Quick rundown on X-32 vs X-35/F-35?

GOOMBA

>Imagine...

Attached: f_59a_saber_ii_render_00_by_venom800tt_d4obi75-fullview.jpg (1024x576, 24K)

>la goblina sharkplane de las americas

Attached: 1317065650904.jpg (3504x2336, 438K)

Pretty sexy desu

Hey look it’s another faggot that doesn’t understand that plane literally didn’t exist.

Cope more you fat fuck

>plane that literally doesn't exist
but user that's not the PAK FA

Attached: Model 200 wind tunnel model.jpg (1024x801, 371K)

The idea existed independently of Russian aerospace which is all that matters.

A plane who's design predates the YAK-141 contract by 2 years, yet uses the same VTOL configuration.

The Model 200? That's a design that was a concept for the '70s era Sea Control Ship.

The Lockheed STOVL concepts it was working on prior to the JSF had a configuration much closer to the Convair Model 200 than what they ended up going with on the F-35.

Attached: Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter Demonstrator.jpg (970x767, 112K)

A nonfunctional attempt to patent evil empire tech, F35 doesnt use it. Plenty of sources say Yakovlev was brought in to consult by Lockheed.

Russian aerospace was paid to consult on F35 thats all that matters.

F-35 is angry plane. X-32 is happy plane. Downright jovial really.

>it’s a copy!
>Russia only helped with some data!
These are conflicting ideas. The idea for the lift system was already present in the western aerospace industry, Lockheed just decided to save some money and utilized some of Yaks technical data. Additionally, the F-35 uses a driveshaft driven lift fan rather than two vertical turbines like the Yak so the only similarity is the three bearing nozzle which, as already established, was something already discovered in America.

No one said it was a copy pig. >X35 is Russian VTOL technology which can go supersonic
They said it's their tech, which is 100% correct.

Indeed. What could have been. The X-32 gets a bad wrap because of it's design iteration during testing, but changes were already planned before cancellation.

Attached: F-32.jpg (2000x1125, 81K)

Which part of the tech? Be specific.

I don't have to be specific, Lockmart bought the designs of Yak 141 and even funded Yak 141 for a while as long as they got to be part of the project. There is an established link and tech transfer.

>Lockmart bought the designs of Yak 141
What specifically did they buy?

Attached: 1430709478926.jpg (1216x867, 477K)

>I can’t
ftfy

Yak was paid for misc data from test aircraft most likely relating to FCS, the guts of the design was entirely American and you have zero proof otherwise. Fuck off nigger.

Claim was that it was Russian tech, it was Russian tech.

Point to where anyone mentioned specific aspects of the tech? Who made the claim for you to be asking this you giant hook nosed faggot?

you keep using the word "tech" as a buzzword to prop up your uneducated argument

That was the original claim made
>X35 is Russian VTOL technology which can go supersonic
Which has been proved ad nauseum.

You want the details of a technology transfer between two defense contractors because you know no one on Jow Forums has that, and when they tell you they don't you can cling to that as some shield from the fact that YOU WERE PROVEN WRONG.

what was Russian tech?

Attached: 1426772830000.jpg (604x398, 45K)

>Which has been proved ad nauseum
proofs?

Attached: 1445081779778.png (767x750, 256K)

Take a look at the date, vatnigger. Last I checked 1963 is decades before the Yak-141 was even ink on paper.
Oh look, a Kraut patent on a similar idea from 1965
patents.google.com/patent/US3443758A/en
1970 US patent
patents.google.com/patent/US3687374A/en
1982 British patent
patents.google.com/patent/EP0092345A1/en

>Which has been proved ad nauseum.
no, just because you keep posting it does not mean it has been proven
At most the only thing Lockheed used in any serious manner was the flight data

>You want the details of a technology transfer between two defense contractors because you know no one on Jow Forums has that, and when they tell you they don't you can cling to that as some shield from the fact that YOU WERE PROVEN WRONG
just like how you cling to the idea that because they both have VTOL takeoff that the f-35 must be the spawn of the yak? you can't find anything that says it is or it isn't so that must be the case though, right? the levels are irony are palpable to the point i could feed your country with it, you stupid fag.

>At most the only thing Lockheed used in any serious manner was the flight data technology
Thanks for agreeing.

They use the same system of VTOL and Yakovlev worked with Lockheed on it. Why is this so hard for you to accept?

>i could feed your country with it, you stupid fag.
Thanks but I'm from America and I don't need Ukrainian charity lol.

>They use the same system of VTOL
Ducted fans are jets? Holy shit someone should let Lockheed know.

Attached: 1461043677419.gif (175x175, 148K)

Aside from the US literally inventing the 3BSN and the Yak-141 not using a lift fan, sure

>claim that it was Russians tech
>can’t back up claim that it was Russian tech
>get butthurt and insult people
Truly impressive.
I want proof that it was russian tech instead “well Lockheed participated in the program so that means their VTOL system is Russian.” Because that statement is complete nonsense.

What we know.
>the three bearing nozzle had already existed in the west for decades before the tech transfer
>the F-35 does not make use of the dual lift jet system developed by Yak
Seeing as these are absolutely true, what could have even POSSIBLY been the tech shared during the transfer?

Answer: Lockheed wanted to utilize Yak’s flight data on the twin lift system instead of pointlessly carrying out tests themselves. This was a case of parallel development where the Russians had a slight advantage in that’s they already had an airframe flying. LM took advantage of this by paying Yak for info relating to their tests as they were developing a similar, but different, system.

Boeing sucking hard designing fighters...as usual

>They use the same system of VTOL and Yakovlev worked with Lockheed on it. Why is this so hard for you to accept?
lol..

>i'm not russian
>brings up ukraine in the same sentence
yeah, sure ivan ivanovich, you're totally not russian

>brings up ukraine in the same sentence
Well then he can't be Russian. If he were, there'd be no such thing.

Attached: what is slav.gif (500x281, 472K)

You wanna know what keeps me up at night?

Attached: Stealthcat2.jpg (1539x800, 75K)

>X35 is Russian VTOL technology
Wrong.

Attached: Lockheed DARPA_SSF_1986.jpg (715x373, 26K)

>we have a fact breach, WE HAVE A FACT BREACH!!!
Did you call everyone in the Ministry?

aeroflight.co.uk/aircraft/types/type-details/yakovlev-yak-41-freestyle.htm
> 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.

Literally a partner in the JSF submission for X35, what the thread is about, but you retards want to claim there's no connection.

lol

Supercruise was a design requirement for the JSF program which was dripped once it was clear the F-35 couldn't do it. Also, the X-32 VTOL design prototype lost because it couldn't go supersonic, even though the program officials had told Boeing that was fine for the purposes of testing.

Military procurement is a huge, rigged, joke of a show for funneling tax money into criminal corporate pockets.

>All the more hilarious that F-35 can't supercruise.
Can't really go past transonic speeds without damaging RAM and becoming nonstealthy.

reminder that this was McDonnell Douglass's JSF concept. boeing could have presented this but they unironically went with the haha plane instead.

Attached: MD JSF entry.jpg (1600x1187, 205K)

>ministry
hello, ivan
>Literally a partner in the JSF submission for X35, what the thread is about
this thread is to talk about an X plane and was quickly derailed by either a troll or a genuine idiot with the yak131 is the father of the f-35 spiel.

first you refuse anything less than the f-35 is a copy of the yak and that the americans used russian tech. now you have devolved into
>yeah! but they signed an agreement!
because you realize you're an idiot

>but you retards want to claim there's no connection.
nobody has said that, you fucking idiot. but taking flight data is massively different than literally copy + pasting design blueprints.

Attached: 1515326883851.gif (390x373, 2.54M)

There was no spiel, he said Russian technology was used in the design of the X35, which it was.

>stealth swing wing
maintainers shudder in fear

>X-32 VTOL design prototype lost because it couldn't go supersonic
Nono...the 32's design was a fucking mess, it vtlo thrust was based on a inner hot air balloon, it was ridiculous, and of course it did not perform well.

>aeroflight.co.uk/aircraft/types/type-details/yakovlev-yak-41-freestyle.htm
>no sources at all for the comment
>some blog like site
Other user btw.

>first you refuse anything less than the f-35 is a copy of the yak
>literally copy + pasting design blueprints
Where did anyone say that?

Is this generally a correct statement:
>X35 is Russian VTOL technology which can go supersonic
And if no, why not?

What Russian technology? 3BSN is US tech, and the lift fan concept has existed since the 1960s with the vast majority of aircraft that used it being not Russian in origin.

>Russian technology
this is going to be a new meme if you keep using it like you do, you pea-brained idiot

Attached: 1489359993854.jpg (395x401, 59K)

>it vtlo thrust was based on a inner hot air balloon
This is the most retarded thing I've read today, which is saying something.

Why was Yakovlev a partner in the X35 design if there was no technology transfer?

>RAM is the only thing that makes a plane stealthy
>going supersonic on the deck is the same as going supersonic at 30,000ft

Attached: 1535123825994.jpg (994x689, 439K)

You're massively misrepresenting things.

The X-32 as presented in evaluations:
>was unable to go supersonic in the VTOL configuration
>used a STOVL system that was objectively inferior to that of the X-35
>required significant stripping down to go supersonic in conventional configuration
>had conventional versions compromised by the unusual center of gravity forced on it by the Harrier-like STOVL system
>failed to meet agility requirements
>didn't actually reflect Boeing's proposed final design due to aforementioned shortcomings
>made use of a technically ambitious single-piece composite wing

Compare that to the X-35, which
>took off vertically, went supersonic, and landed vertically all in a single flight
>had a significantly more capable VTOL system that didn't force major design compromises on the conventional variants
>used a more conventional layout and construction
>closely reflected what Lockheed's actual final proposal was going to be

The only thing that was really unfair about that evaluation process was the fact that Lockheed held the patent on what was really the only viable system for what was asked.

Attached: laughing planes.jpg (1080x1086, 100K)

ooh that's a new one. Got any others?

Attached: 1436230654617.jpg (491x331, 58K)

Lets take a wild guess: You are that dumb russian that always act like nothing happned before in any threads and who thinks he is super clever by leaving out saying something specific while the implication from all the threads from before is still there?

It exhaust didn't jettisoned it power directly outside, look at it design.

Attached: 1525115126145.jpg (604x382, 69K)

Already brought up hereYakovlev transferred technical data to Lockheed to speed up flight testing of the X-35, since both it and the Yak-41 use a two-post system for VTOL.

You're completely whitewashing the process clean of corruption to try and make it sound like a fair comparison, which it wasn't. I'm not saying the X-32 should have won, I'm saying the ENTIRE JSF PROGRAM, from conception to production, was a sham being scripted by con artists to funnel money to Lockmart regardless of whatever trash designs got sent to production.

Shocking that you seem incapable of understanding this simple point from what I wrote, considering you're probably paid to refute it here.

Sweet thanks user

Attached: 1437068176677.png (273x252, 85K)

Attached: 1522593058668.png (365x312, 145K)

You may be talking to more than one person, for one I'm not Russian or dumb, but your mother is a whore.

That's fine as a claim but back it up with something. He backed up the tech transfer claim by literally showing Yakovlev on the design team for X35, if you can't disprove that or show it wasn't on the team to help with VTOL, then quit complaining and admit you don't have anything.

Was just about to post that one

Attached: 1523527461305.jpg (604x340, 72K)

>didn't actually reflect Boeing's proposed final design due to aforementioned shortcomings
This was a huge part of it. Given Boeing's recent disastrous history, it's probably for the better that the DOD didn't give them the benefit of the doubt.

I know you know what supercruise is. What you're describing has nothing to do with supercruise. Go to hell and take your Lockmart paycheck with you.

>He backed up the tech transfer claim by literally showing Yakovlev on the design team for X35
Not him, but I posted earlier in the thread, which is a Lockheed proposal from the mid-80's with a lift fan like the F-35 has. They certainly didn't need technology transfer.

>a single unsourced website is evidence

Attached: 3.6 Roentgens.jpg (960x960, 229K)

>Is this generally a correct statement:
>>X35 is Russian VTOL technology which can go supersonic
>And if no, why not?
What would make it right in the first place?

Again, you can post lift fans and even tilt tails, the fact that Yakovlev had the only flying example of this type of aircraft and was a partner in the design of the X35 suggests that there was at least some technology transfer going from Yakovlev to Lockheed re: the VTOL system.

If they didn't need it why was the partnership a thing? Unless defense contractors randomly partner with enemy companies for small things like landing gear or something, the initial claim here is still correct and supported.

It's staring you in the face, grow a pair and admit it.

The JSF program only came about because Lockheed's work on the ASTOVL program had proven that the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter could be folded in with minimal impact on the final product. The Lift Fan system made it possible for engineers to effectively design a STOVL variant of a single-engined fighter (as in the F-35) rather than a conventional variant of a STOVL fighter (as in the X-32). In that respect, the program was pretty successful - the F-35 really does have minimal design compromises to accommodate the STOVL F-35B variant, an overall is an excellent aircraft.

The real problems with the JSF program were (as tends to be the case) on the program management side. The general idea is that someone, somewhere got the idea of maturing a bunch of technologies with the F-35 program, spreading the costs of a bunch of advanced technology over several thousand aircraft to keep per-unit cost increases low while developing a bunch of new tech that could be applicable across a wider range of systems. While this sounded great (and is panning out pretty well now that the dust has settled), it was a massive increase in the scope of the program that wasn't properly accounted for in budget and scheduling. As seems to be the case in my experience, Lockheed and the program managers kind of just let the overruns and schedule slips keep going without really raising any concerns until the original IOC date hit and (surprise) the aircraft was nowhere near ready. At that point, a lot of people were rightfully flipping their shit, but fortunately the DoD and Lockheed had managed to turn the program into enough of a White Elephant at that point that they were allowed to keep going under a new budget and schedule. While it was pretty horrific from a program management standpoint, the program went really smoothly since the reorganization and the F-35's panned out really well since finally entering service.

>the VTOL system
What specifically about the VTOL system? The lift jets?

Attached: 1430761319536.jpg (416x418, 142K)

One
> Gordon, Yefim; Komissarov, Dmitriy & Komissarov, Sergey: OKB Yakovlev: A History of the Design Bureau and Its Aircraft – "Joint work with Lockheed Martin on a VTOL aircraft project"
>In 1995 the Yakovlev OKB received permission from the Russian Ministry of Defence to conduct joint work with the Lockheed Martin Company (USA) on the development of a new-generation VTOL combat aircraft. The US partners estimated the cost of research and development work under this programme intended to last until 1998 at some US$ 4 billion. The Yakovlev OKB promptly rendered the necessary assistance to the Lockheed Martin Company in solving many basic design problems on a concept level, associated with the choice of the main parameters of a VTOL fighter as a whole and of its powerplant, as well as operational problems concerned with exhaust gas recirculation and flight control during take-off and landing.

Two
>Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1995-1996: "Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter (CALF)/JAST"
>On 27 April 1995, Lockheed unveiled 86 per cent scale model of JAST demonstrator for wind tunnel tests and in June revealed agreement with Yakovlev of Russia to purchase data on cancelled Yak-141 programme, which employed similar propulsion system.

Three
>AeroWorldNet.com: "Russian Fighter Tales: The Yak-141 and the MiG-29SMT"
>In 1992/93 Lockheed contracted Yakovlev on some work pertaining to short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft studies in reference to the JAST (JSF) project. Yakovlev shared its STOVL technologies with the US company for several dozen million dollars.
>Former Yakovlev employees accuse Yakovlev heads of taking personal interest out of the deal with Lockheed, because the official sum of the contract did not correspond with the value of the information presented to the US company. The data was on the Yak-141 test program, aerodynamics and design features, including the design of the R-79 engine nozzles.

>the F-35 really does have minimal design compromises to accommodate the STOVL F-35B variant, an overall is an excellent aircraft.
If there is a hell, this sentence just secured your place in it. This is Soviet-tier misinformation.

>Yakovlev’s knowledge of jet lift technology was to prove invaluable
What does this even mean lmao, you're not actually posting anything that refutes my arguments.

Yak had zero effect on the overall design of the F-35, that being the use of a lift fan, 3-bearing nozzle, and dual control exhaust. Post something that proves otherwise.

He's right, though. The F-35 is well on its way to being a worthy successor to the F-16 and then some.

Four
>Jane’s Air Forces News: "Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)"
> Lockheed Martin also turned to Russia for technical expertise, purchasing design data from Yakovlev; and used an 86 per cent subscale model (originally developed for the CALF project and fitted with a Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 engine plus an Allison shaft-driven lift fan) for testing.

Five
>Global Security.org: "F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Propulsion"
>The exhaust from the engine flows through the 3 Bearing Swivel Nozzle (3BSN). The 3BSN nozzle, developed by Rolls-Royce, was patterned along the lines of the exhaust system on the Yakovlev Yak-141 STOVL prototype that flew at the 1992 Farnborough air show.

Six
>Air Force Magazine: "A Strike Fighter for the Future"
>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.
>LICENSED DESIGN FROM YAKOVLEV DESIGN BUREAU
>LICENSED DESIGN FROM YAKOVLEV DESIGN BUREAU
>LICENSED DESIGN FROM YAKOVLEV DESIGN BUREAU
>LICENSED DESIGN FROM YAKOVLEV DESIGN BUREAU

Seven
>Gunston, Bill & Gordon, Yefim: Yakovlev Aircraft since 1924 – "Yak-43"
>Compared with the Yak-41M the Yak-43 would have had much greater internal capacity for fuel and weapons (in most missions none would have been carried externally), improved agility because of the bigger wing, increased mission radius, and very much reduced radar signature. Yakovlev has never stopped working on this and successor projects but, ironically, the only people likely to benefit are Lockheed Martin, which in June 1995 revealed that it was being assisted by a teaming agreement with Yakovlev on its proposal for the V/STOL version of JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) for the US forces and Royal Navy.

This statement
>the fact that Yakovlev had the only flying example of this type of aircraft
>suggests that there was at least some technology transfer going from Yakovlev to Lockheed re: the VTOL system
Does not square up with this. It's much more likely that they purchased flight test data, to go over what did and didn't work on the 141.
>and was a partner in the design of the X35
They were not.

So it is you, i should have known. Good luck convincing anyone with your usual attempts of making wrong impressions and then claim you are technically right, when it is obvious that you would never agree to anything similar if someone would pull the same stunt on you.

More subjective nonsense with 0 evidence to back it up. You Lockmart shills have a limited repertoire, but you're very consistent.

>half fuel
>gets taken out by F16 with full drop tanks
lel

Someone screencap I've never seen lockmart shills get BTFO this hard on Jow Forums

That makes sense, considering Lockheed bought the Convair Fighter Division when General Dynamics dissolved Convair. The tech in the engine nozzle is Convair, placed into a traditional airframe configuration, rather than the canard/delta configuration on the Model 200. The 200 has more in common with the YAK-141 than the F35, as both used lift jets rather than a single lift fan on the F35. None of the technical similarities are uniquely Russian or American, nor is the fundamental concept. Convair had concept design work done in 1973, and development of the 141 started a few years later. It's convergent development.

Why dont you make it yourself? Since you already made them and all.

>licensed version of a copy of tech thought up for the Convair 200
Ok?

Attached: 1568557635744.jpg (679x710, 52K)

You're assuming that the point of the program was to produce a capable family of aircraft with interchangeable parts and low operating costs. The actual goal of the project was to produce a procurement boondoggle of such outrageous proportions that it would become too big to fail and enrich embezzling military brass and MIC executives.

Weee wooo weee wooo weee wooo ALART! ALART! DANGAR!

Attached: F35.png (1096x908, 111K)

I wonder where the blue prints are for the X-32 and if Boeing kept any of the molds? I'm betting they did keep the molds in case the X-35/F-35 failed in production.

Calling Boeing's recent history "disastrous" just shows how much of a Zoomer you are. Look up the body count for Lockheed's multi-decade venture into the civilian airliner market if you want a good example of "disastrous".

Attached: 1523524174221.jpg (450x389, 49K)

And how is any of that showing that it is a russian VTOL?

No one said it is a Russian VTOL but that it uses Russian VTOL technology, which it does.