It's All In A Name

[Maverick]

Hi All,

A quick question for those in the know:

Who thought up the moniker 'Lightning II' for the F-35?

Was it some REMF at the Pentagon or a techno-geek at L-M?

I ask because this glorified bomb-truck is about as similar in concept, role, etc etc to Lockheed's P-38 that it's laughable.  I mean Raptor got a nice new name.  I would have thought that 'Maryland' would have been more appropriate for this thing, given it's limited capabilities and the fact that those in control must be on Mary & her sister Jane to even think that it will perform half the roles it's assigned.

As a second question, how the hell did an outdated concept like a seperate lift engine beat vectored thrust?  I mean, what happens when John Q USMC is howling down some backwater runway using the lift engine for some Short take off & it fails?  That piece of hardware in the front becomes one very expensive chunk of ballast.  Let's be honest, the Russkies (not always know for great innovation) flew the 'Forger' seperate engine and all and the wee beast was a dog, the Brits followed by the Yanks flew the Harrier in all it's varied forms and they're still flying (albeit in later variants).  These critters have been taken to war a few times, and showed their stuff when it counted.  I would have hate to have taken 'Forger' to war in the easiest conflict.

OK, I'm the first to admit I'm an F-32ophile of the Highest order, I love 'em, but the logic of the various Defence agencies involved just astounds me.  Surely the CTOL versions must fly rings around the STOVL types, scratch one for commonality which I believe was the whole dealio with these things. It looks like the USMC and RN go back to having 2nd line capability aircraft like they did pre-WW2.

And don't even get me started on the aircraft they are to replace.

Rant Off....

John (did I mention I love F-32s?) 'Maverick' which sorta clicks with 'Monica'... there's something there i think, besides, she wasn't too bad on the eyes either.

[upnorth]

Whoever came up with Lightning II for the F-35 is probably the same imagination impaired moron who bestowed Lightning II on the YF-22 at first.

Remember, the Raptor didn't become the Raptor until sometime after the the first Jurassic Park film was made and the term "Raptor" was made part of the general public's lexicon. Prior to that, you really had to know more about birds than the average person to know that a raptor was just a collective term for the birds of prey.

I always found it ironic that the most modern piece of flying hardware out there most likely got its current name from a hit film about dinosaurs of all things.

[Geoff_B]

All been covered last year at length, but various names were propossed and the Lightning stuck due to the common connection between Lockheed P-38 and English Electric Lightning F1.

The other issue you missedis that the majority of JSF are Conventional aircraft so that side of the program was a driving factor. Boeing basically failed to impress during the trials, despite getting their two prototypes built the actual testing showed that the X-32B had to be seriously modified and stripped down to attempt VTOL flight and the design of the F-35 radically changed to meet carrier performance targets with the revision of the intake and redesign of the flying surfaces to incorporate tail planes as well as fins. As for the lift fan its not a dedicated engine used in some of the VTOL designs but shaft driven from the main engine so its not quite as heavy as seperate engines.

To be honest perhaps a seperate VTOL strike fighter program might have been more suitable than to try and put everything into one airframe concept.

Would have been nice to see the Northrop/BAE JAST get to Prototype stage to allow for a better analysis against the X-32 and X-35.

G

[Maverick]

Thanks for your comments guys, Upnorth, I think you nailed it from a 'gut feeling' perspective & Thorvic, thanks for the 'real world' info.

Mav

[The Rat]

I've never been enamoured of the separate lift engine concept either. Once you're motoring along it's just dead weight and a space occupier, both of which could be used for more fuel and/or weaponry.

Help us out here Evan, I'm sure you can clarify any advantages.    

[Gary]

Not to worry about the name. The guys who will be working on it and flying it will change that soon enough.

In so far as the mechanics, there a lot of cooperation between LM and Yak with regard to the engine and lift fan arrangement? The F-35 is very similar there to the Yak-141 (I think it's the 141) The foldy down tail pipe tube and the geared lift fan like the gearbox off a helicoter's jet engines. That doesn't mean that LM didn't have to bust their humps to make it work, but sometimes an innovative idea helps stoke creative furnaces.

The F-32 started as a white sheet of paper. The F-32 failed to perfom because it was ingesting it's own jet exhaust. The design that was tested wasn't the finished design that would go into production etc etc. That's kind of a hard sell. Had Boeing been given another year I am sure they could have solved all the glitches that LM had removed thanks to the help from Yak.





From Aeroflight UK

"During the summer of 1995, Lockheed Martin announced a teaming arrangement with Yakovlev to assist in the former's bid for the JAST (Joint Adanced Strike Technology) competition. Yakovlev's knowledge of jet lift technology was to prove invaluable. Lockheed Martin was subsequently selected to build a demonstrator aircraft, the X-35, which went on to win the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) competition and will soon become a production fighter as the F-35.

One of the key problems with the Yak-41M jet-lift system was the need to engage afterburner for vertical take-off or landing. At land bases this soon resulted in damage to the runway, while the Admiral Gorshkov was fitted with a special water-cooling system to absorb the heat from the jet blast. Hence, the Yak-41M was in no sense a Harrier-style go-anywhere aircraft. "

[lancer]

I can't hellp but get the feeling that LM partnered with Yakolev just to use them to advance thier pet project. I will keep my persnal thoughts about LM to myself though.

[PanzerWulff]

The F-35 is very similar there to the Yak-141 (I think it's the 141)




From Aeroflight UK

Anigrand has a 1/72 Yak 141 (NATO codenamed "Freehand") I myself love the look of the "Freehand"

[Jennings]

Remember, the Raptor didn't become the Raptor until sometime after the the first Jurassic Park film was made and the term "Raptor" was made part of the general public's lexicon.

While the YF-22 may have become the "Raptor" after the movie came out, I don't think that's why it was named that.  At least I *hope* the airplane is named for the family of birds, including hawks & eagles, not for a dinosaur, no matter how ferocious they might have been.

I'm always amazed that it took the USAF and Lock-Mart basically the better part of 15 years to get the F-22 from first flight to squadron service.  Imagine if they'd taken that long with the P-38 or the P-51!  They wouldn't have entiered service until the late mid-1950s!  And that would have been the A model of both types!  When the first YF-22 flew, I was using an IBM Personal System II computer with a (whopping) 20 mb (that's 20 MEGAbyte) hard drive.  I send emails bigger than that quite regularly!

Amazing what my tax dollar buys for me...

J

[Jennings]

If there's one single thing I know, it's that Lockheed did NOT consult Yakovlev on *anything* related to the F-35 in any way, shape, form, or fashion.  Boeing and Airbus would sooner launch a joint venture.

No, while there are squinty-eye, passing similarities in overall shape (eg: both are airplanes), there is absolutely *zero* similarity between any Yak and any F-35, that I guarantee you.

J

[Gary]

If there's one single thing I know, it's that Lockheed did NOT consult Yakovlev on *anything* related to the F-35 in any way, shape, form, or fashion.  Boeing and Airbus would sooner launch a joint venture.

No, while there are squinty-eye, passing similarities in overall shape (eg: both are airplanes), there is absolutely *zero* similarity between any Yak and any F-35, that I guarantee you.

J

Ok, so then why do a dozen credible aviation websites quote a partnership between LM and Yak? Why did World Airpower quote it? Why did Aeroflight UK quote it, the actual quote I took from their website? I didn't pick Wickpedia to quote from as they aren't really a reliable source, even though they quoted it too?  

This isn't "squinty eyed" observation. It is in fact something that I spent some time researching and copied a quote for. I took some time researching before I offered my comment.

Now if it'll make you happy I can go and make a list of web sites and sources and you can go and challenge their editors.  

[upnorth]

I just wish Amodel or someone would make a Yak-141 in Styrene.

[K5054NZ]

I was hoping they'd go with something like Black Mamba, even Piasa sounded cool!

When I heard Spitfire II was being bandied about I practically hit the roof! I didn't agree with Lightning II at first (after it was dropped for the -22, I thought it was a tad silly), but it's kinda grown on me - just like the awesomely-gorgeous lil puppy that the F-35 really is. B) B)

I've mentioned this already, but in Superman Returns there are a pair of F-35s and their callsign is "Python" flight. F-35 Python. Mmmmmmm........ ^_^

It's...

Cheers,

Zac

[jcf]

Why did World Airpower quote it?

Sorry Gary, but just because 'World Airpower' stated something doesn't make it so, that was an 'enthusiasts' magazine not a serious or accredited defense journal. Ditto its current iteration.

Anyhow the Yakovlev part of the equation is that they licensed the swiveling exhaust nozzle to L-Mart, and while based on a patented L-Mart concept the lift fan is a Rolls-Royce design and product. The Yak used two lift engines mounted behind the cockpit, it did not use a shaft driven lift fan.

So you see the JSF is not 'based' on the Yak 141, rather it utilizes a piece of that aircraft's technology.

As to Maverick's comment about 'limited capabilities', in what way?
The aircraft will actually carry a fair amount of ordnance in normal usage...buttoned-up stealth mode with just internal weapons is only intended for the opening sorties of a conflict, the intent is that most of the time the aircraft will fly with internal and external stores. The aircraft is not a 'one-trick pony' along the lines of the F-117.



Somewhere I have an artist's rendering of the 'production type' Boeing JSF with a full set of pylons and stores...looks pretty cool and very mean.

Cheers, Jon

[Gary]

So what exactly is a credible source of information then? There are a considerable number of sources that repeat the same thing, that being that LM purchased data from Yak on VSTOL.

At no point did I ever say based on. However I did say or imply starting point. LM purchased an idea basically and ran with it. I also said they busted their humps to make it work. The pictures I showed were intended to show the swivilly thing.

You guys are rushing in to say I am flat out wrong and yet you haven't taken to time to read what I've said. What is this, Hyperscale?