to provide STOVL capability. Harriers have four strategically placed rotating nozzles. The Yak-141/F-35 method allows for a more aerodynamic aircraft suitable for supersonic flight, afterburners, etc.

Edited January 21, 2020 by zhukov032186

[Weta43]

The Yak-141 AND F-35B both have a rear nozzle that rotates downward and a large lift fan in the fuselage, the two work in tandem to provide STOVL capability.

Which is what I was referring to above, and why the aircrafts' layouts are so similar.

L.M. appear to have entered into what was initially a hush-hush partnership with Yak to gain access to the Russian company's work on this technology, then ported that work to the F-35.

[Mr_sukebe]

Which is what I was referring to above, and why the aircrafts' layouts are so similar.

L.M. appear to have entered into what was initially a hush-hush partnership with Yak to gain access to the Russian company's work on this technology, then ported that work to the F-35.

 

Source, or just wishful thinking that the group who developed the U2, SR71, F117 and F22 would have needed external assistance?

[Mars Exulte]

Source, or just wishful thinking that the group who developed the U2, SR71, F117 and F22 would have needed external assistance?

 

 

Um... it's easily verified Lockheed and Yakovlev partnered after the collapse of USSR and even ordered additional prototypes. It's as easy for you to use Google as anybody else. Or do you think the virtually identical outline and powerplant is just... what... a huge coincidence?

[drPhibes]

The Yak-141 AND F-35B both have a rear nozzle that rotates downward and a large lift fan in the fuselage, the two work in tandem to provide STOVL capability.

 

 

Looks more like two lift engines in the front to me:

 

 

 

 

...but the rear nozzle swing mechanism is nearly identical:

 

 

[Mars Exulte]

Yep, you're right, I'm wrong. I thought it had lift fan, too. I even looked at that same photo earlier lol I'm an idiot :p

 

 

Original comment edited for accuracy

Edited January 21, 2020 by zhukov032186

[Richard Dastardly]

They got rid of the harriers to curry favour with the US by buying F-35.

 

Quote was for the FRS.2, which was a *vast* improvement on the FRS.1 - proper radar, Link 16, fox 3. The UK had always signed up for F35 - 20%ish of the F35 - every F35, not just the UK ones - is nominally British ( if you can call BAES "British" anymore ), but the out-of-service date of the SHAR is still a bit contentious. Harrier OOS was always meant to make room for the F35, it just didn't arrive when it was supposed to...

[Mr_sukebe]

Um... it's easily verified Lockheed and Yakovlev partnered after the collapse of USSR and even ordered additional prototypes. It's as easy for you to use Google as anybody else. Or do you think the virtually identical outline and powerplant is just... what... a huge coincidence?

 

I apologise.

Having done some reading, yep Lockheed were involved with getting a Yak to the Farnborough show and apparently acquired test data.

However, the article also suggested that the only real carry over was the rear engine nozzle and how it could be rotated. Apparently, pretty much everything else is different.

[Weta43]

Source, or just wishful thinking that the group who developed the U2, SR71, F117 and F22 would have needed external assistance?

 

:)

 

Of course - What am I thinking ?

Why would the US need help with anything technological ?

 

Slightly off topic, but did you ever read the story of the Bell X1 ?

(The first manned airplane to exceed the speed of sound in level flight)

 

The US Govt was backing Bell on a project to develop a supersonic aircraft, but Bell couldn't solve the problem of the loss of tail plane authority as the aircraft approached M1.

 

The British were also working on a M1 aircraft, and had come up with the idea of the all moving tail plane, which solved the problem.

 

The US Govt knew the British were working on the problem and so approached the UK Govt and requested that there be an exchange of information - the British would brief the US on their progress, supply their plans, and the US would provide access to their work & the rocket motor that they intended to use to power it (on the subject of US rocket technology - ever heard of 'Operation paperclip' ? The foundation of the team that got the US to the moon ?).

 

The UK gave the briefing, handed over the research on all moving tail planes, the US said thankyou, and reneged on the deal.

 

So you could say the US' superior technological knowhow allowed them to develop the first manned supersonic aircraft.

 

Or, if you were feeling less generous, you might say that the US stole the technology to allow supersonic flight from the Brits, that Germans scientists built the motor to power it to supersonic speed, & Bell assembled the parts & the US took the credit...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_X-1

[Teknetinium]

Um... it's easily verified Lockheed and Yakovlev partnered after the collapse of USSR and even ordered additional prototypes. It's as easy for you to use Google as anybody else. Or do you think the virtually identical outline and powerplant is just... what... a huge coincidence?

 

And now we are back in COLD WAR 2, Even Games are sanctioned lol, Why do you think we dont get a Flanker or Falcrum :)

[Harlikwin]

Weren't first harriers as bad as Yak-38? AFAIK they had no radar and very limited amount of payload

 

They also crashed a ton, and the engines ate themselves. Limited payload, the lot... But they were "evolved" and a ton of effort was spent making them work. Eventually the AV8B turned out to be a pretty good aircraft, but its a very far cry from the early harriers.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Harlikwin

[Richard Dastardly]

They also crashed a ton, and the engines ate themselves. Limited payload, the lot... But they were "evolved" and a ton of effort was spent making them work. Eventually the AV8B turned out to be a pretty good aircraft, but its a very far cry from the early harriers.

 

Part of the problem with the AV8A was the USMC had no money to maintain the things. They were tricky enough even when they were looked after properly, if you check the RAF loss rates early on... also didn't the USMC recruit helicopter pilots?

 

Admittedly cold war loss rates were high for any a/c, training was very intense & as realistic as possible.

[Harlikwin]

Part of the problem with the AV8A was the USMC had no money to maintain the things. They were tricky enough even when they were looked after properly, if you check the RAF loss rates early on... also didn't the USMC recruit helicopter pilots?

 

Admittedly cold war loss rates were high for any a/c, training was very intense & as realistic as possible.

 

I'm not trying to knock the harrier, but both it and the yak were gen1 VSTOL's with a pile of issues that needed to get worked out. The AV8B (gen2) was a far better and safer A/C than the first gen ones, and it still has a not-so-great safety record. Now the west is on Gen3 with the F35B having hopefully learned and figured out the various issues of the past ~50 years. The west mostly just had far more money to throw at the problem compared to the russians that well, mostly didn't have the cash, or really the need for it being primarily a land power, for 90% of their purposes something like the SU-25 was the better/simpler/cheaper solution as long as there was a bit of dirt road for it to land on.

[Richard Dastardly]

For sure things have moved on - on the other hand if you check the loss ratio of *any* cold war aircraft they look high by modern standards, mostly because of the crazily intense training. I grew up with so many combat jets doing high speed low level runs over my town ( I grew up in a training area ) that I stopped noticing them. I live in another training area now & there's hardly anything.

 

The F35's FBW is something the Harrier designers could only dream about - super sure they'd have fitted that if they could! same with any other Gen 3. I'd put money on that being the safety enhancement rather than the airframe design...

 

Out of curiosity I looked up the RAF Harrier losses - http://www.ukserials.com/losses_xref.htm - seems an awful lot of those were Harrier II, & rather fewer Harrier I than I expected. Is there some record of AV8A ( and Yak! ) losses around?

[Harlikwin]

For sure things have moved on - on the other hand if you check the loss ratio of *any* cold war aircraft they look high by modern standards, mostly because of the crazily intense training. I grew up with so many combat jets doing high speed low level runs over my town ( I grew up in a training area ) that I stopped noticing them. I live in another training area now & there's hardly anything.

 

The F35's FBW is something the Harrier designers could only dream about - super sure they'd have fitted that if they could! same with any other Gen 3. I'd put money on that being the safety enhancement rather than the airframe design...

 

Out of curiosity I looked up the RAF Harrier losses - http://www.ukserials.com/losses_xref.htm - seems an awful lot of those were Harrier II, & rather fewer Harrier I than I expected. Is there some record of AV8A ( and Yak! ) losses around?

 

Its an interesting list. Not sure I've seen anything public on USMC harrier losses, but at a guess its available somewhere, as for soviet era Yak38's maybe ask on the Russian side of the forums.

 

I mainly remember from reading harrier boys, that those guys were constantly punching out for one reason or another so its a bit apocryphal, but also true at the same time.

 

And yes I'm sure FBW and computer control makes a big difference. Just look at modern drones.

[Richard Dastardly]

All right there on WikiP, apparently - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harrier_Jump_Jet_family_losses - suggests the USMC loss rate was better than the RAF rate for early models ( although the RAF were training in near-live conditions in Germany at the time ).

 

IIRC you don't do anything special to hover a F35B, just slow down to stop & it'll do it all for you.

 

Looks like a loss rate of 37/90 for Yak-38, from brief search. Ouch.

[Harlikwin]

All right there on WikiP, apparently - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harrier_Jump_Jet_family_losses - suggests the USMC loss rate was better than the RAF rate for early models ( although the RAF were training in near-live conditions in Germany at the time ).

 

IIRC you don't do anything special to hover a F35B, just slow down to stop & it'll do it all for you.

 

Looks like a loss rate of 37/90 for Yak-38, from brief search. Ouch.

 

Thats pretty grim for the Yak. Then again, its probably partly due to the autoeject "feature".

[Xilon_x]

 

 

 

 

[Svsmokey]

My understanding is that a lot of the US Harrier losses were due to not having two-seat models for training . The Corp's thinking was that "you are a Marine , strap in and fly it " .

[Kang]

I figure some of the early high loss rates in the RAF are indeed down to how training worked. They mostly trained in Europe, often with less-than-favourable weather conditions to begin with, and - what's probably more - they were doing it in the first proper operational V/STOL jet. They simply didn't have anybody to ask for advice; when the USMC adopted theirs, not only did the jets evolve, but by a big deal the manuals did.