“I am straight, I am sideways, With a turn, and with a jump, And with a run, and on the spot, And two feet together …"
(A. Barto)
The titanic efforts of the Lockheed Martin corporation aimed at comprehensive coverage of the JSF program (a detailed description of the stages of development, construction and test results of a new fighter), each time encounter a wall of persistent hostility and misunderstanding on both sides of the ocean. A significant part of the public is still convinced that in front of her is a yuber-plane capable of flying in any mode, including vertical take-off and landing.
An overly versatile vehicle, as a rule, loses in capabilities to specialized fighters and tactical bombers. Moreover, it is unreasonably expensive and difficult to operate.
Of course, there is no universal “yubermachine”. Everything is much more complicated.
Three modifications of the fighter are being developed under the JSF program:
F-35A - basic model, fighter for the Air Force;
F-35В - fighter for the Marine Corps (ILC);
The F-35C is a carrier-based fighter for the Navy.
Apart from the numerous "national" modifications for the countries participating in the JSF program, each of which differs in the configuration and composition of the avionics (for example, the F-35A for the Norwegian Air Force will be equipped with a braking parachute for safe operation from icy Arctic airfields). Of the entire diverse family of vehicles created under the Joint Strike Fighter program, only the F-35B is engaged in vertical exercises.
The Bravo has such significant differences that it can be seriously considered as a separate type of fighter. Relatively few such aircraft will be produced: under the most optimistic scenario, the production volume of the F-35B will not exceed 521 units (only 15% of the total F-35 production), but it is this modification that causes the most noise, denigrating and discrediting the JSF program.
F-35A, F-35B and deck-mounted F-35C (with an enlarged wing). Compared to F-16, Harrier and F / A-18C
Because of the appearance of the F-35B engineers "Lockheed Martin" gained the unpleasant reputation of plagiarists: the tail section with the deflecting nozzle of the main engine seemed to be copied from the Soviet supersonic "vertical" Yak-141.
Nevertheless, it should be admitted that the dispute over the borrowing of Soviet experience is a personal problem for the F-35B. The rest of the F-35 family have nothing to do with the Yak. The only link between the base model F-35A and the Yak-141 is that both aircraft are heavier than air.
Vertical racing
The F-35B will be the third vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft in history to enter service after the British Harrier and the Soviet carrier-based Yak-38. And if the meaning of creating the latter is obvious, then the appearance of a "vertical" on the basis of the F-35 defies a common explanation.
"Harrier" was created as a response to the threat of destruction of airfields in the first hours of a new world war. Subsequently, when it became clear that the VTOL aircraft, in any case, is not a competitor to classic fighters, "Harrier" evolved into "Sea Harrier" and relocated to the decks of mini-aircraft carriers. Fish free and cancer, - decided the British admirals, followed by the Italians, Spaniards, Indians, Thais and the USMC. Despite the fact that the modernized "Harrier II" continues to operate in our time, its combat value is questionable every time.
The Yak-38 is a consequence of the uncertainty with the appearance of Soviet aircraft carriers (or, according to the accepted classification, heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers). As a result, a flying miracle without a radar was born, whose combat load reached one ton!
A meager combat load, weak flight characteristics and a "huge" combat radius, for which the Yak was awarded the honorary title of "mast guard aircraft" - as a result of these listed "advantages", the VTOL aircraft turned out to be completely useless for solving any urgent tasks. The only positive feature of the Yak-38 was the forced ejection system - despite the overwhelming number of accidents, there were no serious human casualties. "A formidable" Yak "flies in the sky -" Yak "on the deck shmyak"! And there is nothing to add here.
Why did the Yankees in the XXI century need to “step on a rake” and create something that contradicts the laws of nature? "Vertical" is a priori inferior to conventional aircraft. And the need to create such a technique is by no means so obvious to justify the additional costs and serious deterioration of the fighter's flight characteristics.
At first glance, the answer is simple: VTOL aircraft are created by order of the ILC aviation, to be based on forward bases and cramped decks of landing ships.
However, in this case, an insoluble logical paradox arises: what is the point of basing fighters on the decks of the UDC?
Efficiency of their use, quick response, provision of fire support to the landing force … But what do 5-10 underplanes mean when the Nimitz is abeam with full air wing? After all, the Americans are proud of the number of their aircraft carriers; it is simply unbelievable that such a ship would not be nearby during a combat operation. In turn, the "Nimitz" and the UDC are just petty mischief-makers against the backdrop of the winged might of the Air Force.
This logical chain can lead to the only conclusion - the placement of "vertical units" on the decks of the UDC has no practical sense. It's a whim, cheap muscle flexing. The decision to purchase "thirty-fifths" in the form of the F-35B will only reduce the combat potential of the US armed forces. What we are sincerely happy about and fully support the further development of the F-35B program.
From the point of view of Russia's interests, it would be much more dangerous if these "underplanes" were on the decks of the Nimitzes in the form of F-35Cs, or even worse - embodied in the form of F-35A in combat squadrons of the US Air Force.
F-35B and Honorary Senator McCain. Both of each other stand
Likewise, the F-35B is not favored overseas. Of the 11 countries that have expressed their interest in the JSF project, only two agree to purchase a “B-shaped plane” - Great Britain and Italy. Initially, the British contemptuously wrinkled their noses at the sight of the F-35B, hoping to equip their aircraft carriers with the more decent F-35C. But then they did not have enough funds for an electromagnetic catapult, and they had to take what suits Queen Elizabeth in its current, very deplorable state. To alleviate the fate of naval aviators, the British promise to equip the "Queen" with a bow springboard.
As for the cheerful Italian Navy with the amusingly ostentatious aircraft carrier "Cavour" - here long comments are unnecessary. The Italians ordered as many as fifteen (!) Verticals in the interests of sailors and another 75 vehicles (60 F-35A and 15 F-35B) for their Air Force.
The creation of the F-35B is impractical from a military point of view. The appearance of these machines is dictated by the desire of the Marines to emphasize their "exclusivity" and maintain the continuity of traditions. Any other explanation is excluded here.
Every family has its black sheep
The price of exclusivity was extremely high. This is expressed by the following figures.
The F-35B consists of 300,000 parts - 20,000 more than is used in the land-based F-35A design. In addition, the empty F-35B is 1.36 tons heavier than the F-35A.
The degree of unification of units and parts of the "vertical" with the base model is 81%, with a carrier-based aircraft - 62%.
According to data from open sources, VTOL is the most expensive representative of the F-35 family, its cost is higher than the cost of the base model F-35A by $ 25 million.
The F-35B has a number of external differences from other vehicles of the Lightning-2 family. First of all, the cockpit canopy catches the eye - instead of a clean "teardrop" shape, as on the F-35A version, the rear part of the F-35B canopy sharply turns into a gargot, limiting the field of view from the cockpit (a consequence of the installation of a lifting fan just behind the cockpit).
Many cladding panels are also shaped differently from the base model. Large openings appeared on the upper and lower sides of the fuselage (lift fan channel), which were closed by flaps in flight. All this increases the RCS of the machine, thereby worsening its secrecy (extra gaps are additional resonators).
F-35A
F-35B
Much more differences are hidden inside - the layout of the F-35B is radically different from the layout of other "thirty-fifths".
The fuselage fuel tank and built-in 25 mm aircraft cannon replaced the two-stage fan, its ducts, flaps and transmission in the form of a disconnect clutch, drives, shaft and bearings.
The scheme with a lifting fan has many advantages, and only one drawback - all of these bulky units in horizontal flight become "dead mass", extra ballast, taking away precious kilograms of payload.
As a result, the max. the internal fuel supply of the F-35B, compared to the F-35A, has decreased by 2270 kg, and the combat radius of the "vertical" has decreased by 25%.
Of course, the concept of using ILC aviation and the possibility of carrying out takeoff and landing operations from tiny forward sites give reason to believe that the ILC fighter does not need a large combat radius.
All of this ultimately matters little in the age of air tankers and mid-air refueling. As well as the myth about "forward airfields" - fire support, one way or another, is carried out by classic Air Force aircraft from the "air watch" position.
The disappearance of the built-in 25-mm "Equalizer" cannon did not pass unnoticed. Currently, Lockheed Martin designers are offering a compromise in the form of a suspended cannon container. It will create additional drag in flight, with all the ensuing consequences, and will also become a factor in a sharp increase in the RCS of the aircraft compared to the base model. But, alas, no other options for solving this problem have been proposed.
However … Why the F-35B cannon armament, if it is contraindicated to participate in maneuvering battles? The available overload of the F-35B is only 7g (versus 7, 5g for the deck modification and 9g for the ground-based fighter) - with such characteristics, the "vertical" will not be able to go into the tail of most modern fighters. Even a slightly lower wing load and a higher thrust-to-weight ratio, due to the lower take-off weight of the VTOL aircraft itself, are not able to correct the situation - the F-35B is categorically incapable of conducting close air combat.
Combat load. Everything is obvious here - vertical take-off in the Earth's gravitational field, without the use of aerodynamic lift, is an extremely energy-consuming method that imposes severe restrictions on the take-off mass of an aircraft.
Even in the case of a "shortened takeoff", the combat load of the F-35B will always be less than that of the F-35A. Official data - 6800 kg against 8125 kg for the base model. The number of suspension nodes remained the same (two internal bomb bays and 6 external suspension points). The sighting and navigation system remained unchanged.
F-35A
Among the other disadvantages of the F-35B is the “hose-cone” refueling system (in this matter, the “vertical” is identical to the deck F-35C). In contrast, the F-35A, like all aircraft of the US Air Force, uses a nozzle and refueling bar for refueling.
The use of a filling rod allows to increase the pressure in the system, increasing the speed of fuel pumping several times (up to 4500 l / min versus 1500 l / min for the “hose-cone” system). In addition, the boom simplifies the refueling procedure itself - the aircraft being refueled does not need to make complicated maneuvers in order to "get" the fuel pickup rod into the cone dangling in the wind currents. You just need to stay behind the tanker at the same speed - the operator will do the rest himself.
The refueling time is greatly reduced, the process itself is facilitated - alas, the F-35B does not have these advantages.
Another problem is caused by the use of an adjustable rotary nozzle of the main engine. Unlike the F-35A, whose engine has reduced visibility parameters, the F-35B has nothing to boast about in this category.
When the first F-35B landed on the deck of the UDC, its next (already which one?) Shortcoming was immediately revealed. Unlike the deck F-35C, the "vertical" does not have a wing folding mechanism, which makes it difficult to base it on board ships. In part, the solution to this problem is facilitated by the small dimensions of the fighter, but one way or another - the wingspan of the F-35B is 1.5 meters higher than the wingspan of the Harrier II or Super Hornet in the folded position.
Etc. - the list of problems and disadvantages of the F-35B VTOL aircraft seems endless. No intrigue was planned here. The facts are confirmed by theory and tested in practice. Everything is quite obvious - the "vertical" is inferior to the F-35A in almost all respects, with the exception of avionics capabilities. At the same time, it is much more complicated, more expensive, more capricious and does not have any distinct advantages over its counterparts in the conditions of modern wars. Some disadvantages …
Ancestral curse
One of the main issues when discussing the F-35 is unification "three in one". Despite the striking differences in design, all three main modifications of the F-35 are made within the same weight and size limits (with the exception of the F-35C, whose wingspan is more than 2 meters) and have similar general features in appearance.
All fighters of the family are made according to the normal aerodynamic configuration with a high-positioned trapezoidal wing and tail unit, including widely spaced, outwardly inclined keels and all-turning stabilizers. In each of the three cases, a typical single-engine layout with side air intakes and a "regular" tricycle chassis is used.
But what is the price paid for the unification of such a "motley" family of aircraft? How did the engineers at Lockheed Martin manage to build a VTOL aircraft on the platform of a conventional fighter without resorting to additional measures? All the necessary equipment, including the lift fan, inexplicably fit into the fuselage of the F-35A with minimal external changes to the skin panels.
Hence the question - are there any problems and compromises in the design of the land-based F-35A and deck-mounted F-35C, associated with the need to unify them with the specific VTOL F-35B?
One of the main fatal shortcomings of the F-35A is called too wide fuselage. Fatal legacy of the F-35B. The unlucky "relative" got everyone with his 2-meter fan, as a result, all members of the family have too large a midsection area, which creates additional drag. The flight characteristics of the aircraft have worsened. Dreams of cruising supersonic crumbled to dust …
But is it really so?
Even to the unassuming look of a layman, two important things can be noted:
1) The F-35 is a very small aircraft. It is significantly inferior in size to even the F / A-18E / F Super Hornet, the main carrier-based fighter of the US Navy, which traditionally belongs to light fighters. And roughly the size of the F-16.
Length 15.7 meters. Wingspan 10, 7 meters.
In other words, the tale of the "wide fuselage" is greatly exaggerated. The fuselage of the F-35 cannot be large a priori - due to the miniature size of the aircraft itself.
2) The disproportionate size of the F-35 fuselage in comparison with its wingspan is caused not only (not so much!) By the installation of a 2-meter fan, but by the necessity:
- provision of internal suspension of weapons (two internal bomb compartments with 2 suspension nodes each);
- installation of the S-shaped channels of the side air intakes, preventing the irradiation of the engine blades by enemy radars. A key element of stealth technology! - that is why the installation of a direct ventral air intake is excluded on the F-35, as on the F-16 fighter;
- conformity of the shape of the fuselage to the requirements of the "stealth" technology of the 2nd generation;
- placement inside the fuselage of a large amount of fuel, aircraft cannon, ammunition and numerous electronic systems.
And all this in the body of an aircraft equal in size to Falkan!
After such jokes, the 2-meter fan will seem like a child's prank - all you have to do is sacrifice the built-in cannon and the fuel tank for all the units to fall into place.
In other words, I do not support the theory that the close relationship with the F-35B could in any way critically harm the ground and aircraft carrier-based aircraft created under the JSF program.
Lightning 2 remains Lightning 2. A powerful aviation complex, equipped with a set of modern electronics and sighting and navigation devices: the AN / APG-81 radar, for the creation of which the development team could claim the Nobel Prize. Infrared systems of all-aspect view and covert data exchange. Eight million lines of code. Onboard automatic self-test and troubleshooting systems.
Visibility, less than that of most existing and future combat aircraft - it would be too naive to deny this. An advantage in aerial combat at long distances. Eight tons of combat load at 10 suspension points - in terms of its striking capabilities, the F-35A can compete with the formidable Su-34, surpassing the latter in terms of the range of ammunition used and the ability to detect / select ground targets.
Finally, the performance characteristics of "Lightning" correspond to the best representatives of the fourth generation fighters. Demanding something more from a small multifunctional F-35A (super-maneuverability, UHT) is the same as forcing a top-class pianist to play the chanson accordion.
This does not lend itself to a logical explanation. Why would the Americans have to spoil such a structure, turning it into a clumsy goblin F-35B?
