Instead of the F-35B: is it too early for the sixth generation

65
Instead of the F-35B: is it too early for the sixth generation

Yes, no matter how strange it may seem, a revised concept of the VTOL aircraft has been approved as part of the X-Plane special operations program.

It would seem: the F-35B has just entered production, and not everyone who wants it has received it. And now - a new concept, new plans. And the plans are quite aggressive: for starters, a high-speed special-purpose transport aircraft capable of operating outside equipped runways... without a crew!



And then... anything can happen.

A very unique and interesting company, Aurora Flight Sciences, got involved.

The company is best known for making significant contributions to the creation of the Tactical Autonomous Air Logistics System (TALOS) and unmanned aerial vehicles, which turned out to be very advanced machines: Perseus, Odysseus, GoldenEye.

Well, Aurora Flight Sciences recently unveiled an updated design of an aircraft with a propeller in the wing and a vertical take-off and landing capability, which it is developing in conjunction with the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

The key target of the new concept is the Aurora unmanned demonstrator, which was developed under DARPA Speed ​​and Runway Independent Technologies (SPRINT). The company was one of four selected to participate in the initial development phase of the SPRINT concept, the others being Bell, Northrop Grumman and Piasecki Aircraft.

Aurora Flight Sciences has already moved into the second phase of the project, which will include preliminary theoretical testing of the project's developments. It is unclear whether any other companies involved in the project have moved forward.


Rendering of Aurora Flight Sciences' revised SPRINT design concept

DARPA says the primary goal of SPRINT is to demonstrate a "transformational combination of aircraft speed and runway independence," which includes "the ability to cruise at 700 to 800 km/h at appropriate altitudes and take off from unprepared surfaces." The program is directly related to the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) High Speed ​​Vertical Takeoff and Landing (HSVTOL) project.

In addition to vertical takeoff and landing, the aircraft is capable of short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL), ultra-short takeoff and landing (SSTOL), and conventional takeoff and landing.

The company's press release also highlights the presence of three elevator propellers, extensive use of composite materials and a "uncrewed cockpit."

The design that Aurora revealed last year had four propellers and a traditional cockpit area with two air intakes just behind it on the top of the fuselage.


Rendering of the original Aurora SPRINT concept

The revised design features three lift rotors arranged in a triangular pattern, one at the nose and two on either side of the center section. There are also two large, angular air intakes under the nose rather than at the top of the fuselage, as well as what appears to be a central exhaust located at the rear between the aircraft's v-tail.

An animated render released by Aurora shows a flat panel sliding across the top of the front lift fan and round hatch covers covering the propellers for level flight. There also appears to be compartments in the lower fuselage. At the top of the central fuselage compartment are two additional auxiliary planes that can vent air away from the main propulsion system while the structure is in VTOL mode.

Aurora Flight Sciences created a demo video showing the prototype systems in action. For certain reasons we can't show it here, but the four main positions look like this:





It has already been noted that there are very close similarities between the Aurora's propeller-in-wing configuration and Ryan Vertifan's design from the 1960s. This comparison highlights that propeller-in-wing design concepts, as well as those that use lift fans elsewhere on the aircraft, are not new at all.


Two Ryan XV-5A Vertifan prototypes. On airplanes, the lift fan covers in the nose are open, while the covers over the lift propellers in the wings are closed. Ryan Aeronautical from the SDASM archives


XV-5A Vertifan in vertical takeoff and landing mode. Note the split round covers in the open position above the wing-mounted lift screws, similar to those seen in the new Aurora SPRINT renderings.


And this is a concept image for a change drones vertical takeoff and landing from Lockheed Martin

The projected size of the current Aurora SPRINT design concept and how much payload it could carry if the vehicle reaches flight status are not yet clear. But the concept of using all systems that provide takeoff and landing in unmanned mode is clear. Including vertical ones.

“FIW technology can be scaled to four or more lift rotors to meet future aircraft requirements, and this could open up opportunities for a future family of systems. Likewise, while an unmanned demonstrator offers benefits in testing and risk reduction, FIW technology can be fully transferred to traditional crewed aircraft."

– noted in the Aurora press release.

In general, the company demonstrates its focus on results, which will be the first successful flight of the prototype.

Whether this will happen remains to be seen. DARPA programs like the X-plane do not always achieve their goal of creating a flying demonstrator. Aurora has known this since developing the XV-24 LightningStrike for the agency in the 2010s. Despite successful flight testing and plans to launch a full-scale XV-24, DARPA canceled the program in 2018, citing, in part, a lack of a service partner within the U.S. military.


Video from Aurora

However, there is very clear interest in DARPA's SPRINT concept from SOCOM and by extension the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC). A high-speed, runway-independent transport aircraft could provide additional operational flexibility and reduced vulnerability, especially in a potential future high-level conflict such as the one in the Pacific against China, specifically for special operations units.

The capabilities provided by SPRINT or another program based on technology developed within the program can be used not only within US special operations forces. The US military is increasingly concerned about the vulnerability of large bases, especially in the context of major combat operations in the Pacific region.

The U.S. Marine Corps is retooling its entire force structure to better conduct expeditionary and special operations, with a focus on rapidly establishing forward bases in remote and rugged areas. The Marine Corps is also the only branch troop in the US military, which operates a variant of the F-35B stealth fighter that is capable of short takeoff and vertical landing, thanks to a lifting rotor in the front of the fuselage and a steerable exhaust nozzle.


F-35

With all this in mind, recent years have seen a steadily growing interest among the US military branches in new and more adaptable to modern runway independent, crewed and uncrewed aircraft concepts, as well as related tactics, techniques and procedures for support a wide range of missions.

Overall, it will be very interesting to see how Aurora's rotor-in-wing concept for SPRINT continues to evolve in anticipation of future flight testing. The Americans generally paid a lot of attention to the capabilities of their MTRs, which gave rise to many very original devices. More than 142 years have passed from the XC-40 to the new creation Aurora. There is a certain continuity.

But there is an interesting point here: it was not for nothing that the F-35B flashed in the text, not at all in vain. Besides the Osprey, today it is the second VTOL aircraft in the American armies and navy. And such large-scale work on the new project suggests that the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor no longer meets the requirements of today.

An unmanned transporter with the ability to land and take off not where it can, but where it needs to – this is powerful. But here it is worth remembering that appetite usually comes with eating. In principle, it is not so far from a transport drone to an unmanned bomber. The only difference is in the method of delivery of the goods. So what is next…

And then we can expect prototypes of that sixth generation fighter. Unmanned, hypersonic in afterburner, capable of maneuvering at overloads exceeding the capabilities of the human body.

Everything is beautiful, we have already seen a lot of semi-fantastic stories on this topic. However, developments on the transport aircraft and bomber will provide a lot of important information that will ultimately help create a platform such as a sixth-generation fighter.

But for now, let's see how Aurora creates its miracle device. And then we will draw conclusions.
65 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 15+
    27 May 2024 03: 56
    No, well, well done, engineers and designers are working hard. Let's see what happens. You can't deny them advanced thinking.
    1. +2
      27 May 2024 04: 36
      Quote: andrewkor
      No, well, well done, engineers and designers are working.

      I agree with these one hundred percent... And incentives to create THERE are welcomed and supported...
      And we continue to cultivate theft of government money...
      1. KCA
        -3
        27 May 2024 05: 08
        They welcome money there, don't worry about the rest, and they steal orders of magnitude more than ours.
        1. +5
          28 May 2024 16: 54
          At least they have an exhaust! Even if they steal, there is control over meeting deadlines. Remember anything that was done on time in Russia, except for the super-expensive bridge (over which the whole of Europe went crazy because of the overprice). But because nothing is done on time. And sometimes it is often silent and quietly forgotten. Planes, tanks and everything else. Yes, and the deadlines for promises are postponed 3-4 times
          1. 0
            3 July 2024 04: 48
            Remember anything that was done on time in Russia?


            Stretching the terms of our sport, where the presidential terms of government in it are a special type of all-around for the country's leaders.

            And what can I say, everything is for the good of the people.


            2008
            Dmitry Medvedev introduced to the State Duma a package of laws on amendments to the Constitution, increasing the terms of office of the president to six years and the parliament to five.

            Along with the bills, explanatory notes also appeared on the Kremlin website.

            Speaking with these initiatives in his Address to the Federal Assembly, Medvedev did not explain in detail why it was necessary to lengthen the powers of the head of state by one and a half times and where the number “SIX” came from. He only noted that now “long-term development plans are being implemented, and in fact, the tasks of transition to a new type of economy are being solved; many difficult issues have to be dealt with at once.” Namely, to counteract the crisis, modernize the army and govern a “giant and complex in its national and cultural composition” country, while simultaneously “strengthening democratic institutions” and maintaining stability.


            The explanatory notes give a different interpretation of this undertaking. Nothing is said about the crisis and modernization of the army, but several other reasons are mentioned. Six years will allow the president to both formulate a program of action and IMPLEMENT it: “not only to determine the directions for the further development of the country and begin to implement the intended goals, but also to largely IMPLEMENT his plans during one term of office.”


            In addition, this will help the “progressive development of the country” and also ensure “continuity of government policy.” It is difficult to achieve these goals under the current system, since every four years “an almost complete change of state power at the federal level is possible”: deputies, the government, and the president resign.


            Now let’s return to our reality, 2024, several presidential terms have already expired and which of the stated goals, May decrees, and modernization of the army has been implemented?
      2. +4
        27 May 2024 05: 14
        You're a cool person. Our cartoons are “theft of government money...”.
        Their cartoons are “incentives to create.”
        1. +4
          27 May 2024 10: 24
          It would seem: the F-35B has just entered production, and not everyone who wants it has received it. And now - a new concept, new plans.

          ...capable of operating outside of designated runways... without a crew!

          The author of the article mixed everything together and mentioned the 6th generation... Firstly, the author has no idea about the concept of the 5th generation aircraft. Secondly, the 6th generation combat aircraft will not be unmanned, but... most likely a double. And thirdly, aircraft of the 5th and 6th generation do not replace aircraft of the 4th generation, but complement them, or rather, expand their capabilities... The article is of a good informative nature, but there is no need to make hasty superficial conclusions and make people laugh ...
          1. 0
            27 May 2024 10: 51
            With the current development of communications and artificial intelligence, will the 6th generation aircraft really need pilots?
            1. +2
              27 May 2024 10: 58
              Sergey, to answer this question, you must have at least an understanding of the concept of a 5th generation aircraft. What is it intended for, what tasks does it perform, how is it used... Based on this, the aircraft must have certain properties - characteristics. There is still a paradoxical situation: no one can answer the question about the purpose of the 5th generation aircraft, but everyone knows what features it should have! How is that ? They've read, listened to all sorts of rubbish, and are talking about the signs.
              There is a separate similar situation with AI. There is no single definition or opinion about AI in the scientific world. While this is an advertising brand and a beautiful word...
              1. -1
                1 September 2024 23: 13
                A paradoxical situation still exists: no one can answer the question about the purpose of the 5th generation aircraft, but everyone knows what features it should have! How is that? They have read and heard a lot of nonsense and are discussing the features.

                There is only one way out: don’t read nonsense! lol
                Signs of the 5th generation:
                1. Stealth.
                2. Stealth.
                3. Stealth.
                4. A powerful computer network that replaces a staff of several qualified specialists for a pilot.
                5. Powerful radar with AFAR, necessarily with LPI modes.
                6. Highly advanced radio intelligence system.
                7. Perfect aerodynamics.
                8. Powerful and, if possible, economical engines.
                9. A perfect closed system of communication and transmission of tactical information.
                10. A high-quality electron-optical system, for example, like this:
                1. 0
                  2 September 2024 09: 25
                  The purpose of the 5th generation aircraft? I didn't hear! What properties should it have for this, from your point of view, you wrote. Are you familiar with such concepts as "Network-centric systems", "Combat information systems"? Do you have an idea about them? Or what?
                  1. 0
                    2 September 2024 11: 09
                    What is the purpose of the 5th generation aircraft?

                    It has not changed fundamentally compared to the 4th generation of air superiority fighters, but additional capabilities have appeared:
                    1. Destruction of particularly important, powerful and protected enemy air defense systems.
                    2. Destruction of enemy fighter aircraft.
                    3. Performing mini-AWACS functions for aircraft of its group and 4th generation aircraft, as well as for collecting and transmitting intelligence information to a large AWACS, which for reasons of its own security today cannot come close to a threatened area.
          2. +1
            1 September 2024 16: 49
            And thirdly, 5th and 6th generation aircraft do not replace 4th generation aircraft, but complement them, or rather, expand their capabilities...

            When will it finally be clear and understandable to everyone: in any large US air operation today:
            1. The first to be destroyed are air defense/missile defense systems, including long-range detection radars, command and control posts, communications, computer and intelligence centers, and targets at military airfields. ballistic and cruise missiles. (Cruise missiles can deliver aircraft of ALL generations, including transport aircraft, to the drop points several hundred kilometers away. smile)
            2. In the next echelon, aircraft strike the remaining air defense/missile defense systems F-22, they also carry out (if necessary) clearing of air space, for which a special force is allocated.
            3. In the third echelon go F-35, using high-precision bombs, they destroy the remaining air defense/missile defense systems and airfields of the enemy.
            4. The fourth echelon contains planes 4 generation, finishing the rest of the job with free-fall ballistic bombs and JDAMs.
            ...................................
            To claim that "5th and 6th generation aircraft do not replace 4th generation aircraft, but complement them, or rather, expand their capabilities" - this is for the kindergarten sandbox...
            1. 0
              1 September 2024 21: 49
              For a kindergarten sandbox - this is our tactics in the SVO! Not your conclusions have been known for a long time, but they do not apply to armies with nuclear weapons. The purpose of the 5th generation aircraft? Answer and then we'll talk ...
              1. -2
                1 September 2024 23: 01
                Purpose of the 5th generation aircraft? Answer and then we'll talk...

                I already answered this to another friend:
                The 2nd generation is obliged to beat the 1st generation with a guaranteed and good score, and it did,
                The 3rd generation is guaranteed to beat the 2nd with a good score, and it did,
                The 4th generation is obliged to beat the 3rd generation with a good score and with a guarantee, and it did,
                The 5th generation is obliged to beat the 4th generation with a good score and with a guarantee., which it does great (for Americans),
                The 6th generation is guaranteed to beat the 5th with a good score.
                Excellence in combat effectiveness (how many times in a duel situation can aircraft N shoot down aircraft Q, without any external support) - that is the criterion.
                1. 0
                  2 September 2024 08: 53
                  The RVD (Revolution in Military Affairs) has happened in the world, and you, like many others, did not notice it. Your counting rhyme is no longer correct. You have fallen behind forever. You can read all my comments...
                  For your reference:
                  https://www.perspektivy.info/print.php?ID=36310
                  1. 0
                    2 September 2024 11: 01
                    Your counting rhyme is no longer correct. You are forever behind.

                    Yesterday, in a post from 16:49 I wrote about the properties that are typical for 5th generation aircraft. Don't agree? Suggest yours! laughing
                    For your reference:
                    https://www.perspektivy.info/print.php?ID=36310

                    This article on "A General Theory of EVERYTHING" is extremely informative, but requires at least a semester of in-depth study.
                    I repeat: the main characteristic of the 5th generation aircraft is its combat effectivenessThat is, the ability to shoot down any 4th generation aircraft in duel situations without external support 10 times out of 10, 20 times out of 20, 50 times out of 50. What will happen if, for example, a Su-35S and an F-22 aircraft meet?
              2. -1
                1 September 2024 23: 19
                But your conclusions have been known for a long time, but they do not apply to armies with nuclear weapons.

                Definitely applies! To ANY army.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. -7
      27 May 2024 07: 51
      Well done in advanced thinking on how to steal more money and come up with more beautiful and more expensive crap? They make another piece of garbage for 200-800 million, but planes from the end of the 20th century fight for 30-50 million, and it will always be so.
    4. -3
      27 May 2024 08: 35
      Quote: andrewkor
      No, well, well done, engineers and designers are working hard. Let's see what happens. You can't deny them advanced thinking

      They work primarily as marketers. These air sellers have not brought the F-35 to fruition and are already planning to sculpt the next generation
      1. +2
        27 May 2024 09: 38
        Why don’t marketers work for us? This is the third year of SVO! Third year Karl! What did our engineers propose and create? They have a vertical take-off with a horizontal body. Why can’t you make a takeoff with a vertical hull? What prevents you from taking off on a helicopter and flying on an airplane? And what (or who) is stopping our engineers from creating? Lack of a good kick from behind?
        1. -2
          27 May 2024 09: 40
          Quote: North Caucasus
          Why don’t marketers work for us? This is the third year of SVO! Third year Karl! What did our engineers propose and create?

          There are weapons for war, and there are weapons for making money.
          1. +3
            27 May 2024 09: 48
            Is the third year of the SVO a war or making money?
            1. +1
              27 May 2024 09: 51
              Quote: North Caucasus
              Is the third year of the SVO a war or making money?

              Don't you understand? We are fighting for our land, in principle. And the West is fighting for the opportunity not to lose control of the world
              1. +8
                27 May 2024 10: 12
                We are fighting for our land, in principle. And the West is fighting for the opportunity not to lose control of the world
                Well, how do we fight for our land if we are behind technologically? And what appears is too delayed in time. Have we at least established communication among the troops? And we are not fighting for our land at all. We just yell that NATO is expanding, but we ourselves stupidly surrender to NATO. If we are against NATO, then! That! Why do we have a lot of goods from NATO countries? Where is the NATO resistance? Take the auto industry. Cars from NATO and EU countries drive on our roads. Have they occupied us? Or have we given up ourselves? Judging by the situation, we handed over everything ourselves back in the 90s! And we don’t fight for our own at all! That's elementary. Russian Civilization! What is this!? Watch the Discovery Channel and National Geographic. All progress was driven by the Anglo-Saxons and European countries! Lies? We take it from the 90s. What technologies have we given the world? We don't even have Russian cuisine! Eat? Is it Pizza and Sushi? Well Shawarma! We are already writing Russian words in English letters! Why? Are we ashamed that we are Russian? And why are the names of Russian companies either in English letters or English words? Where is our battle for our land and Russian identity? Are we either fighting against the West, or have we stupidly surrendered everything to it? Where is our Cyrillic alphabet? Why should we learn English, and not the English Russian? Why are you learning English? To find a good job! Will there only be bad work with a Russian? Is the West making potholes on our roads?
                1. -2
                  27 May 2024 10: 36
                  Quote: North Caucasus
                  Well, how do we fight for our land if we are behind technologically? And what appears is too delayed in time. Have we at least established communication among the troops? And we are not fighting for our land at all. We just yell that NATO is expanding, but we ourselves stupidly surrender to NATO. If we are against NATO, then! That! Why do we have a lot of goods from NATO countries? Where is the NATO resistance? Take the auto industry. Cars from NATO and EU countries drive on our roads. Have they occupied us? Or have we given up ourselves? Judging by the situation, we handed over everything ourselves back in the 90s! And we don’t fight for our own at all! That's elementary. Russian Civilization! What is this!? Watch the Discovery Channel and National Geographic. All progress was driven by the Anglo-Saxons and European countries! Lies? We take it from the 90s. What technologies have we given the world? We don't even have Russian cuisine! Eat? Is it Pizza and Sushi? Well Shawarma! We are already writing Russian words in English letters! Why? Are we ashamed that we are Russian? And why are the names of Russian companies either in English letters or English words? Where is our battle for our land and Russian identity? Are we either fighting against the West, or have we stupidly surrendered everything to it? Where is our Cyrillic alphabet? Why should we learn English, and not the English Russian? Why are you learning English? To find a good job! Will there only be bad work with a Russian? Is the West making potholes on our roads?
                  Reply


                  Would you like to file a claim against me for wages and pensions?
                  1. +2
                    27 May 2024 17: 06
                    Personally, I have no complaints against you. We were simply discussing the issue of the situation, and not the issue of someone’s responsibility.
                2. +2
                  28 May 2024 06: 35
                  Why should we learn English, and not the English Russian?

                  As if there is no Russian-language electronics, all electronics are English-language (Latin, in the Latin alphabet like medicine and probably in which science do not dig roots in the supposed Latin alphabet, and in some areas, such as IT, they no longer disguise English with Latin alphabet but call things by their proper names) and people who want to be specialists, for example, in IT and who have spent a lot of time on this already read more often in English or crooked translations, the Ministry of Science of the 50-70s decided not to finance the Russian-language electronics that existed then, they decided (from a hangover or enemies of the people or really it’s all like that it was bad (at Lebedev’s suggestion)), they decided to copy Western computers, ibm seems, supposedly if we make the same computers, we can save money by stealing Western programs and we won’t need our own programmers, but after spending thirty years copying them completely still hasn’t happened it worked out and still we needed programmers who were not trained to recode Western programs for our computers, which was almost always more difficult than making a new program, as a result, now there is Elbrus who can “pretend” to be any computer and run any program, but he is English-speaking and has his own software as if not (converted western ones)
                3. 0
                  24 June 2024 14: 09
                  "Why? Are we ashamed that we are Russian?"
                  I am never ashamed of the fact that I am Russian. In the 90s, I was ashamed of the representative of our state, Mr. Yeltsin, especially when he traveled abroad.
        2. +1
          27 May 2024 11: 08
          Lack of a good kick from behind?


          to whom??? - engineers?
          and they are here - “in what cases”?
          Here is what Kostin (VTB) says about the activities of USC (the same “hole” as UAC):
          According to him, the country’s authorities’ complaints against the company’s previous management were that USC “initially produced unprofitable products.” "Generating losses and then running to the government to extort money to plug holes is a road to nowhere, to put it mildly.", Mr. Kostin said in an interview

          therefore, the statement
          What did our engineers propose and create?
          it's at the wrong address
          apparently we can’t do without “purges” at the top
          read: https://finance.mail.ru/2024-05-27/kostin-sravnil-rossiyu-s-ivanom-susaninym-61243706/
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. +1
          27 May 2024 22: 03
          take off on a helicopter and fly on an airplane

          A tailsitter is a type of VTOL aircraft that takes off and lands on its tail.

          Convair XFY-1 Pogo First vertical takeoff in 1954
          Development stopped due to complex controls

          Ryan X-13 Vertijet First vertical takeoff in 1956
          Development stopped due to complex controls

          There are opinions that tailsitters have a hot and low jet stream, but the f35 and Yak 141 also have a hot jet, to reduce the temperature heating you can come up with rods or four engines will heat less than one, besides, the amers did not succeed due to the complexity of control and four engines with controlled thrust vectoring will probably solve this problem, and I would like to start right away with a jet interceptor fighter, but I think first you need a propeller tailsitter and a propeller tailsitter with four propellers so that later it will be easier to switch to a jet, a propeller tailsitter can perform the functions of a helicopter, make it modular because that I would like to think that it will have to come up with many aspects in terms of the cockpit and controls, the Americans are sawing a single-propeller tailsitter drone V-BAT flew in 2023, we have a twin-propeller tailsitter drone in the form of a flying AK-47, we probably don’t even need to start with an analogue a helicopter and from a four-propeller drone to come through a four-propeller to a four-turbine maneuverable interceptor fighter, four AL-51F1 tandem arrangement of pilots and a 120 mm 2A80 gun that can fire parallel to the engines and while hovering could drop 150 degrees and a little to the left and right
  2. 0
    27 May 2024 04: 05
    Well, it seems to me that vertical take-off is necessary in confined spaces - such as an aircraft carrier. But on earth, where there are a lot of airfields and highways...
    Vertical take-off means additional equipment in the wing of the aircraft. And as I understand it, the landing will not become vertical.
    1. -3
      27 May 2024 04: 44
      Quote: igorbrsv
      And as I understand it, the landing will not become vertical.

      Landing a plane vertically is easier than taking off vertically. You don't need that much power.

      It is a pity that the Yak-141 aircraft did not go into production. And all the unique developments went into the creation of the F-35B.
      1. -1
        27 May 2024 05: 10
        Yes. But it’s not the engines that are turning. And outgoing flows. In general, who knows. And no less power. What to overcome gravity, what to resist. He's not a planner. And I can’t imagine how they would land on a moving aircraft carrier. But I'm not an expert either. I just can’t imagine at what power the engine must operate in order to move and not fall request
      2. +4
        27 May 2024 08: 46
        And all the unique developments went into the creation of the F-35B.
      3. kpd
        -5
        27 May 2024 17: 46
        The Yak-141 is generally a phenomenal aircraft; it was very successful to cause so much damage to the United States with just one experimental aircraft. They still cannot figure out the problems of the entire F-35 family.
      4. +3
        27 May 2024 18: 07
        The Yak-141 and F-35 are two completely different aircraft. The Yak 141 has 2 engines behind the cockpit intended ONLY for takeoff and landing and one turbojet engine with a nozzle rotated 90 degrees for takeoff and landing and is also a sustainer. F 35 SINGLE ENGINE with a drive fan for takeoff and landing. Where do you see the “unique developments”, the Yak-141, which were used in the F-35?
    2. +1
      27 May 2024 06: 14
      Vertical take-off means additional equipment in the wing of the aircraft
      Plus additional weight and additional fuel consumption. wink
      1. -1
        27 May 2024 10: 38
        That's right, the mass of three fans, with the additional structure of the airframe and wing, with the transmission, is a direct minus to the payload. If the much-maligned F-35 has only ONE parasitic fan in the front, then this scheme has THREE of them. Those. large parasitic mass for direct flight. It’s clear why they do this - the fan diameter is larger (than that of the F-35), better efficiency on takeoff, due to a significant minus to the performance characteristics in cruising flight. Since they are making exactly such a scheme, it means that the plan is to skew not for range/carrying capacity, but for takeoffs and landings. Perhaps this means some kind of high-speed aerotruck for delivering anything light to points within a short radius.
    3. +5
      27 May 2024 08: 49
      The British actively and successfully used the Harrier on limited ground forward sites with minimal response time in the Falklands and Afghanistan.
    4. +1
      29 May 2024 04: 11
      means additional equipment in the wing

      tailsitters do not have mechanization and they retain the advantages of an airplane and are jet-powered
    5. DO
      0
      25 July 2024 17: 52
      On the ground, traditional tactical aircraft can have shorter takeoffs and landings. Take-off - using a springboard, landing - by clinging the aircraft to the finisher cable, as on aircraft carriers.
  3. +4
    27 May 2024 04: 49
    Let them do it. Each time, at a new turn, old ideas are remembered.
    Stabilizing vertical takeoff was once a problem. Now a quad with 4 screws is sold to everyone. But, in fact, it is the most difficult task for a person to control 4 screws.
    1. +2
      27 May 2024 04: 58
      Quote: MCmaximus
      Vertical takeoff stabilization was once a problem

      The widower doesn't think so good lol
      1. -2
        27 May 2024 07: 27
        That's why he's a widower. There's a smack on the op-deck.
        Let's see what the Americans think. We won't rush.
    2. KCA
      +1
      27 May 2024 05: 16
      PPC, 4 screws, there were 4 Russian Railways on Gagarin’s Vostok, but the electronics managed it in 1961, but is it a problem to control 4 screws in 2024? You are as far from control systems as the bourgeoisie is from the people, LF materiel
      1. -2
        27 May 2024 07: 29
        Pure tube electronics controlled the thrust of the engines? I doubt it. There is so much nonsense there... Steering wheels - yes. But it's not the same thing.
        1. 0
          27 May 2024 22: 41
          the engines had special rotating steering nozzles for stabilization.
          1. 0
            28 May 2024 01: 24
            So it's not the same thing. This is a special nozzle. And there are rudders there. And here everything is the main engine and mover. And a ballistic missile does not transition to horizontal flight from vertical. She needs to fly higher. And there it will either go into orbit or fall where it needs to be.
            Big difference. Why don't people understand this? Immediately here is Stalin and here he is before...!
      2. 0
        27 May 2024 07: 32
        And how the electronics or who/what else coped is known from the Yak-38. Amer’s “Osprey” is also not at all a masterpiece of accident-free operation. And what the hound drone does is known.
    3. -2
      27 May 2024 09: 47
      [quote] But, in fact, it is the most difficult task for a person to control 4 screws. [/quote]They knew how to control rocket boosters back in the vacuum tube era of electrical engineering! And even fly to other planets and land there! In the age of semiconductor superchips, this is certainly fantastic! Or maybe the whole problem is the absence of Comrade Stalin? If only Stalin had been there, we could have done a lot! Question How can we bring Stalin back?
      1. 0
        27 May 2024 15: 54
        There is no need to cast a shadow on the fence here. The upper stage turned out to be simpler than a VTOL aircraft. And no comrade. Stalin will not order the quadcopter to fly correctly. And he will not order a person to balance the VTOL aircraft with his hands during takeoff and landing and during transitions from vertical takeoff to horizontal flight. There is science, technology, etc. And someone’s wishes must fit there.
        It’s better to tell us how the rocket with 4 engines took off. I read it with interest.
  4. +1
    27 May 2024 05: 50
    Quote: KCA
    PPC, 4 screws, there were 4 Russian Railways on Gagarin’s Vostok, but the electronics managed it in 1961, but is it a problem to control 4 screws in 2024? You are as far from control systems as the bourgeoisie is from the people, LF materiel

    Urapatriotism and materiel in one whole are something new.
  5. 0
    27 May 2024 06: 03
    Those who do nothing do nothing... this is understandable.
    And so, when they succeed/fail, then there will be something to talk about.
  6. -3
    27 May 2024 07: 48
    The slogan of the American military-industrial complex: more futuristic, more complex, more expensive.
  7. +1
    27 May 2024 08: 42
    The F-35B has just entered production, and not everyone who wants it has received it. And now - a new concept, new plans.

    And what is the connection between a fighter, a tiltrotor and a transport UAV? Completely different machines with different purposes.
  8. +1
    27 May 2024 10: 33
    And what does the sixth generation have to do with it? For the sake of a loud headline?
  9. -1
    27 May 2024 11: 32
    The more screws, the less useful volume...especially with their arrangement. Or maybe I missed something in geometry class at school. feel
  10. +1
    27 May 2024 13: 00
    The potential benefits of vehicles capable of vertical takeoff have long been clear. As well as the fact that such advantages have to be paid for by reducing the combat radius, deteriorating aerodynamic qualities, and making the design more complex and expensive.
    Classic aircraft of the previous generation can counteract such aircraft, since in dueling or defensive battles there are simply no advantages from all these vertical bells and whistles. This advantage is mostly logistical and expeditionary, as it allows the use of a larger array of poorly prepared sites. However, there will also be a nuance here - such structures will inevitably require better maintenance, which may partially reduce the benefits obtained from winning sites.

    So, as for me, these are all American experiments in a murky area with dubious advantages. Let's wait for the results..
    1. 0
      29 May 2024 04: 27
      such benefits come at a price

      tailsitters only pay with the complexity of control during vertical takeoff/landing, for this reason they were abandoned in the fifties, however, they are now being sawed by both the states and us in the form of drones
  11. 0
    27 May 2024 16: 28
    And why does the author tie vertical takeoff to the 6th generation? for more text?
    The concept of the 6th generation was first about flying to the bloc. space, now about unmanned wingmen,
    and takeoff from rough terrain is no problem here.
    Well, each design bureau has carriages with a trolley...
  12. -2
    27 May 2024 16: 41
    It would seem that: The F-35B has just entered production, and not everyone who wants it has received it.

    The author apparently is not aware that since the summer of 2023, the Pentagon has refused to accept new F-35s into service until Lockheed Martin solves all the problems with the upgrade package that disables the fighters.

    They wrote that pilots sometimes have to reboot the F-35 radar system during a flight, which constantly freezes. Lockheed Martin has been trying to fix the problems for a year, and in the meantime, the corporation has already run out of space to store new and unsold fighter jets.

    A recent report by the US Government Accountability Office found that only 15-30% of F-35 fighter jets are combat ready. More than half of fighters are constantly under repair.

    And the Pentagon “managed” to conclude an “ingenious” contract with Lockheed Martin, according to which the American taxpayer will pay for any problems with the F-35, even those that have not yet entered service. Well, the cost of the entire F-35 program will reach $2 trillion.
  13. +1
    29 May 2024 12: 27
    Aircraft design “schools” in the USA work, understanding that any long stop in the creation of new and promising aircraft is fraught with the collapse of this “school”, the loss of design “flair” for many years... Even if most of these developments go to waste "... The strategy is correct... The main thing is that these aircraft design "schools" work autonomously, independently, regardless of the "whims" of corporate managers, on the basis of competitive developments....
  14. +2
    28 June 2024 20: 29
    The Yak-38 from museum parking lots with documentation should be given to the Americans for free, the Yak-41 was sold and they received the Fu-35, laugh...
    But in reality, there was the Yak-141M project, which is an order of magnitude higher than the Yak-41 and MiG-29, so all the developments for cut green paper were given to the Americans, and I will say, the Fu-35 is a masterpiece of aviation of all times and peoples, it will still be finished and they will make a good car and probably 5+, but we won’t see a vertical plane anymore, and I started training for naval aviation on a helicopter a long time ago, so that later I could continue flying the Yak-141, but the Union was destroyed, and so was my dream...
  15. 0
    5 July 2024 23: 31
    And when will we bring the Yak 41 to life and into series?! You even need it so angular!!!!