The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5567
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post25 Apr 2019, 06:16

mixelflick wrote:Exactly. Too many cooks in the kitchen..

When you have competing priorities, you wind up with a compromise. Look at the F-35. "Give us a supersonic, STOVL, air to everything fighter/fighter-bomber with ISR capabilities, stealth, capable of maritime operations with a gun/no gun and make it cheap". In all fairness, LM did about as good as could reasonably have been expected.



Again your arguing against the same strategy we used with the F-35. Which, today has "NO EQUAL" and with a price "CHEAPER" than most 4th Generation Fighters.

Yet, according to your logic. That's a failed strategy??? :doh:
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3315
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post25 Apr 2019, 13:39

Corsair1963 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
You didn't read my argument. Or perhaps, I didn't present it as clearly as I could have.

MONEY is always nice. And I agree with you/Trump that most of these nations need to start pulling their weight. But which of these foreign nations are going to contribute their EXPERTISE, and what is that?

Only ONE nation has built stealth fighters, bombers and strike fighters. Only ONE nation has true 5th gen engines flying. And only ONE nation has the sensor suite that so robustly enhances SA, it's a game changer. That would be the US.

Besides, even without foreign investment we'll just do what we've been doing - print more money. Is that a smart strategy? Nope. Will it come back to bite us in the end? For sure. But there will be no significant foreign expertise contributed, and quite likely no real (significant) $. Some of these nations are in a worse position financially than the US (many, in fact). So after they've all contributed to the F-35... how much $ is going to be left?

In either case, I think the foreign contributions will be negligible..


Your argument hardly holds water. As what you're arguing against is what the F-35 is today. Which, is highly successful in both price and capability. Nor, can we just "print more money" to go it alone........
:?


OK great.

When PCA's and F/A-XX's foreign partners are announced, do let me know. Those should be the same countries that are co-developing the B-21 with us, so that info should be out shortly too.

Can't wait to hear :)

This is how it really works: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... sal-report

LM is offering to share some of the F-35's code in an effort to build FOR THEM/JAPAN a new air superiority fighter. We're the ones providing the data/know how (and physical jet) not the other way around.

So now that America has decided to build PCA, we're to believe the Japanese are going to give us some pointers?

With respect to the F-35, Great Britain didn't tell LM how to build a VLO airframe. France didn't tell us how to build a stealthy/low IR emitting F-135. Germany didn't school us on how to develop DAS or EOTS. Like it or not, that expertise resides here.. and probably will for the forseeable future..
Offline

honky43

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2019, 17:17

Unread post25 Apr 2019, 17:29

This is how it really works: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... sal-report

LM is offering to share some of the F-35's code in an effort to build FOR THEM/JAPAN a new air superiority fighter. We're the ones providing the data/know how (and physical jet) not the other way around.

So now that America has decided to build PCA, we're to believe the Japanese are going to give us some pointers?

With respect to the F-35, Great Britain didn't tell LM how to build a VLO airframe. France didn't tell us how to build a stealthy/low IR emitting F-135. Germany didn't school us on how to develop DAS or EOTS. Like it or not, that expertise resides here.. and probably will for the forseeable future..


The United States is a great country but it didn't do and can't do everything on it's own like some people seem to think? Based on some of what I've read they learnt a lot in the Mitsubishi F-2 and Yakovlev Yak-141 programs which aided in the development of the F-22 and F-35 programs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_F-2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141
No one was exactly above taking from advanced Nazi defense scientists either?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Alsos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBB_Lampyridae
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8380
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post25 Apr 2019, 19:22

F-2 and Yak-141 had ZERO to do with the F-22/35's design.

Ah, Wiki.. well, there is your first mistake :)
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

honky43

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2019, 17:17

Unread post25 Apr 2019, 21:01

SpudmanWP wrote:F-2 and Yak-141 had ZERO to do with the F-22/35's design.

Ah, Wiki.. well, there is your first mistake :)


I find what you say difficult to believe? :D

Look around enough and you'll see the same story all over the place? Most people are certain that the United States have taken data from elsewhere in the development of the F-35 and F-22. It's on company websites and quoted by company officials sometimes.

“The swiveling rear exhaust is a licensed design from the Yakovlev design bureau in Russia, which tried it out on the Yak-141 STOVL fighter. It was all or nothing … If the propulsion concept didn’t work, we obviously weren’t going to be competitive.” Daniels, the Boeing executive, said the lift fan concept was “probably the single most important feature” of the competition.”

To be clear, the F-35’s overall design is not modeled after the Yak-141: The former used a different method for stabilization (see the two jets firing on the front of the plane in the GIF below) and had a different aerodynamic profile. But it’s almost certain that the data gleaned from the old Soviet VTOL project were most likely utilized in the development of the VTOL variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. And that means the F-35 owes at least part of its existence to a Soviet-era weapons program that never truly took flight.

https://taskandpurpose.com/f-35-yak-141 ... e-vtol-jet
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... f-35-44777

What bugs me about the AESA/F-2 story is that the US tends to refuse technology transfer of it's most advanced technologies. This includes AESA to South Korea (for their K-FX program) which obviously needs the United States as a defense partner. This tends to make me believe that the Japanese probably came up with aerial combat AESA first (they were first to deploy it on most accounts) and helped the US or the US and Japan worked on AESA together on the F-2 and the US learnt from it and used this experience to help it with the F-22 and design of their first AESA?
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... et-431682/
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... lapse.html
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articl ... 08661.html
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/j-apg-1- ... ar.583864/

US even has a history of shutting down rival advanced defense projects amongst allies from time to time as well? You can cross reference much of this material from various places not just Wikipedia.

DAIMLER-BENZ Aerospace (DASA) has revealed details of a previously top-secret Stealth aircraft research programme conducted in Germany during the 1980s.

The programme, known as Lampyridae (Firefly), or Medium Range Missile Fighter (MRMF), was run from 1981 to 1987 by what was then Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm (MBB), under a contract from the German air force.

The work led to the eventual development of a three-quarter scale piloted windtunnel model of a multi-faceted Stealth fighter. Former project leader Dr Gerhard Lobert claims that the design "very probably" had better radar characteristics than the Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk, despite the F-117 having more than twice the number of radar-scattering facets.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... rch-22117/

The Lampyridae programme was conducted between 1981 and 1987. The reasoning behind the programme's unceremonious cancellation during 1987 is unknown, there having been no announcement on the subject made by either by MBB nor the government of West Germany at the time.[4] Aircraft publication Aviation Week attributed alleged closed-room pressure tactics on the part of the United States, who had recently been made aware of the programme's existence and not wanting a competing stealth aircraft to their own efforts to come to fruition, as having played a key role in its termination.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBB_Lampyridae
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3315
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post26 Apr 2019, 14:10

honky43 wrote:
This is how it really works: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... sal-report

LM is offering to share some of the F-35's code in an effort to build FOR THEM/JAPAN a new air superiority fighter. We're the ones providing the data/know how (and physical jet) not the other way around.

So now that America has decided to build PCA, we're to believe the Japanese are going to give us some pointers?

With respect to the F-35, Great Britain didn't tell LM how to build a VLO airframe. France didn't tell us how to build a stealthy/low IR emitting F-135. Germany didn't school us on how to develop DAS or EOTS. Like it or not, that expertise resides here.. and probably will for the forseeable future..


The United States is a great country but it didn't do and can't do everything on it's own like some people seem to think? Based on some of what I've read they learnt a lot in the Mitsubishi F-2 and Yakovlev Yak-141 programs which aided in the development of the F-22 and F-35 programs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_F-2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141
No one was exactly above taking from advanced Nazi defense scientists either?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Alsos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBB_Lampyridae
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229


The often repeated story about how the F-35 "owes" some of its design lineage to the Yak-141 is just that - a story. For all we know, LM may have bought their intellectual property - and completely discarded it. The F-35's lift fan sure looks a lot different than the YAK-141's, and we know it certainly performs different. There's also a difference between looking at a foreign countries work and working collaboratively (garnering expertise from them), which I believe is the real argument here.

So we won't be working with Russia, to tell us how to achieve a VLO design for F/A-XX. And we won't be getting tips from. China on engine tech, or Japan on sensors/weapons. Their expertise just isn't there. What they may contribute is $, which is always welcome.

But there will be no "co-development" insofar as aircraft/electronics/weapons design. And even if there were, the US would be foolish to go that route. Our most advanced fighters (PCA/FA-XX) would have all their secrets laid bare, and it'll only take one country to pull an Iran to hand US air superiority to a foreign power.

Not going to happen..
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8380
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post26 Apr 2019, 16:52

The lift fan was not the issue with the Yak, it was the three-bearing swivel duct (3BSD) nozzle.

However, Convair was doing work with an actual 3BSD nozzle on a working engine stand back in the 1960s with the Convair Model 200.

000_2877-680x500.png


If anything, the Yak copied the Convair, which was a division of GD. The Convair division (along with all GD fighter activities {hello F-16}) was sold to LM, which then used it to make the 3BSD nozzle for the F-35B.

A great deal of misinformation has appeared on the Internet regarding the relationship of the Soviet Yak-41 (later Yak-141), NATO reporting name Freestyle, to the X-35 and the rest of the JSF program. The Pratt & Whitney 3BSD nozzle design predates the Russian work. In fact the 3BSD was tested with a real engine almost twenty years before the first flight of the Yak.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the Soviet Navy wanted a supersonic STOVL fighter to operate from its ski jump equipped carriers. At what point the Yakovlev Design Bureau became aware of the multi-swivel nozzle design is not known, but the Soyuz engine company created its own variant of it. The Yak-41 version of the nozzle, from published pictures, appears to be a three-bearing swivel duct with a significant offset “kink.” The Yak-141 also used two RKBM RD-41 lift engines – an almost identical arrangement to the Convair Model 200 design. The aircraft was also re-labeled as a Yak-141 to imply a production version, but no order for follow-on series came from the Russian Navy.

The Yak-141 was flown at the Paris Airshow in 1991. The flight displays of the Yak were suspended when the heat from the lift engines started to dislodge asphalt from the tarmac. At the 1992 Farnborough show, the Yak was limited to conventional takeoffs and landings with hovers performed 500 feet above the runway to avoid a repeat performance of asphalt damage. But the Yak-141 does deserve credit for being the first jet fighter to fly with a three-bearing swivel nozzle – twenty-five years after it was first designed in the United States.

During the early days of the JAST effort, Lockheed (accompanied by US government officials from the JAST program office) visited the Yakovlev Design Bureau along with several other suppliers of aviation equipment (notably also the Zvezda K-36 ejection seat) to examine the Yakovlev technologies and designs.

Yakovlev was looking for money to keep its VTOL program alive, not having received any orders for a production version of the Yak-141. Lockheed provided a small amount of funding in return for obtaining performance data and limited design data on the Yak-141. US government personnel were allowed to examine the aircraft. However, the 3BSN design was already in place on the X-35 before these visits.

The 3BSD was invented in America in the 1960s, proposed by Convair to the US Navy in the 1970s, first flown by the Russians in the late 1980s, re-engineered from the 1960 Pratt & Whitney design for the X-35 in the 1990s, and put into production for the F-35 in the 2000s. Sometimes a good idea has to wait for the right application and set of circumstances to come along. One moral of this story is not to throw out good work done in the past. It just might be needed later on.


https://www.codeonemagazine.com/article ... tem_id=137
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

honky43

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2019, 17:17

Unread post26 Apr 2019, 18:22

The often repeated story about how the F-35 "owes" some of its design lineage to the Yak-141 is just that - a story. For all we know, LM may have bought their intellectual property - and completely discarded it. The F-35's lift fan sure looks a lot different than the YAK-141's, and we know it certainly performs different. There's also a difference between looking at a foreign countries work and working collaboratively (garnering expertise from them), which I believe is the real argument here.

So we won't be working with Russia, to tell us how to achieve a VLO design for F/A-XX. And we won't be getting tips from. China on engine tech, or Japan on sensors/weapons. Their expertise just isn't there. What they may contribute is $, which is always welcome.

But there will be no "co-development" insofar as aircraft/electronics/weapons design. And even if there were, the US would be foolish to go that route. Our most advanced fighters (PCA/FA-XX) would have all their secrets laid bare, and it'll only take one country to pull an Iran to hand US air superiority to a foreign power.

Not going to happen..


Bizarre argument? Why spend ~$385-400M USD for something that's worth nothing (that's about half the cost of the initial prototype required to enter the JSF competition)? Especially to your former Cold War rival? Everything I've read about the Cold War says that the US and the Soviets were neck and neck in many areas and if you track data across the board it's the same here (I may add more information later).

Yakovlev announced that they had reached an agreement with Lockheed-Martin for funds of $385 to $400 million for three new prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8QKj4K8Ko4

Two contracts to develop prototypes were awarded on November 16, 1996, one each to Lockheed Martin and Boeing.[11] Each firm would produce two aircraft to demonstrate conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL), carrier takeoff and landing (CV version), and short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL). McDonnell Douglas' bid was rejected in part due to the complexity of its design.[12] Lockheed Martin and Boeing were each given $750 million to develop their concept demonstrators and the definition of the Preferred Weapon System Concept (PWSC). The aim of this funding limit was to prevent one or both contractors from bankrupting themselves in an effort to win such an important contract.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Str ... er_program

Following the announcement by the CIS on September 1991 that it could no longer fund development of the Yak-41M, Yakovlev entered into discussions with several foreign partners who could help fund the program. Lockheed Corporation, which was in the process of developing the X-35 for the US Joint Strike Fighter program, stepped forward, and with their assistance aircraft 48-2 was displayed at the Farnborough Airshow in September 1992. Yakovlev announced that they had reached an agreement with Lockheed for funds of $385 to $400 million for three new prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics. Planned modifications for the proposed Yak-41M included an increase in STOL weight to 21,500 kg (47,400 lb). One of the prototypes would have been a dual-control trainer. Though no longer flyable, both 48-2 and 48-3 were exhibited at the 1993 Moscow airshow. The partnership began in late 1991, though it was not publicly revealed by Yakovlev until 6 September 1992, and was not revealed by Lockheed until June 1994.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141

The Yakovlev Yak-201 is a draft follow-up to the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft Yak-141 aircraft and Yak-43. The design was carried out in the mid-1990s Yakovlev Design Bureau.[1]

The aircraft was supposed to differ from Yak-141 / Yak-43 by an increased range. The aircraft is made according to the traditional scheme with two-tails, and a large angle of inclination. The plane is relatively stealthy, with few right angles.

The design was for a single lift-propulsion motor with a mechanical drive to a lifting fan installed behind the cockpit. The nozzle of the main engine was supposed to be vectorable. Flat and round nozzle options were considered. The ability to change the thrust vector makes the aircraft move manoeuvrable. The armament was to be placed in special compartments inside the fuselage. However, the project was never built.

In 1996-1997, the aircraft was offered to the customer, but the project remained unclaimed, primarily for financial reasons, and also due to the lack of certainty of the Ministry of Defense under the LFI program. After the Yak-141 and Yak-43 were developed, the engineers from the Yakovlev Design Bureau proceeded to the Yak-201. No layout or an experienced prototype was. The design was started on an initiative basis by the bureau officers in the mid-1990s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-201
http://avia-pro.net/blog/yak-201
https://www.revolvy.com/page/Yakovlev-Yak%252D201
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ak-201.htm
https://dagpolit.com/yak-201-why-is-it- ... the-su-57/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-38
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-36
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-32
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-30_(1960)
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5334
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post26 Apr 2019, 18:24

Yeah, the whole, "the F-35 is a Yak-141 with Stars and Bars" idea is complete nonsense glommed onto by fanbois.

Just FYI, there were engineers who worked on the Convair 200 who also worked the X-35/F-35. Thought that was interesting. The Model 200 family could have been a "4th-gen" JSF back in the 70s.
"There I was. . ."
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8380
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post26 Apr 2019, 19:11

The most likely reason that LM paid for Yak data was to see data related to the operational use of a 3BSD nozzle and verify it against their internal studies & projections.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

honky43

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2019, 17:17

Unread post26 Apr 2019, 19:15

So we won't be working with Russia, to tell us how to achieve a VLO design for F/A-XX. And we won't be getting tips from. China on engine tech, or Japan on sensors/weapons. Their expertise just isn't there. What they may contribute is $, which is always welcome.

But there will be no "co-development" insofar as aircraft/electronics/weapons design. And even if there were, the US would be foolish to go that route. Our most advanced fighters (PCA/FA-XX) would have all their secrets laid bare, and it'll only take one country to pull an Iran to hand US air superiority to a foreign power.

Not going to happen..


You realise that many US breakthroughs came from foreigners/immigrants right? You also realise that the US has a history of leaking even their most closely guarded secrets (if other countries have breached US security they can only make limited use of the information anyhow because they are economically weaker)? The following is a list of only some of what I'm talking about.

Born to a Parsi family in Mumbai, India, he immigrated to the United States and became a naturalized U.S. citizen. He joined Northrop in November 1968, and continued to work there until April 1986. As a design engineer, Gowadia was reportedly one of the principal designers of the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, who conceived and conceptually designed the B-2 bomber's entire propulsion system and billed himself as the "father of the technology that protects the B-2 stealth bomber from heat-seeking missiles."[5] In 1999, he founded N.S. Gowadia, Inc., his own consulting company.

In October 2005, he was interviewed twice by the authorities, and his multimillion-dollar[6] home in Hawaii was searched. Later the same month, he was arrested, and charged with giving secret defense information to unauthorized parties. According to prosecutors, the information mostly related to the B-2 project, and at least eight foreign countries were shown documents relating to the B-2's stealth technology. In an affidavit, Gowadia admitted to transmitting classified information, and stated that he did so "to establish the technological credibility with the potential customers for future business."[7] Gowadia was held without bail after his arrest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noshir_Gowadia
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Noshir_Gowadia

Shortly after arriving at Caltech in 1936, Tsien became fascinated with the rocketry ideas of Frank Malina, other students of von Kármán, and their associates, including Jack Parsons. Along with his fellow students, he was involved in rocket-related experiments at the Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory at Caltech. Around the university, the dangerous and explosive nature of their work earned them the nickname "Suicide Squad."[10][11] Tsien received his PhD from Caltech in 1939.[12]

In 1943, Tsien and two other members of their rocketry group drafted the first document to use the name Jet Propulsion Laboratory, originally a proposal to the Army for developing missiles in response to Germany's V-2 rocket. This led to Private A, which flew in 1944, and later the Corporal, the WAC Corporal, and other designs.

Von Kármán wrote of Tsien, "At the age of 36, he was an undisputed genius whose work was providing an enormous impetus to advances in high-speed aerodynamics and jet propulsion."[13] During this time, he worked on designing an intercontinental space plane, which would later inspire the X-20 Dyna-Soar, a precursor to the American Space Shuttle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qian_Xuesen

Between 2009 and 2013, Khazaee tried to send secret U.S. defense technology to Iran, according to the release. Khazaee, a dual citizen of Iran and the United States, with a degree in mechanical engineering, was employed by three different defense contractors between 2001 and 2013.

Although the statement did not name his employers, engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney has confirmed that Khazaee was an employee of theirs during this period. Pratt manufactures the engines for both the F-22 and F-35.

"Mozaffar Khazaee betrayed his defense contractor employers and the national security interests of the United States by stealing and attempting to send to Iran voluminous documents containing highly sensitive U.S. defense technology," said Deirdre Daly, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, according to the statement.

Beginning in 2009, Khazaee corresponded by email with an individual in Iran to whom he sent sensitive documents containing information about the Joint Strike Fighter program, according to the statement. Khazaee was apparently seeking a job back in Iran, frequently contacting state-controlled technical universities offering access to the data.

Federal agents began investigating Khazaee in 2013 when he attempted to send a large shipping container to Iran. When agents inspected the container, they found thousands of pages of documents, including diagrams, test results and blueprints of the F-35 and F-22 engines, according to the statement.

https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/20 ... d-to-jail/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... 4P20151023

The FBI do not reveal just how much Su made, but some emails obtained from Su read that he was hoping for "big money" from the sales, but also contain emails between the three arguing about the sale of the data — "they are too stingy!" Su wrote to one of the officers of a major Chinese aircraft manufacturer.

One report reads that the "mission" had, over the course of a year, made "important contributions to our national defense scientific research development." In other reports, they write that the stolen information on the F-22 fighter jet will let them "rapidly catch up with US levels" and "stand easily on the giant's shoulders."

The data being stolen was proprietary to the defense companies and was strictly forbidden from being exported.

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/kz9 ... ads-guilty
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national ... 35-secrets
https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-ne ... -and-f-22/

Nov. 4, 1997 — When U.S. space shuttles started linking up with Russia's Mir space station in 1995, both sides owed a small debt to the old Soviet secret police, the KGB. According to documents obtained by NBC News, it was the KGB that successfully stole the U.S. shuttle design in the '70s and '80s.

That theft permitted the Soviet Union to build its own carbon copy of the U.S. system, called the Buran, thus unintentionally laying the groundwork for the compatibility between the U.S. and Russian systems.

Although the Soviet shuttle flew only once in 1990, it was planned in part as a space ferry to link up with Mir. That all-Soviet linkup never took place, and the Soviet shuttle was finally abandoned in 1994. But because the Soviet craft was so similar to the U.S. version, designing a Mir linkup for Atlantis and other U.S. shuttles proved simple and efficient. In fact, the first linkup between the Mir and the shuttle Atlantis in 1995 used the very system the Russians designed for their own shuttle.

The story of the Soviet shuttle is really the story of the competition between the two great space powers in microcosm, complete with Cold War intrigue and paranoia, mirror-image competition and all manner of spies, both human and electronic. It may also be the first recorded example of spying online.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18686090/ns/t ... FF6uaIrKuV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

“I was a CIA director, we lied, we cheated we stole… like, we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment,” Pompeo told an audience in College Station, Texas earlier this month amid self-amused chuckles.

https://www.rt.com/news/457452-pompeo-c ... nterviews/

Even with Soviet Union's collapse Russia has sort of half picked itself up and still has a half-decent space/rocketry program? The US doesn't have a competitive engine according to many reports and hasn't been able to provide manned launch capability for many years, have had to purchase engines from Russia, and pay the Russians money to launch astronauts after the Space Shuttle program was shut down.

The reliable and relatively cheap RD-180 engine is designed by a Russian research and development company especially for the US Atlas carrier rockets, but there are reportedly plans to put them to use in the production of Russian super-heavy rockets.

The head of SpaceX Elon Musk has praised the RD-180's engine, designed and manufactured by Russia's NPO Energomash and used on the American booster Atlas V, noting though that the need to exploit it is "embarrassing:"

The Russian-designed liquid-fuel rocket engine RD-180 powers the first stage of the American rocket carrier Atlas V. As many as 85 flights of rockets powered by the engine have been conducted to date.

After US-Russia relations deteriorated over the Crimean issue in 2014, US lawmakers slapped limits on would-be RD-180 purchases, passing a law that required the US to phase out the Russian-made engines in favour of domestically produced next-generation rocket propulsion systems.

However, the following year, the US Congress passed a budget that included a provision allowing the country to go on buying the Russian RD-180 rocket engines. Shortly after, the ULA ordered an additional batch of 20 RD-180 engines at the Pentagon's request.

Separately, there were earlier reports on the intention to use the engine RD-180 in a Russian rocket of the super-heavy class.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Elon_ ... V_999.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russi ... e_999.html
https://spacenews.com/energomash-raises ... t-engines/
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5334
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post26 Apr 2019, 22:14

SpudmanWP wrote:The most likely reason that LM paid for Yak data was to see data related to the operational use of a 3BSD nozzle and verify it against their internal studies & projections.


LM wanted access to Western STOVL info. The Brits said, "no" (BAE was part of a different team after all) so LM said, "well, let's take a look at the Russian stuff and see if there's anything worth using". There wasn't much.

3-bearing_zps9f61431f.jpg
"There I was. . ."
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2141
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post27 Apr 2019, 11:16

I may have a solution between the exports and US requirement dilema.
some of you may not like it.
Make the thing modular.

The baseline aircraft is your typical hot rod tailor made for A-A Raptor..esq fighter.
The US wants to focus on range, then you install a modular CFT that preserves the stealth outline, it decreses the maneuverability to 5Gs but extends the range to 4000 NM.

Need additional sensors, there are spaces for those that will preserve the stealth outline. If you dont need them, then there are panels where you can cover them or just put CFTs on them.

This is basically the F-16's approach, it was such a great export hit because the bare aircraft was cheap and very high performance. Air-forces can also customize it the way they see fit.

As good as the F-35 is, there are a lot of features that don't necessarily appeal to other users all that much. Honestly the Japanese may have preferred a more A-A optimized F-35 with less SEAD/DEAD capabilities
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3315
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post27 Apr 2019, 15:53

LOL at "many American breakthroughs came from immigrants/foreigners". Where on EARTH are you trying to take this?

I said foreign expertise in developing things like PCA, F/A-XX, B-21 etc is going to be slim to none. Money? Maybe. But the EXPERTISE is here in America. Now you're playing games by saying it must be immigrants who are responsible for those breakthroughs. Well duh, we're all immigrants. The freedoms in the U.S. and opportunity are what allows our people to be the best in the world (at military aircraft design, production and fielding). Really man, you're grasping for straws.

Still waiting for the list of foreign countries announced telling us how to make the B-21 VLO. Still waiting for those foreign countries who'll give us pointers on ADVENT engine (and beyond) technology. Still waiting to hear which country is going to send us electronics, E/W and sensor/SA tips for PCA and F/A-XX.

I'll keep waiting.
Offline

honky43

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2019, 17:17

Unread post27 Apr 2019, 16:58

SpudmanWP wrote:The most likely reason that LM paid for Yak data was to see data related to the operational use of a 3BSD nozzle and verify it against their internal studies & projections.


You're obviously selectively quoting (knowingly or not). If you track through enough articles you'll realise that Lockeed Martin JSF prototype design was changed after consulting data from Yakovlev. The total cost of the transaction was speculated to vary from between tens of millions of dollars to $400M USD for several protypes and an evolved version of the Yak-141 that has very similar specifications and looks to the current JSF. I'm reasonably certain that Lockheed Martin gained far more then just V/STOVL data.

If you can not see similarities in specifications, drawings, between evolved designs of the Yak-141 and the JSF then you are lying to yourself, blind, etc...

The only question I have is over what articles are authentic.

1st a little background. When LM 1st decided to tender for the JSF they put forward plans for a smaller cunard foreplane aircraft (a la the Israeli Lavi, the Eurofighter, the Dassault Rafale etc). They even developed a Large Scale Powered Model (LSPM) to demonstrate their JAST concept. A number of Small Scale Powered Models (SSPMs) were also tested to develop a basic understanding of the hover and transition regions. But pretty quicky they realised they could not get the design sorted out within the timeframe, so they went & knocked on the door of the Yakovlev OKB in Russia. In 1992, Lockheed Martin signed an agreement with the Russian Yakovlev Design Bureau & Pratt & Whitney signed one with the Soyuz Aero Engine Company for information on the supersonic Yak-141 STOVL fighter and its three bearing swivel duct nozzle, etc. Yakovlev was paid 'several dozen million dollars', P&W also spent some small change on a license from the Soyuz Aero Engine Company . Its no big secret outside of the US.

Now lets see what AeroWorld Net has to say: [slashdot.org]

..In 1992/93 Lockheed contracted Yakovlev on some work pertaining to short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft studies in reference to the JAST (JSF) project. Yakovlev shared its STOVL technologies with the US company for several dozen million dollars.

Former Yakovlev employees accuse Yakovlev heads of taking personal interest out of the deal with Lockheed, because the official sum of the contract did not correspond with the value of the information presented to the US company. The data was on the Yak-141 test program, aerodynamics and design features, including the design of the R-79 engine nozzles.

After a careful study of those materials, Lockheed - without much noise - changed its initial JSF proposal, including a design of the engine nozzles that is now very similar to those of the Yak-141...

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/02/ ... ompetition
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ovl-25571/
https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraf ... y=Yakovlev
http://avia-pro.net/blog/yak-201
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ak-201.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... ghtning_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-36
https://designer.home.xs4all.nl/models/ ... yak-36.htm
http://www.airvectors.net/avredvt.html
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/7908693
http://www.yak.ru/ENG/FIRM/HISTMOD/yak-36.php
Yak-36 and Yak-38
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/pl ... 063b.shtml
Harrier Hover Capability
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0042.shtml
https://aircraft.fandom.com/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-38

Yakovlev, Lockheed Sign Pact
By Anton Zhigulsky
Sep. 12 1995 00:00

Moscow's Yakovlev aircraft design bureau has signed an agreement with the American aerospace giant Lockheed-Martin to help develop a new U.S. supersonic fighter capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), a company official said Monday.

The contract is the latest partnership between Russia's struggling aviation companies and their Western counterparts, all trying to make ends meet in the post-Cold War world.

Arkady Gurtovoy, Yakovlev's deputy general director, said Lockheed Martin wants to tap the "huge experience" of the Russian company in developing the supersonic VTOL jets.

"The Yak-141 is still the most advanced aircraft of its kind in the world," Gurtovoy said, referring to a mid-1980s program that was shelved after the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991. No other countries have developed similar aircraft, he said, "so no wonder the Americans needed us."

The British Harrier jet that saw activity in the 1983 Falklands war is the most famous similar model, but it is not capable of supersonic speed. VTOL enables military jets to be deployed to combat zones without full-length carrier decks.

Under the contract, signed at the end of August, Yakovlev is to offer technical advice on American-built technology, Gurtovoy said.

He would not specify the value of the six-month contract, calling it "mutually profitable," but Interfax reported that Lockheed-Martin would spend approximately $400 million on research and development of the fighter by 1998.

Lockheed officials could not be reached for comment Monday.

Gurtovoy said the contract will help to reopen the Yak-141 program and keep specialists from leaving the cash-strapped company.

http://old.themoscowtimes.com/sitemap/f ... 34739.html

Yakovlev engineers completed work on an early-form VSTOL aircraft through the Yak-104 during the 1960s. This, based on a modified Yak-30 jet-powered trainer, laid the framework for a more advanced form still to come. When development of the Yak-104 was abandoned due to its complex lift system, attention turned to a more condensed model.

An initial single-engine approach was dropped in favor of a twin-engine product and the primary propulsion units would be featured in a side-by-side arrangement aspirated at the nose of the aircraft through a bifurcated intake. The same engines, mounted forward in the design, would also provide the necessary lifting power by way of swiveling exhaust nozzles set about the underside of the airframe. The design held a single pilot under a bubble-style canopy with minimal framing. A single vertical fin was featured at the tail with high-mounted horizontal planes. The wing mainplanes themselves were mid-mounted, swept-back, cropped-delta elements showcasing 37-degree sweepback along their trailing edges and slight anhedral (downward angle) overall. The undercarriage was of particular note, arranged in a "bicycle" pattern in which the main legs were inline under the fuselage's centerline. Outriggers were added to the wingtips to prevent tipping when ground-running.

The initial prototype was reserved for static tests so the second prototype was used in actual hovering, landing, and take-off actions. The third prototype was a more evolved model based on experiences gained with the first and second prototypes. The fourth prototype became another flyable example. The third and fourth units eventually crashed during tests with only the third example being rebuilt to continue work.

As a fighter development, it was envisioned that the production-quality Yak-36 would carry underwing hardpoints for conventional drop bombs, rocket pods, or cannon pods. Provision for 1 x 23mm GSh-12L series cannon was also planned. However, these were never fitted due to the design's lack of power - which kept it forever as a test platform and nothing more.

A first flight, though tethered for pilot safety, was held on January 9th, 1963 and a completely untethered test flight was recorded on June 23rd of that year. A first vertical-to-horizontal action was finally had on September 16th and March 24th, 1966 marked the first vertical-to-horizontal launch with vertical landing action undertaken (successfully). In July of 1967, the aircraft was publically showcased during the celebrations surrounding the 50th anniversary of the October Revolution. When identified in the West, it received the NATO codename of "Freehand".

The Yak-36 never materialized beyond the test articles as it lacked useful-enough qualities to become a combat-worthy platform - mainly operational range and power. Thusly, the Yak-36M was designed as a separate entry influenced by experience gained in the Yak-36 program - though the two aircraft held few similarities on the whole. The Yak-38 went on to become one of the few frontline VSTOL aircraft to see operational service - joining the vaunted British "Harrier" strike fighter appearing during the Cold War.

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraf ... ft_id=1604

Production of the Yak-38 Forger began in 1975 making it the world's second operational VSTOL aircraft, after the Harrier series. In the USSR, the first VTOL jet estimations were carried out in 1947, the idea was based on the use of the rotary nozzle. At the end of 1950 it was connected to the OKB-115 Design Bureau, which experts have proposed the Yak-104 project with two up-and-boosters (PMD) 1600 kg thrust and one lifting motor (PD) 600 kg thrust. Later vthe Yak-28VV fighter-bomber project with two jet engines, as well as attack aircraft with two jet engines and lift fan in the wing, equipped with a gas-dynamic drive system. Exotic solutions were dictated by the high proportion of the engines of the time, constituted the 0.2-0.25 kg / kg, whereas to ensure acceptable performance characteristics of the aircraft, this option had to be brought up to at least 0.08-0.1 kg / kg. In the end, it was decided to create a prototype single-seat fighter-bomber for the study of flight technical and operating issues, and in the future to move to more serious projects.

Four VTOL aircraft, the designation Yak-36 ("B", the Yak-B) were built at the end of 1962, which was preceded by a long-term testing of the individual systems and components, and flight studies on the experimental apparatus "Turbolet". Yak-36 was powered by two jet engines R27-300 thrust of 5,000 kg, with rotating nozzles in the area of the center of gravity. For transient and hovering Yak-36 was administered via jet rudders, nozzles which are in the rear fuselage, on the wingtips and the front bar. Yak-36 was the subject of numerous studies on the stability and controllability of the VTOL, the impact of the gas jet to the surface and the aircraft structure, the influence of the reflected streams on the behavior of the aircraft and the operation of the power plant, the efficiency of jet rudders, and more.
...
Application is not enough power would lead to the same problems, which were characteristic of the Yak-36:. the inevitable drop in thrust due to gas recirculation and air flow the jet control system, as well as the effect of the suction force becomes so great that it is not allowed to take off vertically, even with minimal combat load. The concept of the initiative group Mordovina eventually won, though it took a long time: the decision of the CC CPSU and the USSR on the establishment of the Yak-36M appeared immediately after the meeting of the NTS MAP in December 1967, and only 25 January 1969 Air Force Commander K .A.Vershinin approved TTT to a light attack aircraft Yak-36M vertical takeoff and landing with lifting and sustainer engine R-27B-300 and RD-lifting 36-35FV.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... yak-38.htm

I've worked with certain types of people before. They try to take credit even if it's not entirely deserved. In this case, I think you just need to give some credit to others. If the US were to suddenly weaken or disappear from the face of the Earth life would be a bit strange at first but it would go on, just in a different form.

Your tone sometimes seems to imply that it's almost as though only US citizens have the ability to think which is ridiculous? Several countries were working on SVOTL aircraft in the 1960s at exactly the same time US and Soviet Union were. There have been experiments with been supersonic SVTOL aircraft since 1950s and we know that through history the US has tried to shut down advanced work which can rival that of the US. Other countries have to work on some stuff in secret.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTOL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_IIIV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EWR_VJ_101
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 17 guests