Military Review

American F-35B pilots will work out a vertical landing on the deck of UDC "Wasp"

97
At the International Air Show in Singapore, representatives of the American delegation said that in 2018, for the first time, a universal landing ship of the Wasp project (Wasp) with an air wing consisting of several F-35B multi-purpose fighters would go on a long hike. This is a model of 5 generation aircraft, which are characterized by a short take-off and vertical landing.


In Singapore, representatives of the American delegation noted that this trip would be an excellent opportunity for the F-35B pilots to work out the skills of vertical landing on the ship's deck under various weather conditions.

American F-35B pilots will work out a vertical landing on the deck of UDC "Wasp"


From a statement by Major J. Peppers, a representative of the American delegation in Singapore, representing the 121 th Maritime Fighter Squadron:
In fact, we have few pilots who performed the actual vertical landing on the ship. For pilots who are accustomed to the usual landing on the deck, it is clearly not usual. But this should be an additional tool in our arsenal of opportunities.


Before you start training directly at sea, American pilots are taking off and landing practice using a simulator. This simulator and presented at the exhibition in Singapore, which runs from 6 to 11 February.

According to the American major, the pilots who were selected to train the vertical landings on the Wasp in the F-35B, have experience of similar landings when piloting the AV-8B Harrier (American attack vertical landing and ground attack aircraft) developed by the end of the 70-s.
Photos used:
www.facebook.com
97 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Same lech
    Same lech 9 February 2018 17: 40
    +2
    It seems to me that vertical take-off and landing at the moment have a little significant function.
    With large ammunition, it is more profitable to take off from acceleration ... to land with a vertical vector, too, like that what ... more pontus.
    1. Vitaly Anisimov
      Vitaly Anisimov 9 February 2018 17: 44
      +12
      I envy silently, dear little thing probably .. I hope to crash, at least one on the deck ..!
      1. Falcond
        Falcond 9 February 2018 18: 02
        +9
        Why such gloating ??
        1. sabakina
          sabakina 9 February 2018 19: 28
          +7
          Quote: FalconD
          Why such gloating ??

          to what? And the fact that these planes are not for the Papuans are preparing! Do you guess yourself against whom or give vodka?
          1. Lord of the Sith
            Lord of the Sith 9 February 2018 20: 00
            +3
            I add, one deck squadron has already been thrown into South Korea.
          2. Captain Pushkin
            Captain Pushkin 9 February 2018 20: 35
            +3
            Quote: sabakina
            Quote: FalconD
            Why such gloating ??

            to what? And the fact that these planes are not for the Papuans are preparing! Do you guess yourself against whom or give vodka?

            They usually gave vodka to a coachman, a sex worker or a janitor. And in the sense of clues, this is a tip.
          3. Falcond
            Falcond 10 February 2018 00: 10
            +4
            You will be surprised, but our planes are also preparing to fight not against the Papuans ... Or have you forgotten how two of our fighters dived from Kuznetsov’s deck ??? pleasure ??? There is such a thing as professional ethics ... and there is nobility, generosity and humanism ... and this, I think, is really in Russian!
          4. igorka357
            igorka357 10 February 2018 09: 46
            0
            Where did you get such a title ... it’s a pity that the minuses were canceled ... so you would go to Gods! Who our country is fighting with right now .... well ... not for nothing, but it’s diplomatically, but honestly a fool , with the whole world .... then you are the Marshal-Generalissimo commander of all branches of the armed forces of all nations ... or who are you there ... you must wish death to the whole world .... Fu some nonsense! I do not understand such sheep! that the opponents, it’s clear that the enemies ... but even in the Second World War both ours and the Germans saluted the heroes of the enemies ... where can you understand that ... sabakina!
        2. Vitaly Anisimov
          Vitaly Anisimov 9 February 2018 20: 54
          +1
          Quote: FalconD
          Why such gloating ??

          This is just a fact .. negative
          1. Falcond
            Falcond 10 February 2018 00: 15
            +3
            Well, judge for yourself ... what do I or you or someone else with the fact that a couple of planes do not land ?? Silent joy that a cow died from a neighbor ??? I personally don’t ... But our likely "ally" will replace the planes, take into account errors, modify the technology .. and, as a result, it will become even stronger ...
            So what is superfluous ... it is not beneficial to us and not noble ...
            1. igorka357
              igorka357 10 February 2018 09: 49
              0
              Morons do not understand your idea ... and it is very regrettable, all the good specialists left VO, unfortunately I am not one of them, and I have to read the old fellow and sabakin ... negative ! Even modders are not the same here ....
          2. igorka357
            igorka357 10 February 2018 09: 47
            +1
            This is just an old fart!
            1. Vitaly Anisimov
              Vitaly Anisimov 10 February 2018 09: 50
              0
              Quote: igorka357
              This is just an old fart!

              I MIKHAN! Please consider for the future and all this is officially and agreed .. hi
      2. dauria
        dauria 9 February 2018 18: 14
        +12
        probably dear little thing


        80% compatibility on accessories with the "ordinary" F-35. So in the end, they saved a lot. Yes, and problems with the supply of spare parts less during unification. It feels like in the future with the words "military aircraft" will represent the F-35. Great they swung.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 9 February 2018 18: 42
          +6
          Quote: dauria
          Great they swung.

          Do you know how he will show himself against a strong opponent? You can swing to a spaceship, too ... only whether it will be effective and successful against a strong opponent is a big and fat question.
          1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Vitaly Anisimov
          Vitaly Anisimov 9 February 2018 21: 46
          +2
          Quote: dauria
          probably dear little thing


          80% compatibility on accessories with the "ordinary" F-35. So in the end, they saved a lot. Yes, and problems with the supply of spare parts less during unification. It feels like in the future with the words "military aircraft" will represent the F-35. Great they swung.

          I am very "happy" for "your" aviation ... (change the flag only ..)))
          1. dauria
            dauria 9 February 2018 22: 20
            +7
            I am very "happy" for "your" aviation ... (change the flag only ..)))

            You have a strange approach. Previously, we did not hesitate to copy good decisions in aircraft, boats, enemy tanks. They copied our solutions. They very competently approached the design of a mass aircraft. What prevents us from taking a closer look at their decisions? Swagger? I'm in a heart, my flag is behind me.
            1. Victorio
              Victorio 9 February 2018 22: 48
              +1
              Quote: dauria

              0
              dauria Today, 22: 20 ↑ New
              I am very "happy" for "your" aviation ... (change the flag only ..)))

              C I'm in a heart, my flag is behind me.

              ====
              bvvaul did not finish? he served there urgently, they look like one cadet (our commander’s platoon on the course of a young soldier). in the photo behind the helicopter in my opinion
          2. igorka357
            igorka357 10 February 2018 09: 53
            +1
            Starper, you need to change the flag to Debilno Mindlessly Quacking .... and this is because everyone knows how you can’t call a cow!
        3. Sands Careers General
          Sands Careers General 10 February 2018 00: 31
          +1
          It would be better to finish the plane itself, and not the budget. Now, with the words F-35, they usually present "Raw flying inconspicuous coffin" and "A cross between cuttlefish and a pregnant cockroach" and all this at the price of gold by weight.
      3. Mih1974
        Mih1974 9 February 2018 20: 12
        +3
        I hope - and more than once :). "A good American pilot is a dead American pilot." good
        1. igorka357
          igorka357 10 February 2018 09: 54
          +1
          Another stupidity ... a man with a bunch in his head! And if God forbid ... your priest will go further to the rear ... I'm sure!
      4. igorka357
        igorka357 10 February 2018 09: 42
        0
        I don’t understand you, Starper ... where did you get so many moronic fans from? Well, and for your loyalty, they haven’t crashed more than once since Avik, in the sense of the 35th, the new one is not worked out, but what about us with Kuzi ....? Just for one combat exit .... disgrace in silence!
    2. Giant thought
      Giant thought 9 February 2018 17: 47
      +1
      We will see how the F-35 behaves in a real marine environment, whether all take-offs and landings will be successful, and then it will be possible to speculate about its combat readiness.
      1. poquello
        poquello 9 February 2018 17: 55
        +1
        Quote: Giant thought
        We will see how the F-35 behaves in a real marine environment, whether all take-offs and landings will be successful, and then it will be possible to speculate about its combat readiness.

        ) you can reason later, but they need to sell them now, they are PR
        1. Hanokem
          Hanokem 9 February 2018 21: 27
          +4
          For me, the best indicator of the success of the F-35 is that the Israeli Air Force has already bought 2 F-35 squadrons and are going to purchase a third (although it is possible to purchase the latest version of the F-15 "Silent Needles"
          1. poquello
            poquello 9 February 2018 22: 02
            +2
            write the right thoughts, just miss the words

            For me, the best indicator commercial the success of the F-35 is that the Israeli Air Force has already bought 2 squadrons of F-35
          2. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 10 February 2018 00: 37
            0
            Quote: Hanokem
            For me, the best indicator of the success of the F-35 is that the Israeli Air Force has already bought 2 F-35 squadrons and are going to purchase a third (although it is possible to purchase the latest version of the F-15 "Silent Needles"

            for American money - why not buy it? No, weapons are not given to the Israelis for nothing, this contradicts the principles of a market economy, which the Yankees are adherents to. Arms to the Israelis are transferred for money. But the thing is that money for the purchase of weapons in the United States is given to Israel by the Americans themselves. Every year, Congress allocates huge sums to its Israeli friends with a targeted entry in the US budget. This is the so-called military assistance. Israel is obliged to spend funds received from the USA in the USA for the purchase of military equipment, spare parts, ammunition and equipment. Only a small part of the funds Americans are allowed to implement in Israel itself, and for strictly agreed projects
            1. igorka357
              igorka357 10 February 2018 09: 58
              0
              And so ... you wrote a stupid opus, which was in a nutshell "US Allies" ... the meaning of your conclusions is not clear ... morons do not sit here!
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 10 February 2018 15: 08
                +1
                specially for stupid I will emphasize: Annually, the Congress allocates huge sums to its Israeli friends with a targeted entry in the American budget. This is the so-called military assistance. I.e Israel will not spend anything from its military budget on the purchase of F-35. Because the money allocated by the United States should be spent on the purchase of American weapons.
                Washington to spend at least 10 billion dollars on free military aid to Israel in the next 38 years. Moreover, this time the USA demanded that all funds be spent exclusively on the purchase of American weapons (earlier, up to 1/3 they were allowed to spend on the purchase of weapons of other manufacturers - in particular, Israeli)
                The United States has been providing annual military assistance to Israel since 1987, with an average of $ 2 billion a year.

                Quote: igorka357
                the meaning of your conclusions is not clear ... here morons do not sit!
                so actually non-morons had to understand everything. It is written in Russian and intelligibly where Israel came from. Not understood? lol
                Do you have anything to say in essence? Not? Then what is it about?
    3. Sofa General
      Sofa General 9 February 2018 17: 48
      +4
      before the sapper made a mistake 1 time, now we add - the pilot also makes a mistake 1 time ...
      But seriously - what's the point?
      Perhaps I agree - they are show-offs and show-offs in Africa
      1. Captain Pushkin
        Captain Pushkin 9 February 2018 20: 40
        +5
        Quote: Sofa General
        But seriously - what's the point?

        The point is that it can be based not on an aircraft carrier, but on a helicopter carrier or a retrofitted container ship or on a ground platform of limited size.
    4. KVU-NSVD
      KVU-NSVD 9 February 2018 17: 54
      +13
      . sit down with a vertical vector, too, like what ... more pontus.
      Such a landing greatly expands the list of aircraft carriers for the fleet
    5. svp67
      svp67 9 February 2018 17: 54
      +13
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      It seems to me that vertical take-off and landing at the moment have a little significant function.

      You are not right. This function allows you to SHARPLY increase the number of SHOCK aircraft carriers, even light ones.
      universal landing ship of the Wosp project


      I will say more, they can also be used for civilian ships, as the British did during the Falkland-Malvinas war, using the container ship Atlantic Conveyor
      1. Same lech
        Same lech 9 February 2018 17: 57
        +2
        This function allows you to SHARPLY increase the number of SHOCK aircraft carriers, even light ones.


        It is impossible to use this function during storms and hurricanes ... and if a combat situation requires the immediate take-off of planes ... most of them will simply crash during take-off or landing ...
        this is a minus.
        1. svp67
          svp67 9 February 2018 18: 12
          +10
          Quote: The same LYOKHA
          It is not possible to use this function during storms and hurricanes ...

          Few fly during hurricanes. And against the storms there are pitching dampers and the right course
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 10 February 2018 00: 54
            0
            Quote: svp67
            Few fly during hurricanes. And against the storms there are pitching dampers and the right course

            Just agree that a normal-mode aircraft, thrown out by a catapult or even from a springboard, can take off in much worse weather - due to the fact that it has already translational motion, it has gained kinetic energy. But VTOL during take-off / landing / transitional mode does not have it, hangs, hangs and any gust of wind fend off the rudders. And at one not very wonderful moment their stock may not be enough - and shmyak on the deck or overboard. Normal plane has bоgreater limits on the "bad weather", so to speak. Up to those in which the enemy cannot use his weapon either - the situation is stalemate, "hid under an umbrella" in anticipation of the sun. VTOL in this respect is more tender - i.e. his flights will cease at a much lower score
            1. svp67
              svp67 10 February 2018 03: 44
              +1
              Quote: Gregory_45
              Just agree that a normal-mode aircraft, thrown out by a catapult or even from a springboard, can take off in much worse weather - due to the fact that it has already translational motion, it has gained kinetic energy. But VTOL during take-off / landing / transition mode does not have it, hangs, hangs and any gust of wind fend off the rudders

              Not quite so. The deck of the UDC is quite long and the SVP aircraft can take off “in the plane,” using lifting engines. And after the capture of a more or less large bridgehead, part of the SVP can fly to the bridgehead itself and already work from the ground
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 10 February 2018 11: 46
                0
                Quote: svp67
                Not quite so

                Exactly. They told you that
                Quote: svp67
                Quote: The same LYOKHA
                It is not possible to use this function during storms and hurricanes ...

                This function was understood as vertical take-off and landing. And that is the absolute truth. By the way, how will you plant in severe weather? The finisher will catch the normal deck, but the VTOL does not have a hook, and the UDC does not have a finisher. Whatever you say, but a normal deck aircraft has much less weather restrictions.
                For normal deck aircraft, the weather restrictions are almost the same. like land aircraft. In VTOL - like in helicopters.
        2. KERMET
          KERMET 9 February 2018 20: 36
          +3
          So, depending on what kind of storm and hurricane there are such that you can’t do a normal land take-off and land without loss, and taking off from any patch both at sea and on land is a huge plus
        3. Captain Pushkin
          Captain Pushkin 9 February 2018 20: 42
          +3
          Quote: The same LYOKHA
          It is impossible to use this function during storms and hurricanes ... and if a combat situation requires the immediate take-off of aircraft ..

          In such circumstances, aircraft carriers do not provide take-off / landing of aircraft.
      2. bouncyhunter
        bouncyhunter 9 February 2018 18: 02
        +7
        Sergey, my respect! hi I agree with your words, GDP planes greatly diversify the capabilities of many warships.
        1. svp67
          svp67 9 February 2018 18: 53
          +2
          Quote: bouncyhunter
          Sergey, my respect!

          hi hi hi
          1. bouncyhunter
            bouncyhunter 9 February 2018 18: 58
            +3
            Here I am interested in your opinion: what do you think - is there a continuation of the Yak-141 theme?
            1. svp67
              svp67 9 February 2018 19: 11
              +2
              Quote: bouncyhunter
              What do you think - is there a continuation of the Yak-141 theme?

              I don’t even think, I know - IS
              Answering the question of the correspondent of Military.RF which design bureau will be engaged in a promising aircraft, Borisov added that this is the development of the "Yakovlev line." “This may be including the development of the Yak-141, such an aircraft may be sold as a promising carrier-based fighter for new aircraft-carrying cruisers,” the deputy defense minister said.
              1. bouncyhunter
                bouncyhunter 9 February 2018 19: 13
                +3
                Let it be so !!! good
                1. sabakina
                  sabakina 9 February 2018 19: 44
                  +4
                  Pashka, pryuvet! fellow Happy friday drinks . You know, the battleships died out, the battleships died out, even the Nazi Tirpitz and Bismarck did nothing in WWII. I think that the same fate awaits the aircraft carriers in the classic version, because the missiles have already reached hypersound. No, against, let’s say, little Yugoslavia is the very thing, but the fact is that on the Eurasian continent, there is nobody left besides us who goes against the world outlook of the world gendarme. I think so. in 20 years, aircraft carriers will die out as a species.
                  1. bouncyhunter
                    bouncyhunter 9 February 2018 19: 51
                    +3
                    Glory, translate! laughing drinks
                    Quote: sabakina
                    even Hitler’s Tirpitz and Bismarck

                    I will not say anything about Yapovsky "Yamato" and his clone "Musashi". I will not say anything about the Teutonic projects H39 and H44 either ... wink
                    1. ventel
                      ventel 10 February 2018 01: 12
                      0
                      Sorry, but I don’t agree. Tirpitz and Bismarck fulfilled their mission in World War II. Bismarck drowned the pride of the Royal Fleet Hood and damaged the battleship and the British threw half the fleet to destroy it. Tirpitz also paid back what is the convoy PEU KJ2 and the British also threw a lot of effort into destruction too.
                      1. bouncyhunter
                        bouncyhunter 11 February 2018 09: 53
                        +1
                        And tell me why these battleships were built? Certainly not for hunting convoys, they never became a weapon of intimidation.
                  2. Mih1974
                    Mih1974 9 February 2018 20: 22
                    +1
                    In general, the United States always has two opponents - Russia and China. And now let’s recall the most important feature of AOG - this is “invisibility”, that is, a ground airport is more or less easy to figure out and “beat”, then AUG goes around and does everything to find it. But here’s the problem - both we and the Chinese already have satellites that see this AUG and forever "flocks of missiles." good And for all the multi-level protection of the AUGs, they are still much inferior to what can be built up around an ordinary airfield and more ammunition. Therefore, to “push through” the AUG’s defense even without cascading detonation, special ammunition is more than possible, and with the aforementioned method, in general, the AUG is a simple defenseless target. negative Even all two low-power detonations make 100% illumination of the entire electronic and scanning ones and due to the “flash” the missiles will jump out already under the reaction of the “defense turrets themselves (flaks), but those and old ones had little chances, but against modern and none at all. But five, we and China are not obliged to try to drown the Americans with TNT, and one or two missiles, even with a small special charge from the AOG, will leave only melted aluminum slowly sinking to the bottom of the hail lol
                    1. a.sirin
                      a.sirin 9 February 2018 20: 32
                      +4
                      Any "undermining of low power" will automatically entail a blow of "considerable power" in the place from which "small".
              2. Captain Pushkin
                Captain Pushkin 9 February 2018 20: 46
                +1
                Quote: svp67
                svp67 Today, 19: 11 New
                Quote: bouncyhunter
                What do you think - is there a continuation of the Yak-141 theme?

                I don’t even think, I know - IS

                I am absolutely sure that the Yak-141 has no future. It would be a golden bird, and not at all in demand. To perform what unique tasks does the Yak-141 require?
                1. svp67
                  svp67 9 February 2018 20: 57
                  +3
                  Quote: Captain Pushkin
                  To perform what unique tasks does the Yak-141 require?

                  Yak-141 - NOT FOR ANYTHING, as the plane is clearly outdated. But here is a new aircraft made with the experience of its creation, so come in handy, even very much. And as a light fifth-generation fighter, as well as SVP for equipping our UDC and other aircraft-carrying ships
        2. san4es
          san4es 9 February 2018 19: 09
          +6
          Quote: bouncyhunter
          ... GDP planes greatly diversify the capabilities of many warships.

          hi Hi Pash

          F-35B Lightning II (OT-1) USS Wasp HD
          Published: May 28, 2015
          1. bouncyhunter
            bouncyhunter 9 February 2018 19: 12
            +2
            Sanchez, hello! hi This time I will refrain from criticizing the Fu-35. wink
            1. san4es
              san4es 9 February 2018 19: 17
              +2
              ... Healthy .. Frets wink
      3. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 10 February 2018 00: 44
        0
        Quote: svp67
        I will say more, they can also be used for civilian ships, as the British did during the Falkland-Malvinas war, using the container ship Atlantic Conveyor

        Atlantic conveyor was simple by air. Harriers could not fly from it He drove them stupidly. And even the presence of a runway does not mean anything. The British for the experiment, "Harrier" and put on a cruiser. Not talking about anything
        In addition, your interlocutor said that instead of a purely vertical one, a shortened take-off and landing is more promising, UDC decks allow this. Our Yak-38 also often with short mileage flew with the TAVKRs
    6. Falcond
      Falcond 9 February 2018 18: 07
      +3
      Well, for example, take off / landing from unprepared or unusable lanes .. why not ...

      Helicopters are also landing on an airplane ... here too, on the one hand, why?
    7. KP8789
      KP8789 9 February 2018 18: 42
      +6
      Same lech
      It seems to me that vertical take-off and landing at the moment have a little significant function.
      With large ammunition, it is more profitable to take off from acceleration ... landing with a vertical vector is also like that ... more to a pontus.

      So he takes off from acceleration, and sits down vertically. And here there are no show-offs, it’s enough to recall what happens with a classic landing with a cable break.
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 9 February 2018 19: 23
        +3
        Do not forget that this is an aircraft of the Marine Corps. Having acquired the F-35 Be, they will have increased firepower, they will be able to use air support more flexibly and most importantly, more efficiently, especially during deep continental operations, because. shorten. take-off and steep landing become a trump card on the continent, because such aircraft can be used from the most unexpected places and disperse them more conveniently means, and this is very important now, and in the future even more so. UOSP will become their "hive", and where they can get after Marines is a question with an unknown answer, anywhere.
        1. sabakina
          sabakina 9 February 2018 19: 51
          +2
          Stormbreaker, will not become a hive. A serious opponent after taking off a swarm will destroy the pelvis. Where will they sit? To enemy territory?
          1. ZVO
            ZVO 9 February 2018 21: 08
            +3
            Quote: sabakina
            Stormbreaker, will not become a hive. A serious opponent after taking off a swarm will destroy the pelvis. Where will they sit? To enemy territory?


            Well, stop considering abstract units without a set of actions.

            Such pelvis come to shore only after 1000 tomahawks.
            When the coastal defense system simply does not exist. She was simply dared and crushed by a number.
          2. Maki Avellevich
            Maki Avellevich 9 February 2018 21: 13
            +4
            Quote: sabakina
            A serious opponent after taking off a swarm will destroy the pelvis.


            Well, yes, he will throw his hats until he sinks the pelvis
            1. sapporo1959
              sapporo1959 10 February 2018 00: 25
              +1
              Well, what, and a hat on our heads and in warehouses for three aircraft carriers is enough! So I think that the Americans are still afraid to take us prisoner ..
          3. Thunderbolt
            Thunderbolt 9 February 2018 21: 16
            +2
            Quote: sabakina
            To enemy territory?

            Right there yesFirst, it will be done by the individual units that are regularly provided for in their squadrons for autonomous actions directly from the combat formations of the landing force. If necessary, the others will be pulled up if all the conditions for working from the coast are created. So agree or not, but I think that the fighting units with such take-off / landing capabilities are easier to use in the destroyed infrastructure of a captured bridgehead under enemy opposition. And such a bridgehead can be very far from the coast (for example, marines (reinforced by Cobra helicopters) appeared first under Kandahar). -35. I’m talking about everything ..? And to the fact that they (the USA) act like the latest villains, they’re not suckers for sure. And even when they entered Afghanistan they first “processed” it with bombs and rockets for a month only then they created the first bridgehead. And against the serious enemy, as you say, the same algorithm will be applied, but they can bomb not for a month as Taliban, but for six months. And not right on all sails they will trample on mines and under anti-ship missiles, and they will act due to the safety circuit that the fleet forces must provide for them.
            P.S. But this is only one of the functions, and the main task of such ships is to quickly eliminate threats to SUSHYA and provide access through the World Ocean for projecting forces anywhere in the world. In fact, a fire brigade (exacerbations in the zones of straits, Papuans, etc. .d ....)
        2. Mih1974
          Mih1974 9 February 2018 20: 25
          +1
          Let's be honest - to understand the meaning of producing motley military formations and often with different digging and equipment there is an utter stupidity and no one except the Americans has come up with this. A couple of times they came across us, or with our support, and both times received mardas. Therefore, they would not have enough brains to abandon this madhouse and bring their Army to a common denominator.
    8. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 10 February 2018 00: 30
      0
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      It seems to me that vertical take-off and landing at the moment have a little significant function.
      With large ammunition, it is more profitable to take off from acceleration ... to land

      They, in fact, will fly. F-35s have long been baptized in SKVP - a plane with a short take-off and landing. Of course, he can technically sit upright, with a small load and take off - but this is really a show off, more suitable for an Air Show. It is better to save fuel and take more ammunition. The benefit of the deck of almost all UDC allows a short take-off run (and some ships and a springboard have)
    9. Kyzmich
      Kyzmich 13 February 2018 07: 04
      0
      This became clear with the advent of the Admiral Kuznetsov TAKR and its aircraft on board the MiG29K and Su-27K
      Against the background of their Yak141 looked very modest, despite his "supersonic" and decent airborne weapons.
      Just look at Vikramaditya.
      Its performance characteristics are almost equal to the latest British aircraft carriers.
  2. the most important
    the most important 9 February 2018 17: 42
    +1
    Yes there: it accelerated and turned sharply down from a turn !!!!!!!! splash !!! and you are at home!
    1. Same lech
      Same lech 9 February 2018 17: 46
      0
      Yes there: it accelerated and turned sharply down from a turn !!!!!!!! splash !!! and you are at home!

      So from the vertical with a full load, you will also burn half a tank of fuel ... as a result, it’s also plop and you’re home again.
      1. the most important
        the most important 9 February 2018 17: 50
        +1
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        So from the vertical with a full load, you will also burn half a tank of fuel ... as a result, it’s also plop and you’re home again.

        Stop! Stop!!! The instructor's place is already taken !!!
      2. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 10 February 2018 00: 59
        0
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        in the end, too, plop and you're home again.

        then the Yak-38 was nicknamed the "mast guard plane", or less offensively - "took off - scared - sat down"
        1. Kyzmich
          Kyzmich 13 February 2018 06: 38
          0
          I advise you to pay to the TTX "Harrier" GR.3 (AV-8A) (1970)
          Combat radius: vertical take-off and
          combat load 1360 kg .......92 km , do not worry, this is not a typo))
          But when taking off with a take-off run of 180 m and combat
          a load of 2270 kg ..... the bag gets off as much as 230 km!
          In!
          Strength!
          Let me remind you Yak38 is also 1970.
          Its combat radius is 195-250 km (according to various sources)
          You can take the first deck "Sea Harrier FRS.1 (1978), its combat radius .....as much as 130km!
          This is a whole 24 minutes flight.)))
          And with a minimum combat load.
          You do not like the 1978 "Sea Harrier"?
          Take Sea Harrier FA.2 1988.
          Its combat radius ... what a misfortune, too 135km?!
          Here is the ass!
          Let me remind you that in 1988 the Yak141 already flew and the Yak 38 began to be scrapped.
          It's just that when they grind their teeth about the Yak 38, they forget to clarify that this is the data for GDP (vertical take-off and landing), palming off take-off and take-off into comparison.
          It’s enough to look at the empty mass of “Sea Harrier” and its maximum for the GDP regime
          6374 kg (empty)
          8620 (max take-off) with GDP.
          we have 2246 kg for fuel and BN.
          Links to you for enlightenment
          http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/sharrierfa2.html
          http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/sharrier.html
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 13 February 2018 11: 36
            0
            What did you want to say? That Harrier was also a mast guard aircraft? So everyone knows that.
            The power plant on it was more promising. His trouble is that the British for so many years have not been able to create a more powerful engine. The old man "Harrier" retired (having survived, however, his Soviet brother)
            1. Kyzmich
              Kyzmich 13 February 2018 13: 44
              0
              The power plant on it is a dead end.
              Example Boeing X-32.
              This is a copy of Harrier’s circuitry with only a very powerful engine.
              The deadlock in the Harrier scheme was originally laid as a result of the fact that his nozzle was bifurcated. And in a curved nozzle you will never get supersonic.
              The bloated afterburners on the latest version did not help him either.
              After which he was sent to ... a museum.
              This was a mistake in Yak38.
              Although he had a motor from the MiG23, he could not give out supersonic sound.
              Due to the very large bottom resistance and as a result of loss of traction, approximately 600 kg.
              Everything turned out exactly. Like "Harrier"
              Second, the Harrier scheme requires the location of the thrust vectors as close to the central district as possible.
              Another dead end.
              On the Yak141 (F-35), this is not so critical, but it also led to a two-beam fuselage scheme. In order to allow the PMD to be moved closer to the central heating center.
              There was no one willing to leave for the “flying wing” or “duck” scheme.
              So, your Harrier is what ours simply did not do in the Yak 39 project, seeing what happened in the form of "AV-8B Harrier II"
              He has a particularly significant take-off weight with GDP and ordinary take-off - a difference of 5 tons! That is, he could execute GDP practically being empty.
              The Britons and the United States scooped up a bunch of $ billions and finally got this AV-1985B in 8 and already in 1990 realized that it was shit and launched the program JSF
              1. Kyzmich
                Kyzmich 13 February 2018 13: 58
                0
                Quote: Gregory_45
                The trouble is that the British for so many years have not been able to create a more powerful engine

                Engine
                Turbojet engine Rolls-Royce Bristol Pegasus 101-thrust unformed, 84.43kN
                latest version of Rolls-Royce Bristol Pegasus 107-thrust 106 kN
                Few?
                The truth didn’t help much.
            2. Kyzmich
              Kyzmich 14 February 2018 01: 12
              +1
              Quote: Gregory_45
              What did you want to say? That Harrier was also a mast guard aircraft? So everyone knows that.

              Quote: Gregory_45
              then the Yak-38 was nicknamed the "mast guard plane", or less offensively - "took off - scared - sat down"


              Everyone knows?
              From what do teeth grind only about the Yak38?
              Are you getting paid for this?
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. svp67
      svp67 9 February 2018 18: 14
      +1
      Quote: the most important
      Yes there: it accelerated and turned sharply down from a turn !!!!!!!! splash !!! and you are at home!

      Our Yaks didn’t even have to turn around, they knew how to shorten the path greatly ...
      1. sabakina
        sabakina 9 February 2018 20: 01
        +2
        Sergey, we were just studying then. It was the first time. In what the designers were mistaken, in what the production, but we studied. And the Americans stupidly wrote off, like the last two-man team, the solution to the problem. In the "Jumble" if the movie about this. And the video, roofing felts in the subject, no roofing felts ...
        1. Mih1974
          Mih1974 9 February 2018 20: 39
          +1
          Honestly, I’m watching how we copied from them and how we have them. Here we got their B-29s, we drank the Tu-95 from it, they lied to us about the SDI - we “washed down” a real combat orbital laser. good bully
          They received full documentation on our developments on Yak and they got seduced and created this freak Fu-35B negative . The whole world takes an automatic loader from us for tanks and only mattresses are still used by blacks.
          1. Pan_hrabio
            Pan_hrabio 10 February 2018 22: 47
            0
            The whole world takes an automatic loader from us for tanks and only mattresses are still used by blacks.


            I allow myself to correct you slightly. Yes, more and more tanks in the world are equipped with automatic loaders, but of a conveyor type, and not a carousel, as in Russian / USSR tanks.





            https://topwar.ru/30785-avtomaty-zaryazhaniya-tan
            kovyh-orudiy.html
        2. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 10 February 2018 01: 07
          +3
          Quote: sabakina
          And the Americans stupidly cheated

          what did they "write off"? Nothing that the Yak-141 and F-35 have in common, only that both aircraft are VTOL aircraft, and also a deviated nozzle (which, by the way, they were run in back in the 70s, long before the first flight of the Yak-141) Here it is, Conver Model 200, 1972 concept:

          Schemes of propulsion systems Yak-141 and "penguin" are different, in general, everything is different. You would at least ask for the materiel for decency. You think real. what did the Americans of the VTOL aircraft see only here - and, well, "write off"? Since the 50s, they have been actively involved in this topic. Like the British and French.
          And the current is yes, all musicians are plagiarists - because they use the same seven notes! And we are the same 33 letters of the alphabet.
          1. MadCat
            MadCat 10 February 2018 02: 31
            +3
            Quote: Gregory_45
            what did they "write off"? Nothing that the Yak-141 and F-35 have in common, only that both aircraft are VTOL aircraft, and even a deviated nozzle

            it’s just sooo "patriotic" in every post scribbling about the Yak-141 laughing
          2. Kyzmich
            Kyzmich 13 February 2018 05: 54
            0
            What does the duck scheme have to do with these aircraft?

            In addition, your Conver Model 200 existed only on paper.
            And even in this form he was stillborn.
            The result of it is Rockwell XFV-12A, which never appeared in the form of a flight model.

            For 50 years have they been actively engaged in the topic of VTOL?
            And the result of it?
            These cuttlefish?

            And I forgot one more cuttlefish, how could without it!

            Here dear it's allthat the United States created in terms of VTOL
            But the F-35 is the fruit of joint work with the British and, well, borrowing from us.
            The tail unit and its double-girder design + layout scheme of the lifting and marching engine is also ours (yak38-141)
            “Harrier” in this regard was a dead end.
            1. Grigory_45
              Grigory_45 13 February 2018 11: 22
              0
              Quote: Kyzmich
              What does the duck scheme have to do with these aircraft?

              So I think, why are you "duck" dragged? Clearly wrote -
              Quote: Gregory_45
              deflecting nozzle

              Quote: Kyzmich
              And even in this form was stillborn

              Yeah, right? And if you look carefully? Just the scheme of the Conver’s power plant formed the basis of the F-35, on its studies they sculpted the F-35. We look and wonder: one lift-marching engine and two fans driven by it (as on a “penguin”)

              Quote: Kyzmich
              layout diagram of the lifting and marching engine is also ours (yak38-141)

              Nonsense. See above. Power plant schemes are different. Lifting-marching and two lifting on Yaks and lifting-marching and lifting fan driven by the main engine on the F-35. We learn materiel and do not disgrace)
              Quote: Kyzmich
              “Harrier” in this regard was a dead end.

              Harrier as a VTOL aircraft was a very staged aircraft. By the way, Yakovlev himself insisted precisely on his scheme - an engine with rotary nozzles. But some in the Design Bureau jumped over his head (there was no such engine in the USSR), and adopted a scheme with three engines, obviously losing in comparison with the "Englishman". The plane was needed, a bird in the hands, not a crane in the sky
              Quote: Kyzmich
              But the F-35 is the fruit of joint work with the British and, well, borrowing from us

              There is nothing in the F-35 from our Yaks. About the rotary nozzle, as mentioned above. the Yankees knew. However, they abused - it is one thing to know, the second is to study an already flying sample (CD on it). It saved them time and money.
              1. Kyzmich
                Kyzmich 13 February 2018 14: 23
                0
                Quote: Gregory_45
                Nonsense. See above. Power plant schemes are different. Lifting-marching and two lifting on Yaks and lifting-marching and lifting fan driven by the main engine on the F-35. We learn materiel and do not disgrace)

                It would not be a shame.
                The Yak38i 141 circuit is a thrust vector longitudinally spaced from the centerline.
                The same thing on the F-35B
                And what creates traction in PD is the second thing.
                By the way, this “windmill” in the F-35 came out weighing three more than two PD 41 in the Yak 141.
                This is so by the way.
                Quote: Gregory_45
                But some people in KB jumped over his head (there wasn’t such a motor in the USSR), and they adopted a scheme with three engines

                Fudge.
                The engine at Harrier weighs exactly as much as the PMD and the two PDs at the Yak 38 have the same weight.
                So that they dragged dead weight the same.
                One in the form of PD engines is another in the form of an oversize dvigla.
                The weight of the RD-36-35FVR turbojet engine is less than 300 kg with a traction ratio of 16: 1.
                Quote: Gregory_45
                There is nothing in the F-35 from our Yaks. About the rotary nozzle, as mentioned above. the Yankees knew.

                What does this nozzle have to do with it?
                Airframe from Yak 141 - is it not clear?
                The layout diagram for take-off thrust is also from it.
                Quote: Gregory_45
                There is nothing in the F-35 from our Yaks. About the rotary nozzle, as mentioned above. the Yankees knew.

                Quote: Gregory_45
                We look and are surprised: one lift-marching engine and two fans driven by it (as on a “penguin”)

                We look and wonder
                ..... Behind the cockpit two Allison XJ99 lift enginesfor which air was supplied through the wings located on the top of the fuselage ...
                What the hell are two fans?
                By the way, F-35 has exactly two of them in one "glass"
              2. Pingo
                Pingo 27 February 2018 13: 34
                0
                If you knew then why they abandoned him and began to try to make planes without this?
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_XFV-12
                The Germans knew even earlier, but with the same success.
            2. Pingo
              Pingo 27 February 2018 13: 32
              0
              True, from the American in the X-32 there are only wings, and everything else is English. The AV-8B has the same story. That is, there was nothing American in the American JSF contest.
      2. Kyzmich
        Kyzmich 13 February 2018 06: 54
        0
        Quote: svp67
        Quote: the most important
        Yes there: it accelerated and turned sharply down from a turn !!!!!!!! splash !!! and you are at home!

        Our Yaks didn’t even have to turn around, they knew how to shorten the path greatly ...


        By the way, this is the death of Oleg Kononenko (Honored Test Pilot of the USSR) in 1980 at the Minsk TAKR
        The reason for the pilot error and disconnection of the SK-M.
        Your irony is not clear to me.
  3. loginovich
    loginovich 9 February 2018 18: 39
    0
    Also a wasp, but not biting.

  4. tchoni
    tchoni 9 February 2018 18: 58
    0
    Taki "OP!" The Yankees had 10 aircraft carriers, it became 20))) hi
  5. Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov 9 February 2018 19: 20
    +2
    If it were not for the collapse of the USSR ... We would have wiped the US nose! Which, in principle, is now being done in some types of weapons, we have not enough money .. But this is only so far gentlemen! We have preserved our creative potential ..
    1. Maki Avellevich
      Maki Avellevich 9 February 2018 21: 27
      +3
      Quote: MIKHAN
      If it were not for the collapse of the USSR ... We would have wiped the US nose!

      1. Vitaly Anisimov
        Vitaly Anisimov 9 February 2018 21: 48
        +1
        Israel is certainly against .. and I'm not even surprised .. hehe hey I'm right Maki Avelievich?
        By the way, you need such a "vertical take-off" territory is small and a lot of money .. ha ha ha
        He got up, shot at the Arabs and again sank to his airfield .. Beautiful, expensive, angry .. wassat
  6. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 9 February 2018 20: 22
    +3
    We have nothing to brag about yet, we would have to equip the shelves on land.
    1. Vitaly Anisimov
      Vitaly Anisimov 9 February 2018 21: 10
      +1
      Quote: polkovnik manuch
      We have nothing to brag about yet, we would have to equip the shelves on land.

      I agree, but the main thing is that in Russia Prokhorenko and Filipov, etc. , SOLDIERS of the Russian Empire did not transfer ... But weapons in Russia were able to make reliable and effective ..

      So Filipov flew and many others ..