What's new

F-35STOVL has Soviet Roots Yak- 38

Adux

SENIOR MEMBER
May 19, 2006
3,856
0
125
6004c757f4234e97ee4f9c0c0d672bb2.jpg


0119e1aad8c67eee90ca38b704419e1c.png


2f661636122653429b0e444ad5c04cd2.jpg


[YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]
The Engine Layout and Function STOVL has exactly stolen/replicated by the US Lockheed, So Who are the pioneers in tech, should we believe the American Tech Superiority!!!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

EagleEyes

ADMINISTRATOR
Oct 3, 2005
16,776
25
15,293
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Who will not believe in American tech superiority? If there is something in the market that will help your equipment, you shall take it.
 

Adux

SENIOR MEMBER
May 19, 2006
3,856
0
125
Webby wait for the F-35, i am just searching for the videos, The Engine application is so similar, I prefer American weapons my self, but Soviets were far ahead of the Americans in Engine tech at one point of time
 

Owais

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 3, 2005
4,512
0
182
The Engine application is so similar, I prefer American weapons my self, but Soviets were far ahead of the Americans in Engine tech at one point of time
But russians can still compete americans. they only lack in stealth and funds to develope such kind of hi-tech.
 

Adux

SENIOR MEMBER
May 19, 2006
3,856
0
125
I dont know wether I am right, But I have always felt That russians were ahead in AeroDynamics and Mechanical Engg while Americans were better off in Electronics, Avionics and Design.While the russians were still using the vaccum tubes, Americans started using the Microchips.
 

Adux

SENIOR MEMBER
May 19, 2006
3,856
0
125
The whole point of this thread is to refute americans claim that all the tech are stolen from americans, I find that both sides stole from each other
 

PakSniper

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 26, 2006
714
0
35
I dont know wether I am right, But I have always felt That russians were ahead in AeroDynamics and Mechanical Engg while Americans were better off in Electronics, Avionics and Design.While the russians were still using the vaccum tubes, Americans started using the Microchips.
I will have to agree with you on this one,. even on Defensetalk.com where i'm at a lot have said the same thing, Russian planes are very very good in aerodynamics, but they lack in Ele/avionics, but I feel that is going to change soon Russia is going to be lifting itself back in a decade or so, China might have to catch up to west and make effort, but Russia doesn't necessarily have to make huge efforts, everything is their but need money.
 

melb4aust

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 7, 2005
1,626
0
216
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
:
The whole point of this thread is to refute americans claim that all the tech are stolen from americans, I find that both sides stole from each other
I think its more like an harrier, deisign stolen form british, have a look at the air-inlets and the nose.:bat:
 

Adux

SENIOR MEMBER
May 19, 2006
3,856
0
125
Melb,

True, But harrier is an all out turbofan and is not a supersonice,By all means this is a superior machine This a jet engine, Like F-35,
 

Keysersoze

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 13, 2006
4,600
2
1,239
Guys I think you are all forgetting one thing.......The YAK 38 was a complete stinker of an aircraft...........To suggest that the f-35 is based upon it is laughable to say the least.........




The Yakovlev OKB was only getting started on the VTOL fighter concept, with bureau engineers deciding that a combination of the R27V-300 vectored-thrust engine with afterburning and Kolesov RD36-35FV liftjets had potential over the short run. The Red Navy was very interested in this concept, and approved construction of prototype aircraft in late 1967, to be operated off the KIEV-class half-deck aircraft-carrier / missile cruiser vessels then under consideration as a strike aircraft, with secondary reconnaissance and interceptor roles. The prototypes were originally to be designated "Yak-36M", though in fact they were much different aircraft from the original Yak-36. The program was actually conducted by the Red Air Force bureaucracy on behalf of the Red Navy.

Five Yak-36M prototypes were ordered, with one to be a two-seater, discussed below. Two Tu-16 "Badger" bombers were used in the test program, carrying a mockup of the Yak-36M's fuselage with engines; the fuselage was carried below the bombbay on a rig that allowed it to be extended into the airstream below the bomber. The first hover test flight of a single-seat Yak-36M prototype was on 22 September 1970, followed by the first conventional-takeoff flight on 2 December 1970. Development was troublesome, and the first full vertical takeoff / horizontal flight / vertical landing flight wasn't until 25 February 1972, with Mikhail S. Deksbah at the controls. Deksbah also performed the first landing on a naval vessel, the helicopter cruiser MOSKVA, on 18 November 1972.

After working out the worst bugs, the type was ordered into manufacture, the first production item being rolled out in early 1975, with formal acceptance into Red Navy service as the "Yak-38" in October 1976. It was given the NATO designation of "Forger A".

The Yak-38 was a fairly sleek aircraft, arguably more so than its contemporary, the Harrier. In service, it was generally painted an overall dark sea blue. It featured:

* Short swept mid-mounted wings, featuring vertically folding wingtips and double slotted flaps. The wing had a dihedral of 10 degrees and a zero angle of incidence relative to the aircraft centerline. Why the double flaps were used is a bit puzzling, since the aircraft wasn't supposed to take off or land horizontally on a normal basis. It appears that the designers wanted to hedge their bets, a notion reinforced by the fact that the Yak-38 was fitted with a brake parachute for horizontal landings.
* A conventional tail arrangement, with the tailplanes featuring a strong dihedral.
* The two RD36-35FV liftjets mounted vertically in tandem behind the cockpit under a louvered door that hinged up at the rear.
* The R27V-300 main engine in the rear half of the fuselage, with the inlets alongside the cockpit.
* Conventional tricycle landing gear, with differential braking used for steering. All gear had single wheels, with the nose wheel retracting backward and the main gear tucking neatly into the fuselage.
* A side-hinged canopy, opening to the right. The pilot sat on a K-36VM ejection seat, with the ejection performed automatically during takeoffs or landings using an "SK-EM" system. The SK-EM system was automatically engaged after the aircraft rose a few meters from the deck; it could be turned off manually, or would turn itself off if the vectored-thrust nozzles were more than 67 degrees to the vertical. The seat ejected toward the left to avoid hitting the carrier above-deck superstructure to the right. If the lift engine door was closed, the canopy would be popped off before ejection, but if the door was open, the seat would punch through the canopy top using rams on the top of the seat.
* A relatively simple avionics suite with radios, identification friend or foe (IFF) gear, a navigation suite, and a flight data recorder. There was no radar and no built-in targeting systems, other than a gunsight for gun and missile aiming.

The Tumansky R27V-300 main engine featured twin hydraulically-actuated vectored thrust nozzles at the rear. Max dry takeoff thrust was 57.81 kN (5,895 kgp / 13,000 lbf), while afterburning thrust was 64.71 kN (6,600 kgp / 14,550 lbf). The nozzles could be moved from horizontal to vertical for landings in in a single sequence that took six seconds; moving the nozzles from vertical to horizontal was done in stages, with intermediate positions at 25 and 45 degrees.

The Kolesov RD36V-35FV liftjet was a compact, lightweight unit that could provide a maximum thrust of 28.46 kN (2,900 kgp / 6,400 lbf) for a short time. The exhaust was fixed but was "bent" to deliver thrust off the engine axis. Although both of the liftjets were installed at an angle of ten degrees to the vertical -- tilted forward so their exhaust went towards the rear -- the exhausts of the engines were at different angles so their output flow would meet under the center of gravity of the aircraft. There were ventral strakes alongside the exhausts to help maximize vertical lift.

Some sources claim that the Yak-38 was fitted with a twin-barreled GSh-23L 23 millimeter cannon under the fuselage, but it does not appear to have had any built-in armament. It did have two stores pylons under each wing, for a total of four, with possible stores including external tanks; **** bombs; unguided rocket pods; cannon pod; A-60 (AA-8 Aphid) heat-seeking air-to-air missiles (AAMs); and Kh-23 (AS-10 Karen) guided air-to-surface missiles (ASMs), which demanded carriage of a guidance pod on one of the pylons. Although sources vary wildly on the Yak-38's external load capability, it appears to have been a modest 600 kilograms (1,325 pounds).

As mentioned, one of the prototypes was a two-seater. It was recognized from the outset that flying a jet VTOL aircraft was something new, unfamiliar, and tricky, dictating production of a conversion trainer. It was originally designated the "Yak-36MU", with initial (conventional takeoff) flight on 17 August 1972, the pilot being Mikhail Deksbah. Introduction to service was in 1978 as the "Yak-38U", and it was given the NATO designation of "Forger B". The two-seat nose was basically grafted on to the single-seat fuselage at a nose-down angle to give the back-seat instructor a good forward view, with a fuselage plug inserted behind the wings to maintain pitch trim, resulting in an ugly aircraft that looked much too long and bent.

Refinements were added to the Yak-38 as the design bureau thought them up. One of the most visible was the addition of a dorsal strake along each side of the liftjet door; these two strakes helped reduce exhaust ingestion into the liftjet inlets. Boundary-layer splitter plates were also added in front of the main engine inlets. Cumulative improvements led to a generally improved variant, the "Yak-38M", with first flight in 1982.

The Yak-38M featured new, more powerful engines, in the form of the Tumansky R-28-300 vectored-thrust engine and the Kolesov RD-38 liftjet, both with about ten percent more thrust than their predecessors. Other new kit included a steerable nosewheel, which was helpful not only for ground / deck handling but for short takeoffs; a revised installation for the rear liftjet, allowing it to be rotated from 5 degrees forward to 30 degrees to the rear, probably as an aid for short takeoffs; a limit setting control for the main engine exhaust nozzles, once again to support short takeoffs; and an oxygen-boost system for the liftjets. There were a number of changes to improve reliability and airframe ruggedness as well.

About 150 Yak-36s of all makes were built -- the numbers vary wildly from source to source -- with the type deployed on the four KIEV-class aircraft cruiser-carrier vessels. There were experiments with operating the type off of other vessels, such as container ships rigged with flight decks, but such flights were not performed in operational service.

Soviet-Russian design philosophy tends to be different from that of the US. Traditionally, at its best, Soviet-Russian gear is straightforward, effective, inexpensive, reliable, and extraordinarily rugged; at its worst, it's pathetic junk. The Yak-38 fell into the second category. Its operational radius was only about 100 kilometers (62 miles), in large part due to the excessive fuel consumption in vertical flight. During cruises in tropical waters and hot weather, endurance was no more than about 15 minutes at best. As with the Harrier, Yak-38 pilots learned to prefer the short "rolling takeoff" and "rolling landing" to preserve fuel, though rolling landings on carrier decks required the introduction of a safety barrier net. Apparently the multiengine configuration made short takeoffs and landings tricky and hazardous. The limits on range-payload capability meant that the Yak-38 was usually only fitted with two stores pylons, not the full four, since it couldn't realistically carry four external stores.

Reliability was very poor. The lift engines were the worst problem, with a useful lifetime of only about 22 hours. Since the lift engines were only used in takeoffs and landings that was better than it sounded, but it still wasn't good, and there were plenty of other things to go wrong. When the KIEV went on its first cruise in the Mediterranean in 1976, it carried six Yak-38s. Only three were working at the outset of the cruise, and only one was flying at the end. The unreliability was a benefit in a way, since if the aircraft didn't work, nobody had to fly them. It was tricky to pilot, and about a third of the machines would be lost in accidents through its service life.

A brief operational evaluation was performed in Afghanistan in 1980 and confirmed the limitations of the type: poor range and load, too complicated and unreliable, too hard to maintain, and too hard to fly. The Afghanistan evaluation also showed that the Yak-36 kicked up tremendous clouds of dirt and dust on takeoffs and landings, which could create hazards, and overall the evaluation showed that helicopter gunships were much more practical weapons, hands down.

A charitable judgement was that the Yak-38 was basically an operational demonstrator machine that had been hastily pressed into service for political reasons. Although trying to second-guess bureaucratic logic is a treacherous game, certainly the Yakovlev OKB was doing everything they could to promote their VTOL technology, even if it wasn't ready for "prime time"; but it seems more likely that the Red Navy wanted aircraft carriers, could only obtain the KIEV-class vessels over the short run, and to justify obtaining them, the service had to have a combat aircraft that could fly off them. It is worth noting that the KIEV-class vessels were the first warships ever operated by the Red Navy that resembled a real aircraft carrier. At least it gave the service some experience in operating carrier combat aircraft. Not all the experience was good -- but that's the way experience works.

Pilots despised the Yak-38 and were with good reason even afraid of it. Many tried to transfer to other duties, and it was not unusual for pilots to go on the sicklist rather than fly it. A handful of pilots went so far as to send a letter of complaint against the type to the Soviet Central Committee. Of course, as is often the case with bureaucracies everywhere that encounter messengers with bad news, the result was that disciplinary actions were ordered against those who had pressed the complaints.

Such actions might have reduced the complaints but they didn't eliminate the problems. With the fall of the USSR, the Yak-38 was withdrawn from service after a crash in June 1991, with few expressing regrets over its grounding. It provides an interesting suggestion of what might have happened if some of the more exotic experimental Western VTOL combat jets developed in the 1960s had actually been put into production


http://www.airtoaircombat.com/detail.asp?id=110
 

Adux

SENIOR MEMBER
May 19, 2006
3,856
0
125
Keys

You didnt get my point, I am not comparing Yak-38 to F-35, There 2-4 decade between them,The most importan part of the F-35 STOVL is its engine layout, nozzle movements. Which it has made true and exact copy of the YAK-38, The main engine after burner turning 90 degrees down, noozeles of under the wing and the mainly the turbo fan in the center with its open/close door
 

Keysersoze

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 13, 2006
4,600
2
1,239
Keys

You didnt get my point, I am not comparing Yak-38 to F-35, There 2-4 decade between them,The most importan part of the F-35 STOVL is its engine layout, nozzle movements. Which it has made true and exact copy of the YAK-38, The main engine after burner turning 90 degrees down, noozeles of under the wing and the mainly the turbo fan in the center with its open/close door
Adux the point that I was trying to make is this......Why would the west use a unsuccessful design as a basis for a modern fighter, When they have in the past successfully designed similar concept aircraft. Take a look at the BR1110 and BR1111 designs for Breguet or the VJ 101b by Messerschmitt

Also your point regarding the west stealing ideas strikes me as being a bit odd as it is known to be a historical point that the Russian stole a lot of designs and tried to make copies of them. For example the Mig 15's engine (rolls royce engine) the Su-24 (copy of the f-111). the Inovation only came as a counter to existing western designs. (The Mig29 and Su-27 were to counter designs such as the f-15. The Mig25 was to counter the XB-70).Essentially Russian design is still lagging because they don't have the huge budgets required to push into research for projects like the f-22
 

pilot_dude

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Feb 10, 2007
68
0
4
the us was givving away phamplets during vietnam war saying who ever hijacks a soviet mig, will get 100k doolars prize for it...somehow a soviet pilot got hold of one of the phamplets and hijacked a mig 25, took it to japan then usa.
 

Adux

SENIOR MEMBER
May 19, 2006
3,856
0
125
Adux the point that I was trying to make is this......Why would the west use a unsuccessful design as a basis for a modern fighter, When they have in the past successfully designed similar concept aircraft. Take a look at the BR1110 and BR1111 designs for Breguet or the VJ 101b by Messerschmitt

Also your point regarding the west stealing ideas strikes me as being a bit odd as it is known to be a historical point that the Russian stole a lot of designs and tried to make copies of them. For example the Mig 15's engine (rolls royce engine) the Su-24 (copy of the f-111). the Inovation only came as a counter to existing western designs. (The Mig29 and Su-27 were to counter designs such as the f-15. The Mig25 was to counter the XB-70).Essentially Russian design is still lagging because they don't have the huge budgets required to push into research for projects like the f-22

There are some corrections in your post

Rolls Royce Engine was "GIVEN" not stolen to the Soviets by The British Government. How stupid can they get. MiG-15 was the best fighter of its time, along with its revloutionary swept back wing design, which was a first.

MiG 25 was to counter the XB 70, While the Tail Fin Design was taken by the Americans from the Soviets for its Vigilante Design, which was later cancelled, by which the F-15 came into being.

JSF was cleared by the Yakolev Design Beauro, So the Engine layout makes sense, So I am wrong it was stolen, but they were designed and helped by the Yakolvev Design Beauru

http://www.vtol.org/maddock-stovljsf-printer.htm
http://avia.ltd.ee/air/russia/yak-141.php
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2001/10/29/stories/06290004.htm
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom