Since you clearly don’t know…
As said here by NAVAIR themselves
VAAC Harrier used for JSF STOVL control law and auto land development.
In short no VAAC Harrier no F-35B having the ability to actually maintained controlled flight in the hover, yet alone the ability to auto-land.
(Both sources are cleared for public release.)
Well there is the FCS documentation I was looking for. So thankyou. It was used to reduce cost and could have been still made without thw harrier. (at a higher cost without the harrier.)
Still that VAAC only is responsible for testing of the FCS. The F-35 or well X-35 already tested the Turbo fan back in 2001.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110525131323/http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2003/PropulsionSystemInLockheedMartinJoi.html
Not just testing. It was used to develop it. You also just confirmed the BAe and Rolls Royce involvement with the lift fan.
It likely could not have been made without the learnings of the Harrier. Certainly not to the level as it is today as it would have essentially been the Harrier. It would have ended up the test pony for the next generation.
Yak contribution to the F-35 essentially stops at the general layout of the F-35 and I am feeling kind so the auto-ejection seat feature was on the Yak-38 so the Yaks gave it that too.
Everything else regarding control Law for jet borne or partially jet borne flight would have been learned directly from the Harrier programs and developmental trials.
The harrier likely could not have been made without the learnings of the wright flyer
Not a great reasoning when talking about airplanes, I could say the F-35 is closer to the F8 since it couldn’t have been made without the FBW systems development on F8, and tbh that’s more true since both used digital fbw but the harrier uses a complete different way to do VTOL than F-35
The harrier and the f-35 are 2 different propulsion types. The harrier doesn’t use a shaft driven lift fan. Rolls-royce makes a lot of turbofans they took the patent from lockheed martin and built what was asked for them reducing the manufacturing cost for lockheed.
I am comparing two extremely specific examples of VSTOL aircraft. Even more specifically the method of maintaining controlled flight in the VSTOL area.
The Harrier uses puffer ducts and so does the F-35. Their VTOL is not as different as you assume.
They both maintain the tried and true single engine VTOL configuration using bleed air from the compressor to have RCS jets located around the airframe.
I like to learn knew things and new insights. Clearly discussing this matter with people who refuse to credit the Harrier with fundamentally helping develop and design the F-35 VSTOL control layout isn’t going to enable me to learn new thing nor gain new insights.
man just said the harrier likely could not have been made without the invention of the aeroplane
i acknowledge it benefited from general experience with the harrier, but there was still an independent R&D by LM, its their airframe after all
Give up man. You could grab one of the lead engineers for the aircraft have him say the harrier didn’t factor into the aircrafts creation and he will still beat his drum. It’s not worth it.
This thread is about Yak-141 and the fake R-60M on it. Stop talking about Harrier.
Well yeah the R-60s are fake, because this aircraft couldn’t carry any missiles or weapons at all. Pretty much the entire aircraft is fake. IRL it could only fly, nothing else.
It’s not. The aircraft flew and was tested and also test armament configuration as picture show on first post R-73 and R-77. Do you use Yak-141? I guess not because you are here shitting the aircraft. Why the heck you should be against something you don’t even use!!!
Thank you for agreeing with me on that.
Thank you for agreeing with me that it couldn’t carry any weapons at all and that every single one hung on it were dummies.
Do I need to fly it in an arcadey vehicle game to know what it was IRL?
I’m sorry that telling you that it didn’t have weapons IRL hurt your feelings. Me telling you that it couldn’t carry any and that the implementation is completely paper isn’t me shitting on it, it’s just the truth.
Gaijin says they want their game to be realistic and markets it that way, so every vehicle added to it should be as realistic as possible. The Yak-141 should be removed just like the R2Y2s and german paper tanks. Of course something else should be added to fill the gap, but the Yak-141 doesn’t belong in War Thunder, maybe in World Of Warplanes.
The same for MiG-21 Bison and many others making over power UK and people don’t care. Why you don’t do the same.
Yak-141 existed, flew, and was the base development for an existing 5gen fighter as its F-35. Deserve respect. And people have the right to use it in the Sim. The armament was in the project and that same armament is on Su-27SM and Su-34 and MiG-29SMT.
Why this thread make you sleep less men? Are you healthy?
It existed, flew, but was never given the avionics or weapons to be combat capable, how hard is that to understand?
Holy kek
It was one of the first swivel nozzles, but other than that it was nothing special. Definetely not enough to get respect.
What does sim have anything to do with the vehicle being fake?
Extra focus on the “in the project” part. It got canned before it reached that state. It never recieved them.
Yeah I was just out for a 1h30min run and is on my way home from work right now, quite healthy IMO. I’m not sleepless either considering I sleep 12 hours every night on the weekend. I see a thread where someone is spewing missinformation because it’s their favourite aircraft and respond to it, nothing else.
You seem to be severly missinformed about what kind of game War Thunder is. This game is trying (although failing in many ways) to depict its vehicles as realistic as possible, hence vehicles like the Yak-141 doesn’t belong since it never reached a combat capable state before being scrapped. If your vehicle couldn’t fight it shouldn’t be in this game. End of the story. If you want these fake or “what if” vehicles then there is an entirerly different company making those games, they are called Wargaming, not Gaijin.
The way gaijin made this plane was for the meta at the time ( R27ER-ET) and r77 and r73 as loadouts were already accepted as proposals 8 months ago, but i don’t see gaijin adding them to the yak-141 because guess what, it doesn’t need it.
If it doesn’t need it it’s a personal opinion. Maybe me and others want to use R-77 and R-73.
It’s a decision for the user and Gaijin should bring the planned armament. R-60 was not part of that plan.
Yak-141 was intended to have R-60M compatibility, there’s nothing fake about it.
@RycotSS
“This aircraft is fake. IRL this aircraft was real.”
That’s cause the aircraft is real.
@WereCat888
Gaijin doesn’t pick loadouts for meta, they pick historical loadouts for the BR they want the vehicle.
You may want Yak-141 to be 13.3+ in BR, but I for one like the fact it’s competitive at 12.7.
YAK-141 never had any weapons it now is up to Gaijin choose what fantasy armerments Yakovlev said it would possibly take. So the statement of “real” payload is not what you want.
This is just a lie as already stated in here multiple times the F-35 (particularly the B model) is based off of the convair model 200 as stated by Lockheed.
While I don’t think a larger expansion of armament would be bad. The “idea” that you have a right to it is wrong. This is Gaijin’s game and while I don’t always agree with their decisions it is their right as a developer to have creative liberty.
Yakovlev told it’s possible…? Yakovlev didn’t decided about armament, they worked on base the Soviet requests. What kind of nonsense is that. Yakovlev design the aircraft on base of request the Soviet army did. The armament for a 4th gen fighter was on the table. That armament is what you see on the picture first post and was tested as payload the picture you see on first post. We intended to use what was for real on airplanes right. Then for real was R-77 and R-73. So I and everyone have the right to mention and request what the aircraft should have as the reference is R-77 and R-73, never was R-60.
Go tell every player they don’t have right to request anything? You should be kidding
