Whatever happened to the V-22 Osprey? What about other VTOL/STOVL aircraft??

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: SuperTool
For comparison:
Yak 141
JSF

While the lift fan/engine technology is an off-shoot of the Yak plane, the design of the Lockheed X-35 itself is an outshoot of its bigger brother, the Lockheed F-22. You can see very easily from pictures of the two planes side by side, from the front, and from an overhead view. The X-35 looks looks like an F22 with one engine, only on a smaller scale. They share much of the same stealth characteristics, design and avionics for cost reasons.

Another reason why the X-35 isn't a "copy" of the Yak plane in design is b/c the Yak is not a stealth plane. You don't just copy a non-stealth design and just make it stealth. You start from scratch, or in the case of the X-35, there was already a plane in the garage that was a stealthy doner

The STOVL design was largely taken from the Yak 141. The general configuration is similar, but the surfaces and shapes are clearly distinct. I don't know how "stealthy" JSF is, so I can't really comment on that, but I would assume the Yak isn't particularly stealthy, since it's a 15 year old design, and it looks like an upside down boat

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: NFS4
AndrewR,

SuperTool was correct. Not only is the information in the link he provided, but I also I found the information here:

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.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Jan2002/0102jsf.html

He is incorrect about the STOVL capability of the JSF. My post was poorly worded because I didn't doubt that assertion, only the "master of none" part.

From the link you provided at AFA:

"Three versions of the JSF will be built, and all will be stealthy."

"The USMC version will have Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing capability and will be the first operational STOVL aircraft that will also be capable of achieving supersonic speeds. The Marines plan to deploy their JSFs at unimproved forward airstrips and on amphibious assault ships to be near the action when close air support is needed for ground troops. A total of 609 STOVL versions of JSF are planned for the Marine Corps, which will pay about $45 million apiece for them in current dollars. They will have a combat radius of about 500 miles, the cost of having the capability to take off and land vertically."

If you still have doubts, go look here and click on the Air Force logo. Read the requirements for the F-35A then look at the F-35B (USMC version).

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: NFS4
AndrewR,

SuperTool was correct. Not only is the information in the link he provided, but I also I found the information here:

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.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Jan2002/0102jsf.html

He is incorrect about the STOVL capability of the JSF. My post was poorly worded because I didn't doubt that assertion, only the "master of none" part.

From the link you provided at AFA:

"Three versions of the JSF will be built, and all will be stealthy."

"The USMC version will have Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing capability and will be the first operational STOVL aircraft that will also be capable of achieving supersonic speeds. The Marines plan to deploy their JSFs at unimproved forward airstrips and on amphibious assault ships to be near the action when close air support is needed for ground troops. A total of 609 STOVL versions of JSF are planned for the Marine Corps, which will pay about $45 million apiece for them in current dollars. They will have a combat radius of about 500 miles, the cost of having the capability to take off and land vertically."

If you still have doubts, go look here and click on the Air Force logo. Read the requirements for the F-35A then look at the F-35B (USMC version).

Like I said before, it will be like the Harrier, it can take off vertically if you don't give it a useful weapons load, but why? If you give it a full useful load, it'll need a short takeoff run.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: NFS4
AndrewR,

SuperTool was correct. Not only is the information in the link he provided, but I also I found the information here:

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.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Jan2002/0102jsf.html

He is incorrect about the STOVL capability of the JSF. My post was poorly worded because I didn't doubt that assertion, only the "master of none" part.

From the link you provided at AFA:

"Three versions of the JSF will be built, and all will be stealthy."

"The USMC version will have Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing capability and will be the first operational STOVL aircraft that will also be capable of achieving supersonic speeds. The Marines plan to deploy their JSFs at unimproved forward airstrips and on amphibious assault ships to be near the action when close air support is needed for ground troops. A total of 609 STOVL versions of JSF are planned for the Marine Corps, which will pay about $45 million apiece for them in current dollars. They will have a combat radius of about 500 miles, the cost of having the capability to take off and land vertically."

If you still have doubts, go look here and click on the Air Force logo. Read the requirements for the F-35A then look at the F-35B (USMC version).

Like I said before, it will be like the Harrier, it can take off vertically if you don't give it a useful weapons load, but why? If you give it a full useful load, it'll need a short takeoff run.

Maybe I'm reading your post wrong, but let me reiterate. No, neither the Air Force version nor the Navy version will be capable of vertical take off and landing. Only the Marines will have that ability. The Air Force neither wants nor needs a VTOL aircraft and never has. Read my post again -- there will be THREE VERSIONS of the JSF.

Ok, that being said, the Marines don't use their Harriers in the VTOL mode very often. We have them here, and I have yet to see one take off or land that way. They do, however, use the VTOL capability to make them STOL, which is why they want the vertical thrust. They'll be using these off small assault carriers like the USS Wasp which have enough deck length for Harriers (and JSFs) to take off with a full bomb load but cannot handle a Hornet, for example.

I remember reading awhile ago that if a Harrier takes off vertically, it basically uses something in the neighborhood of 1/2 its full load in doing so. That's probably an exaggeration because I can't remember the exact figure, but it's considerable. So, even though they can do it, they don't. I would suspect that the F-35 is a little less of a fuel hog, but that's just conjecture.

 

[NFS4]

Ok, that being said, the Marines don't use their Harriers in the VTOL mode very often. We have them here, and I have yet to see one take off or land that way. They do, however, use the VTOL capability to make them STOL, which is why they want the vertical thrust. They'll be using these off small assault carriers like the USS Wasp which have enough deck length for Harriers (and JSFs) to take off with a full bomb load but cannot handle a Hornet, for example.

Which is why I said that the F-35 would be a STOVL plane instead of VTOL The usefulness in VT in an F-35 is outweighed by the drawbacks to doing so. The chances of seeing an F-35 doing a VT would be pretty slim.

And I also know that there are three version.

Air Force - $40 million. Lightest varient. Space taken up by lift fan on Marines version is replaced by extra fuel tank
Navy - $50 million. Larger wings, strengthened landing gear, landing hook. Space taken up by lift fan on Marines version is replaced by extra fuel tank
Marines - $45 million. STOVL. Shortest range.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Ok, that being said, the Marines don't use their Harriers in the VTOL mode very often. We have them here, and I have yet to see one take off or land that way. They do, however, use the VTOL capability to make them STOL, which is why they want the vertical thrust. They'll be using these off small assault carriers like the USS Wasp which have enough deck length for Harriers (and JSFs) to take off with a full bomb load but cannot handle a Hornet, for example.

Which is why I said that the F-35 would be a STOVL plane instead of VTOL The usefulness in VT in an F-35 is outweighed by the drawbacks to doing so. The chances of seeing an F-35 doing a VT would be pretty slim.

And I also know that there are three version.

Air Force - $40 million. Lightest varient. Space taken up by lift fan on Marines version is replaced by extra fuel tank
Navy - $50 million. Larger wings, strengthened landing gear, landing hook. Space taken up by lift fan on Marines version is replaced by extra fuel tank
Marines - $45 million. STOVL. Shortest range.

Semantics!

Some general probably earned another star by coming up with the STOVL acronym when everyone already knew that VTOL meant that anyway.

And, like I said, we have Harriers flying out of our base on a regular basis, and I've never seen one go vertical yet. It's interesting having the Marines and Navy here though -- saw my first S-3 the other day. Ungainly looking beast.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
Maybe I'm reading your post wrong, but let me reiterate. No, neither the Air Force version nor the Navy version will be capable of vertical take off and landing. Only the Marines will have that ability. The Air Force neither wants nor needs a VTOL aircraft and never has. Read my post again -- there will be THREE VERSIONS of the JSF.

Ok, that being said, the Marines don't use their Harriers in the VTOL mode very often. We have them here, and I have yet to see one take off or land that way. They do, however, use the VTOL capability to make them STOL, which is why they want the vertical thrust. They'll be using these off small assault carriers like the USS Wasp which have enough deck length for Harriers (and JSFs) to take off with a full bomb load but cannot handle a Hornet, for example.

I remember reading awhile ago that if a Harrier takes off vertically, it basically uses something in the neighborhood of 1/2 its full load in doing so. That's probably an exaggeration because I can't remember the exact figure, but it's considerable. So, even though they can do it, they don't. I would suspect that the F-35 is a little less of a fuel hog, but that's just conjecture.

Yeah, you're pretty much agreeing with what I said. I was replying to his comment about the marine version, and I was the one who posted earlier than it can only carry less than half the load if they want to take off vertically. It just wouldn't make sense to take off vertically with a light load when there's a runway available.

 

[Pliablemoose]

I think I saw an Osprey last week, tried to get a good look, but it was moving too fast/too far away, they do have a distinctive silhouette & I'm pretty sure it was an Osprey.

I have seen one in flight, they look pretty cool.

Bell has a plant near where I live...