Military Review

Su-33, MiG-29K and Yak-141. Battle for deck

360
As you know, at the first in the USSR springboard heavy aircraft carrier cruiser "Tbilisi" (later renamed the "Admiral fleet Of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov ”tested three deck aircraft at once aviation - Su-27K, MiG-29K and Yak-141. In this series of articles, we will try to figure out why there were three types of aircraft for carrier-based aviation, for what reasons the Su-27K was eventually chosen and how optimal this solution was, which aircraft, except for the aforementioned, should take places on the flight deck of our first TAKR springboard and why, in our century, the “second coming” of the MiG-29K took place.


We have already described history the design of domestic TAKR and its strange dualism - while the fleet with 1968 r developed atomic ejection aircraft carriers, he was forced to build steam-turbine carriers of VTOL. The air groups of the ejection ships were supposed to be equipped with deck modifications of the MiG-23 fighter (draft designs of the deck MiG-23А and MiG-23К were developed in 1972 and 1977 respectively), but later, as the new fighters of the 4 generation were ready, it should was to replace the carrier-based fighter, based on the Su-27. The first development of the deck Su-27 was carried out by the Sukhoi Design Bureau as far back as 1973 in connection with the constant postponement of the construction of ejection aircraft carriers and around 1977-1978. MiG-23 was finally rejected from “re-unloading”, but in 1978, the MMP for them. A.I. Mikoyan took the initiative to include the deck version of the 4-generation MiG-29 fighter in the future TAKR air groups. It was assumed that the relatively light decked MiGs would complement the heavy Su-27 just as it was supposed to do in the Air Force, and the proposal was accepted.

At the same time, and in parallel with all of the above, the Yakovlev Design Bureau developed aircraft for vertical takeoff and landing. This process was launched on December 27 1967, when the Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and USSR Council No.1166-413 was issued, which were instructed to start the light attack aircraft Yak-36М, and then, in the future, front-range VTOL fighter. As you know, lightweight attack aircraft designers Yakovlev managed to create - in 1977 g Yak-36M under the designation Yak-38 was adopted. But with the fighter the case did not go flatly - the fighter-attack aircraft Yak-39 with new lifting engines, an extended range of equipment and weapons had a meager range of flight. Even with a short take-off and combat load of 1 ton, its combat radius did not exceed 200 km, and this was, of course, completely inadequate. Nevertheless, the Yakovlev Design Bureau continued to work on the VTOL aircraft.

Designers Yakovlev tried to wipe the supersonic fighter - the first studies of such a machine were made in 1974 g (Yak-41, "product 48"). Then, in 1977, the Government decided to create a supersonic fighter aircraft (VTOL) and present it for state tests for 1982. At the same time, according to the new Decree, the Yakovlev design bureau was required to submit a technical proposal to create a Yak-41 supersonic attack aircraft.

In other words, by the end of the 70s, some leaders (and especially DF Ustinov, who advocated the development of a VTOL aircraft) could have the opinion that creating supersonic vertical take-off and landing aircraft with a sufficient radius of action is not far off. Probably, this is precisely the reason for his instructions to stop the design of ejection aircraft-carrying ships and to build in the future TAKR-carriers of VTOLS with a displacement of no more than 45 000 t., Equipped with a springboard.

In other words, the following was obtained. The difference between the MiG-29 (not to mention the Su-27) and the Yak-38 in the air defense capabilities was not just enormous, it was in the literal sense of the word incompatible with each other: the Yak-38 with a bang was lost to the newest 4 generation aircraft by all parameters. But the Yak-41 was another matter, although it was not equal to the MiG-29, but nevertheless, it was already comparable with it in some parameters (for example, the installation of the MiG-41 radar was assumed on the Yak-29). In addition, it was assumed that the Yak-41 would not have to take off exclusively vertically - for it was originally supposed to take off from a short run, which was diplomatically called the Yakovlev Design Bureau diplomatically called “super-short vertical inclined take-off”. This increased the capabilities of VTOL.

Springboard increased the take-off weight of the Yak-41, which means its combat load or range even more. This brought the capabilities of the Yak-41 to the MiG-29 even closer, the springboard made it possible for the Yak-41 to be able to perform not only the air defense functions of the compound, but also to deliver rocket-bombing strikes on surface and coastal targets. All this allowed DF. Ustinov again consider the VTOLS as an alternative to deck aircraft horizontal takeoff and landing.

It must be said that this moment in disputes “which is better - a springboard or a catapult” is usually completely ignored. The fact is that supporters of the catapult and its opponents usually see the springboard as an alternative to the catapult as a means of taking off planes of horizontal takeoff and landing. But initially the catapult was not proposed for this. In essence, D.F. Ustinov proposed to abandon the aircraft horizontal takeoff and landing in favor of the VTOL, and the springboard was considered only as a means of increasing the capabilities of VTOL. In other words, at that moment no one asked the question: “What is better - a catapult or a springboard for horizontal takeoff aircraft?”. Order df Ustinov boiled down to: “Let's remove the horizontal take-off and landing aircraft from the ship in general, we leave only the VTOL aircraft, and in order for them to fly better, we will make a springboard for them”.

In response, the leaders of the MMP for them. A.I. Mikoyan and MH them. BY. Sukhoi, supported by the Air Force Command, proposed to continue work on the Su-27K and MiG-29K - due to the high thrust-to-weight ratio, these aircraft could be adapted for take-off from the springboard. Df Ustinov (perhaps with regard to the rather modest practical results of the VTOL program, or perhaps because of some other reasons) still did not fold the eggs into one basket. Yes, he believed that the air group of the future TAKR would consist of VTOL, but he did not prohibit the development of deck versions of the MiG-29 and Su-27. Strictly speaking, its position relative to these aircraft has been reduced to the following: “Do you want horizontal takeoff airplanes to be on the decks of ships? Well, then you have to teach them to take off from the springboard! ”

So, in fact, in 1980 g, the “race of three fighters” began for the right to take a place on the flight deck and in the hangars of the Soviet TAKR. But each KB, of course, moved towards its goal in its own way. In 1982-1983 MiG-29K and Su-27K advance projects were presented and protected, while the MiG was intended for air defense in the near zone and had secondary tasks: destroying enemy ships with a displacement of up to 5 000 and assault landing forces. Su-27K was supposed to be a fighter with a long range, providing air defense connections in the far zone. Yak-141 was to be the world's first supersonic multipurpose VTOL.

Su-33



Sukhova OKB decided to create the Su-27K as a deck modification of the Su-27, that is, if possible, keep the equipment of the “original” aircraft on it. This, of course, did not mean that the Su-27K would not undergo any changes at all compared to its prototype, but the bottom line was that the overwhelming majority of the changes concerned the adaptation of the aircraft to the specifics of marine carrier-based aircraft. level Su-27. The Su-27K sketch project was presented in September 1984, but this position was not met with understanding by the commission of the customer.

The fact is that in 1982 r the development of an improved model of the Su-27, the Su-27M fighter, was launched. In the context of this, the commission members did not understand why it was necessary to continue the development of a promising deck-based aircraft based on the original Su-27, because this would lead to the emergence of an aircraft with lower performance characteristics. Accordingly, as a result of the review of the Su-27K conceptual design, representatives of the customer’s commission demanded an increase in the aircraft’s combat potential. But the leadership of the Sukhoi Design Bureau was able to explain and defend its position.

The fact is that the "sukhovtsy" offered to work on the deck fighter split into two stages. At first, it was necessary to “accustom” the aircraft to the deck, keeping its capabilities at the level of the Su-27: this solution would allow, according to the designers, to ensure the delivery of the first production Su-27K by the end of the 80-s. At the same time, the development of the deck aircraft based on the Su-27M is a long business, the terms of which could easily be "shifted to the right" by the difficulties of finishing the latest equipment, and in this case the Su-27K serial deliveries could be significantly delayed. But after all the new weapons are “run-in” on the Su-27, nothing can prevent them from being introduced on the modification of the deck Su-27K - this can be done quite quickly. With such a reasoning, the commission agreed and a compromise solution was reached - Su-27K are created on the basis of Su-27, but at the same time they get the ability to use uncontrollable weapon - free-fall bombs and Nurs.

Accordingly, the main changes of the Su-27K in comparison with the prototype consisted in the implementation of "carrier-specific" specifics:

1. The AL-31FX3 engines were developed and installed on the aircraft - they differed from the Su-27 production engines with an increased 12 800 kgf engine (for the AL-31F - 12 500 kgf), which new engines developed in the short-term, special mode, during takeoff of the aircraft or at extraordinary go-around;

2. Improved wing bearing properties due to an increase in its area (by about 10%) and its mechanization - the new remote control system was completely electrified. At Su-27, it was partially built on rigid wiring and power boosters;

3. The landing gear has been improved and strengthened for landing on the deck; a landing hook is provided with which the hook is made for the aero-finisher;

4. To reduce the size of the aircraft during storage in the hangar or on the flight deck, a folding wing was developed, as well as folding tail, because otherwise it would have stood for the dimensions of the folded wings;

5. A special anti-corrosion coating was introduced to operate the aircraft in a salty sea climate;

6. Special aerobatic equipment was installed to drive and land the aircraft on the deck, as well as the observation and sight system was upgraded to interact with the ship’s radio electronic systems;

Of course, the list of innovations did not end there, and the aircraft received, perhaps, not essential for naval aviation aircraft, but very useful innovations, such as the air refueling system and the landing strip (front horizontal tail). It must be said that GIP was planned to be used even on the Su-27, but it did not work out, but on the Su-27K everything was possible. As a result of the use of PGO (and the new remote control system), the Su-27K greatly won in aerodynamic quality, i.e. - in maneuverability, and in addition (and this turned out to be a pleasant surprise) received an increase in the maximum lift force of the aircraft.

At the same time, airborne radar equipment, aiming complex, optical-location station, etc. remained the same as on the Su-27, only underwent a small adaptation to work on the sea. Perhaps the only significant innovation was the increase in suspension points from 10 to 12, which made it possible to increase the ammunition load, but that, in general, was all.

The first flight of the Su-27K made 17 August 1987 g.

MiG-29



Originally MMP them. A.I. Mikoyan went the same way as the Sukhoy Design Bureau and assumed to create a carrier-based aircraft based on the serial MiG-29. But, just like the Sukhoi Design Bureau, in 1982, the Mikoyan citizens began work on designing an improved version of the MiG-29 - the MiG-29М. It must be said that the differences between the MiG-29M and the initial MiG-29 were so great that it was fit to talk about the creation of a new aircraft. MiG-29M should have received:

1. Modified glider. At the same time in the glider MiG-29М it was supposed to use a new aluminum-lithium alloy and composite materials, and also to abandon riveted joints in favor of welded ones. All this not only reduced the mass of the structure, but also made it possible to use the internal volume to place the fuel completely (previously it could not be done, because it was impossible to seal all the riveted seams). The supply of fuel for the new aircraft was to increase by 1500 l .;

2. Analog-digital electrical remote control system, which allows to implement the concept of longitudinal static instability of the aircraft - contrary to popular belief, the original serial MiG-29 (and Su-27) did not have this quality;

3. The new RD-33K engine equipped with a digital electronic-hydromechanical automatic control system. The RD-33, installed on the MiG-29, used a hydroelectronic control system with an analogue limiter controller;

4. The new C-29M weapons control system (SUV-29М), the basis of which should have been composed of a new pulse-Doppler radar H010 and a new optical radar station OLS-M;

5. The significantly increased range of used ammunition, with the maximum combat load increased from 2 000 kg in MiG-29 (9-12) to 4 500 kg, the number of suspension points increased from 6 to 9.

And these are only the main differences between the MiG-29М and the main version. On the list of everything else, including the new station warning of radiation, a more modern HUD, CRT monitors in the cockpit, etc., etc. this article simply does not have enough space.

Without a doubt, the MiG-29M was a machine whose combat potential was almost multiple of that of the first series of the MiG-29. If Su-27, Su-27K, MiG-29 were 4-generation machines, then MiG-29М actually became the “4 +” generation. But the development of such a machine confronted the Mikoyan designers, at times, a more difficult task than the one that their colleagues and rivals from the Sukhoi Design Bureau were solving. While the latter simply adapted Su-27, which is in a very high degree of readiness (started operating in 1985), to the deck, then MMP them. A.I. Mikoyan, in essence, was to create a new aircraft, a bit like the silhouette of an old one, and at the same time make on its basis the marine version of this aircraft.

The first flight of the MiG-29K (tail number 311) took place on 23 June 1988.

Yak-141



The creation of the Yak-141, alas, has become one of the saddest stories of national military aviation. As we said above, VTOL was seriously engaged in our country in 1967, and since then D.F. Ustinov did not leave hope for the emergence of a competitive vertical fighter takeoff and landing. But years went by, and the efforts of the Yakovlev Design Bureau did not lead to success: at the same time, views on the use of VTOL aircraft changed, therefore the TTT (tactical and technical requirements) on the aircraft was periodically adjusted. A number of supporters of the Yakovlev Design Bureau called such changes the reason for the deadlines in the creation of the Yak-141, but here, obviously, the cart was put in front of the horse: in no case at the time of the change of the TTT of the Yakovlev Design Bureau could not demonstrate the prototype, at least somewhat corresponding to the previous TTT. So it was in the period we are describing - in 1977, the Government once again entrusts Yakovlevs to create a VTOL supersonic fighter, but until 1980, it was hardly possible to determine the type of its propulsion system. The choice was between a single, with one lift-marching engine modeled on the "Harrier" or a combination, like the Yak-38. In 1979, we developed a conceptual design with a single power unit, submitted it to the commission and ... based on the results of the review, we decided to create a conceptual design with a combined power unit. Therefore, yes, in 1980, the TTT was once again corrected, but you need to understand that the work on the aircraft at that time was at a stage that completely excluded the delivery of the car according to the initial TTT for state tests in 1982.
In accordance with the new TTT (adjustments were made to it in subsequent years), the plane was supposed to be a multi-purpose, that is, a “vertical-lift” similarity to the MiG-29, while it was necessary to ensure a shortened takeoff by takeoff of the 120-130 m, take-off from the springboard and landing short mileage, as well as the use of outboard fuel tanks. In 1984, two more important events for the Yak-41 occurred. DF died Ustinov, Minister of Defense, a powerful supporter of aviation VTOL, and retired A.S. Yakovlev - GA was appointed lead designer for the Yak-141. Matveyev.

The first prototype of the aircraft appeared in 1985 g, and in the next, 1986, its bench tests begin. At the same time, another Government Decree issued with instructions to develop a VTOLS supersonic fighter, now it should be submitted to state tests for 1988. But even these deadlines (traditionally) were frustrated. 21 has already passed a year since the VTOLP fighter aircraft was mentioned in a government decree for the first time, but it was not so presented at the GSI. It was at this time that the Yak-141 received its designation (before that it was called Yak-41).

The works, however, still moved forward - 9 in March 1987 of the Yak-141 made the first flight (with horizontal takeoff and landing), in 1990 g - for the first time carried out vertical takeoff and landing.

TAKR tests

By the time when the technical condition of the ship allowed to proceed with the flight from its deck, strictly speaking, no aircraft has officially started flight testing. However, at the initiative of MP Simonov, in 1988, it was decided to try the Su-27K on the deck of the ship. With a similar proposal came out and OKB. A.M. Mikoyan, and a similar resolution was obtained for the MiG-29K. There is no doubt that if the Yakovlev Design Bureau could do the same, they would have done so, but the problem was that as of 1988-1989. the Yakovlevists simply did not have a plane that could be put on deck - the Yak-141 was not corny for this. However, I must say that at least in 1988 g the choice in favor of Su, MiG or Yak has not yet been made, while the “favorite” at that time, perhaps, should have been considered MiG-29K - the MAP board was inclined towards it, due to its smaller size and, consequently, the ability to staff the TAKR air group with a large number of machines.

TAKR "Tbilisi" for the first time departed from the 21 October 1989 berth, and did it without the mandatory prior demagnetization and docking, as well as without a number of systems in which in another case no one would allow the ship to move away from the wall. But the tests of the aircraft were extremely important and the high authorities gave their “go-ahead” to the exit.

And now, on 13.46 1 in November 1989, for the first time in the history of the Russian Navy, a horizontal take-off and landing aircraft Su-27K (onboard No.39), piloted by test pilot V.G., landed on the ship's deck. Pugachev.

Su-33, MiG-29K and Yak-141. Battle for deck

That same landing


Behind him, the 15.11 successfully landed the MiG-29 (airborne No. 311) under the control of TS. Aubakirova. And a little later, in 16.48, T.O. Aubakirov carried out the first ever springboard take-off from the TAKR deck - MiG-29K did not disappoint, it all worked properly.

The flight test flight cycle of the MiG-29K and Su-27K was carried out for 20 days - during this time the aircraft made 227 flights and made 35 landings (of course, some flights were conducted from land aerodromes). At the same time, the Su-27K landed on the TKR deck 20 times, the MiG-29K - 13, and the Su-25UTG - 2 times. And then the TAKR returned to the factory.

Flying from the deck resumed with the start of state tests of the ship, on which 1 August 1990 r was launched by the TKR Tbilisi and which continued until October 4, when the huge ship returned to the plant to eliminate the comments and revise the mechanisms. At the same time, the TAKR received the next, fourth name “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov” (before this, the ship was consistently called Riga, Leonid Brezhnev, and Tbilisi). During the state tests, 454 flight was performed by various aircraft, including Su-27K, MiG-29K, Su-25UTG, Ka-27, Ka-29 and Ka-31 helicopters. During this period, the first night take-off and landing on TAKR (MiG-29 under the control of AN Kvochura) were performed.

In 1991 g, the flights were resumed: at that time the TAKR was still in the Black Sea, it went north only on December 1 1991. And finally, on September 26, 1991 r landed the Yak-141 on the ship.

So on the deck of the Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov were three fighters of various classes - a heavy fighter, a multipurpose light fighter and a VTOL fighter. Surprisingly, but a fact: at that time each of them could claim to be the best in the world - in its class, of course, but not only among the sea, but also among the "land" Air Force planes. Moreover, each of them was created in a special way - the Sukhoi Design Bureau adapted the serial Su-27 to the deck with minimal design additions by creating an excellent generation 4 aircraft, the Mikoyan Design Bureau took a “step into the future” based on the existing model by building not even 4-e, but “4 +” generation, and the Yakovlev Design Bureau in general created “a wonderful miracle, a marvel”, nothing like that in the world existed.

It must be said that the creation of a decked-flight aircraft is a very complicated matter, and it is not surprising that serious accidents have fallen to the share of aircraft of all three design bureaus. So, 11 July 1991, the remote control system failed on the serial Su-27K (T-10K-8), as a result of which the plane crashed, fortunately T. Apakidze, who piloted it, managed to eject and went without casualties. In September (inaccurately) the omission of the MiG-29K pilot led to a serious aircraft crash — by landing the aircraft on the deck, with the engines running, the pilot tried to remove the landing gear. And although he immediately corrected his mistake, the hydraulic cylinders and chassis exhaust pipes were disabled - the plane had to be “handed over for repair”. And 5 of the same October, 1991 G crashed the Yak-141 - due to an error in piloting the aircraft boarded “roughly”, with high vertical speed. From this landing gear struck the fuel tank and started a fire, which, however, was extinguished quickly and without consequences for the ship.

As you know, in the end, it was decided to adopt the Su-27K, which had been renamed Su-33 by that time. In various publications, the reasons for this decision are highlighted in different ways - someone claims that Su-33 won "in fair combat" because of the best performance characteristics, someone, on the contrary, believes that the excellent MiG-29K and / or Yak-141 turned out to be victims of the undercover intrigues of the Sukhoi Design Bureau. Often you have to read that the Yak-141 accident became a pretext for winding down the VTOL aircraft program as a whole, sometimes the same is said about the MiG-29K.

However, most likely, the reasons of those who made the final decision were much more prosaic. In 1991, the greatest tragedy of our time took place - the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Despite the fact that the Russian Federation remained the largest and strongest among the “fragments” of the USSR, its economy was in a very pitiable state. In other words, at that time not the most effective from a military point of view, but the cheapest solutions were required, and here the Su-33 was out of competition.

Most likely, the Su-33, being a heavy fighter, cost more than the MiG-29K, but the fact is that the ultramodern at that time MiG-29М, on the basis of which the MiG-29K was made, almost entirely consisted of new equipment that should still be brought to condition, and then organize its serial release. At the same time, the Su-33 equipment was almost a copy of the serial units mastered by industry and their production could not cause any difficulties. As of 1991, the plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur has already begun the serial construction of the Su-33, at the same time, the MiG-29K existed only in two copies, and the third was only ready for 60%. At the same time, the overwhelming part of the tests was conducted by the firstborn of this type, the MiG-29K with the tail number 311, on which a significant part of the aircraft’s standard equipment and weapons was not installed. Only the second copy of the MiG-29K, onboard №312, received a complete set, but it was just being tested. If the board №311 made 313 flights before the accident (and seven - after), then the board №312 - only 35.

The refusal of the MiG-29M / MiG-29K program, without any doubt, caused enormous damage to the national navy - the Air Force and Navy lost an excellent "light" fighter. But, in fairness, it should be said that in the conditions of tough financial restrictions of the Russian Federation, it was more correct to rely on heavy fighters, and they were engaged in the Sukhoi Design Bureau. As a matter of fact, our country did not have the funds for them either - although in parallel with the Su-33, the Air Force received the Su-30, but in extremely limited quantities. That is, in fact, the country did not even have money to ensure the normal functioning of one design bureau and the purchase of its products - there was no sense in “smearing” these completely inadequate funds on the MiG-29М / MiG-29К.

Against this background, all the arguments about the Yak-141 simply lose their meaning. This aircraft was in an even earlier stage of creation than the MiG-29M / MiG-29K. And although in his class he was definitely ahead of the rest of the planet (mostly due to the fact that almost no other VTOL aircraft was on the planet except us), but of course he could not become a full-fledged replacement of the heavy and light fighter aviation of the country. At the same time, it could be further developed only by “letting the world through” both the Sukhov Design Bureau and the Mikoyan Design Bureau.

It is impossible to say that accidents caused the termination of work on the MiG-29K and Yak-141 - if the leadership of Sukhoi tried to do this, they would immediately be pointed out to the just-lost Su-33, here all three design bureaus were approximately in equal position. As for the cover-up struggle, it was undoubtedly present, but how could it be otherwise? After all, the three listed design offices competed with each other. And there is no doubt that the Yakovlev Design Bureau and MiG were to some extent weakened by 1991 - Yakovlev himself had retired by that time, and his followers simply did not have projects on which they could put together a name. At the same time, at the very beginning of the deck tests, the chief designer of the MiG-29K MR. Waldenberg came down with a heart attack, and the health of General Designer R.A. Belyakov also did not allow him to arrive in the Crimea, but the high representatives of the Sukhova design bureau were there, and this, of course, could not but play its role. Nevertheless, according to the author of this article, the fate of the Su-33, MiG-29K and Yak-141 was determined not by a thorough analysis of their performance characteristics or the intrigues of the designers, but by the forced savings on the country's armed forces.

But what would happen if the Russian Federation was not so limited in financial resources? Which fighter best responded to the tasks assigned to the Soviet TAKR air groups?

Продолжение следует ...
Author:
360 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. NEXUS
    NEXUS April 18 2018 15: 14
    +5
    But the Golden Eagle then the SU-47 at first thought like a deck ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 18 2018 15: 21
      +3
      Quote: NEXUS
      But the Golden Eagle then the SU-47 at first thought like a deck ...

      Well, yes:)
      1. Kibb
        Kibb April 18 2018 16: 22
        +1
        Then they said that it would never go into the series, but was planned as a deck
    2. Snakebyte
      Snakebyte April 18 2018 15: 27
      +3
      Quote: NEXUS
      But the Golden Eagle then the SU-47 at first thought like a deck ...

      In fact, at first the customer was the Air Force, only after the topic was closed in 1988, the Navy began funding.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        April 18 2018 21: 23
        0
        Quote: Snakebyte
        In fact, at first the customer was the Air Force, only after the topic was closed in 1988, the Navy began financing

        I could be wrong, but in my opinion there some serious work went under the auspices of the Navy. But it is not exactly.
        1. Flyer_64
          Flyer_64 April 19 2018 13: 05
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Quote: Snakebyte
          In fact, at first the customer was the Air Force, only after the topic was closed in 1988, the Navy began financing

          I could be wrong, but in my opinion there some serious work went under the auspices of the Navy. But it is not exactly.

          You are mistaken that the fleet has not even formulated TK. After the failure of the Air Force KB itself proposed a ship option
    3. Kyzmich
      Kyzmich April 18 2018 20: 08
      +3
      Ohhh very big doubts that the "Golden Eagle" was planned as a deck.
      This craft was purely experimental to test the reverse sweep in the aspect of super-modernity.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS April 18 2018 20: 13
        +2
        Quote: Kyzmich
        Ohhh very big doubts that the "Golden Eagle" was planned as a deck.

        The project was ready at the end of the 80s, but the growing economic problems in the country almost put an end to it. Fortunately, the navy became interested in the fighter; admirals planned to equip heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers with new machines.

        One of the options for deck Golden Eagle ...
        1. Kyzmich
          Kyzmich April 18 2018 21: 03
          0
          The period 70-80s is a period of breaking the concepts of fighter jets.
          What was in terms of fighter planes by the year 80?
          Mig 23-27.
          The concept of variable wing geometry (sweeps) has not shown itself very well.
          And in the 80s, a revolution just happened with the advent of the Su 27 and MiG29.
          And before that, the fleet had nothing to offer on deck.
          Therefore, "interest" may have been.
          But not more.
  2. Snakebyte
    Snakebyte April 18 2018 15: 21
    +5
    I must say that the PGO was planned to be used on the Su-27, but it didn’t work out, but on the Su-27K everything worked out.
    Not certainly in that way. PGO is a "forcedly brilliant" decision. The Su-27 should initially be statically unstable, but the subcontractors did not meet the weight requirements - the radar turned out to be heavier than the design one.
    On the Su-27, the stabilizer was forced to give a constant angle of 5 degrees. And in later versions, PGO was prescribed.
    However, the Su-35 abandoned it, apparently restored the weight balance.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 18 2018 15: 33
      0
      Quote: Snakebyte
      Not certainly in that way. PGO is a "forcedly brilliant" decision.

      yes, but they could introduce it on the Su-27, such ideas were
      1. Snakebyte
        Snakebyte April 18 2018 15: 50
        +2
        The situation with PGO was discussed in detail in an article about the Su-27 in a magazine. Or "Aviation and Cosmonautics" or another, I don’t remember offhand.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 18 2018 16: 25
          +1
          Quote: Snakebyte
          The situation with PGO was discussed in detail in an article about the Su-27 in a magazine.

          No one doubts that PGO is a forced decision, all of you speak correctly and I do not argue with you. But at the same time, the PGO turned out to be quite a useful and interesting solution at that time, since the growth of aerodynamic quality + lift = that same grafts.
    2. Kyzmich
      Kyzmich April 18 2018 20: 11
      +1
      What does a forced decision mean?
      What is forced?
      Su 33 integrated triplane
      Su 27 integrated biplane.
      And what is there with the radar-they have one.
      Triplane had the best take-off performance.
      Probably worse on landing.
      There is no clarity so far.
      For this reason, the duck scheme did not fit on the deck anywhere in the world.
      Although there have been attempts.
      1. Snakebyte
        Snakebyte April 18 2018 22: 15
        +1
        Quote: Kyzmich
        What does a forced decision mean?
        What is forced?

        Forcibly put PGO to make the glider statically unstable.
        The Su-27 was originally planned this way, but the overweight radar moved the centering forward.
        Yes, PGO turned out to be a good solution, but it was subsequently abandoned anyway.
        1. Kyzmich
          Kyzmich April 18 2018 22: 34
          +1
          generally strange.
          Su 27 and Su 33 have the same BRLS-RLPK-27
          Because of the peculiarities of the PGO, they were given the formation of a vortex during takeoff with a large pitch angle.
      2. goose
        goose April 1 2019 10: 25
        0
        Quote: Kyzmich
        For this reason, the duck scheme did not fit on the deck anywhere in the world.

        But what about Rafal and Tejas?
  3. arturpraetor
    arturpraetor April 18 2018 15: 36
    +2
    And may srach begin laughing
    1. Snakebyte
      Snakebyte April 18 2018 15: 51
      +1
      I see no reason.
      Yak was not ready, MiG, with all its advantages, suffered from unreliable engines. There were no alternatives to the Su-27K at that time.
      1. arturpraetor
        arturpraetor April 18 2018 15: 52
        +5
        Yes, I’m not talking about this - the article is excellent, in general, everything is simple and clear stated ... But when the article combines Russia, aircraft carriers and carrier-based aviation - srach is almost inevitable wassat
      2. Hole puncher
        Hole puncher April 18 2018 17: 25
        +2
        Quote: Snakebyte
        MiG, with all its advantages, suffered from unreliable engines

        The MiG-29 K required refinement, because it was actually a new machine, which the sailors were waiting for. Simonov, using rather strong ties in the MO, shoved the useless Su-33, which did not fit the TTZ at all, promising in the future on its base both the PLO, and the AWAC, and the drummer ... Kuznetsov was created specifically for the MiG-29 K and Yak-141 , Su-33 was imposed by Simonov.
      3. YELLOWSTONE
        YELLOWSTONE April 18 2018 23: 43
        0
        under socialism, unprepared aircraft were not allowed to fly from ships, they were first tested at airfields
  4. Kyzmich
    Kyzmich April 18 2018 16: 38
    +3
    Quote
    It has already been 21 years since the first time an VTOL fighter was mentioned in a government decree, but it was never represented at the State Customs Service
    In 1978, TK had only been formulated and in 1987 already took off.
    Why drive the desa?
    And I do not remember that the Yak 41 would be sharpened under a springboard.
    Why is he doing this?
    For him, even starting positions weren’t there and couldn’t be, so as not to burn the deck.
    What nonsense?
    There was a shortened run-up run.
    But he could not start from a springboard position due to the reason of working in the deck of PD engines.
    And the refractory coating there simply wasn’t.
    The author lies in a board!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 18 2018 16: 57
      +8
      Quote: Kyzmich
      In 1978, TK had only been formulated and in 1987 already took off.
      Why drive the desa?

      Firstly, the desa is nevertheless written with the beech “e”, and secondly, the task of creating the VTOL aircraft fighter was set before the Yakovlev Design Bureau in 1967, but the Yakovlev Design Bureau was constantly frustrated. Therefore, in 1978, TK was delivered ONCE AGAIN.
      Quote: Kyzmich
      And I do not remember that the Yak 41 would be sharpened under a springboard.

      Refresh your memory by reading sources.
      Quote: Kyzmich
      Why is he doing this?

      Because without a springboard, the performance characteristics of the Yak-141 were lower than the baseboard
      Quote: Kyzmich
      For him, even starting positions weren’t there and couldn’t be, so as not to burn the deck.

      Why, before making such categorical statements so erroneously, not try to somehow study the mast? At least at the level of the marine collection, then you would know that on Kuznetsovo there are three runways (10x10 m) designed for vertical landing of the Yak-41, which were laid out with AK-750FM heat-resistant (up to 9 ° C) plates.
      Quote: Kyzmich
      What nonsense?

      Yes, another illiterate hamlo pinned up and smacks nonsense in the comments. And to me - read / answer
      Quote: Kyzmich
      The author lies in a board!

      Teach the materiel, about the shortener :)))))
      1. Kyzmich
        Kyzmich April 18 2018 18: 04
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        You should know that there are three runways (10x10 m) on Kuznetsovo designed for vertical landing of the Yak-41, which were laid out with AK-750FM heat-resistant (up to 9 ° C) plates.

        Well, where are they in his area of ​​the springboard?
        Can you show?
        The task of creating a VTOL fighter was assigned to the Yakovlev Design Bureau in 1967, but the Yakovlev Design Bureau was constantly frustrated. Therefore, in 1978, TK was delivered ONCE AGAIN.
        In 67 g, there was no talk of Yak41
        It was about the Yak36M- (Yak-38)
        On December 27, 1967, the Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR for No.1166-413 was issued on the creation of a light attack aircraft for vertical take-off and landing of the Yak-36M.
        On June 26, 1974, a directive of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR was issued, which officially gave rise to the development of a new VTOL and set a deadline for presenting the finished draft
        On March 30 and April 5, 1978, their requirements for the new machine were presented, respectively, by the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov and Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force Chief Marshal of Aviation Kutakhov [2].
        Hwa to lie.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 18 2018 18: 26
          +3
          Quote: Kyzmich
          Well, where are they in his area of ​​the springboard?

          Why are they in the area of ​​the springboard? The Yak-141 took off with a short take-off run on an airplane, lifting engines are not used. But for the vertical landing - there were runways.
          Quote: Kyzmich
          In 67 g, there was no talk of Yak41
          It was about the Yak36M- (Yak-38)

          And about the further development of the VTOL fighter, which the Yakovlevites successfully failed. We read "Opupei" with the Yak-39. This was not an initiative development :)))
          Quote: Kyzmich
          Hwa lie

          Pupils...
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. Snakebyte
              Snakebyte April 18 2018 22: 26
              +2
              Quote: Kyzmich
              But Lockheed riveted his Fy11 for 35 years - is this normal?

              Fine. For 11 years, received 3 aircraft.
              In the case of the Su-34, for 20 years they received half the plane - only a bomber remained from the fighter-bomber.
              1. YELLOWSTONE
                YELLOWSTONE April 18 2018 23: 49
                0
                3a 25 and so far only one (F-35A) yes
                1. Snakebyte
                  Snakebyte April 19 2018 08: 24
                  0
                  Left behind from life.
                  Design tests of all options are completed.
                  A and B reached operational readiness (i.e. taken into service). C will reach initial readiness this year.
                  Quote: YELLOWSTONE
                  3a 25

                  Counted from the future? The development contract was signed in November 1996. 21 years old.
                  And if you also count for the Su-34, the development of the T-10B began in June 1986. 30+ years.
                  1. YELLOWSTONE
                    YELLOWSTONE April 19 2018 08: 30
                    +1
                    operational generally follows the initial,
                    operational show that 2/3 of the program (with both ship) will be unsuccessful, and with the F-35C option so much that it is better not to touch on the topic laughing
                    started trying to do in 1992-1993
                    1. Snakebyte
                      Snakebyte April 19 2018 08: 39
                      0
                      Quote: YELLOWSTONE
                      operational generally follows the initial

                      Yes, after option C reaches initial readiness, the next step will be to achieve operational.
                      Quote: YELLOWSTONE
                      operational show that 2/3 of the program (with both ship) will fail

                      In the fantasies of pseudo-patriots?
                      It would be unfortunate, they would not be accepted into service.
                      Quote: YELLOWSTONE
                      started trying to do in 1992-1993

                      Only it was not an F-35. So you can generally record at the beginning of the work the first experiments with verticals in general.
                      1. YELLOWSTONE
                        YELLOWSTONE April 19 2018 08: 47
                        +1
                        if you abandon both at once, there will be too much scandal even for the Lokhid and the Pentagon laughing
                        it was the X-35 which after the tender simply changed its name
                  2. Kyzmich
                    Kyzmich April 22 2018 08: 45
                    +1
                    You probably forgot that in the 90s the country was in a coma?
                    How do we have Ivanushka without memory love to grin their rotten teeth here
                    And the F-35 ABC is, although different aircraft, but in fact it is a modification of one. Well, if you take an objective approach to the topic, then the time of the start of work on the F-35 is the time of the beginning of the JSF-1995 program; the airframe itself was ready in 1997
                    1. YELLOWSTONE
                      YELLOWSTONE April 22 2018 09: 18
                      0
                      in 1992-1993 they received all the data and began to equip Russian specialists yes
                      1. Kyzmich
                        Kyzmich April 22 2018 09: 47
                        +1
                        At one time (1962), the FX program was launched in the United States.
                        And an important role in the victory in it was played by the F-15's appearance, very similar to our MiG 25.
                        The guys just used a proven technique.
                        The Russian Yak141 flies is a strong argument.
                        Even the fact that the Harrier scheme has been tested for many years has not served as an argument in favor of a choice.
                        But the Boeing, with its ridicule, the X32-copy of Harrier, lost.
                        By the way, I’ll add that it has become noticeable that all references to the cooperation of Lockheed and KB Yakovlev are deleted from the Internet.
                        Already removed from the wik.
          2. Kyzmich
            Kyzmich April 18 2018 19: 49
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Why are they in the area of ​​the springboard? The Yak-141 took off with a short take-off run on an airplane, lifting engines are not used. But for the vertical landing - there were runways.

            That is, to sit down he dragged two PDs in his belly, burned 20% of the fuel, instead of just attaching a landing hook?
            Aren't you funny yet?
            Storyteller.
            Schoolchildren and tell this nonsense.
          3. Kyzmich
            Kyzmich April 18 2018 20: 44
            +4
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And about the further development of the VTOL fighter, which the Yakovlevites successfully failed. We read "Opupei" with the Yak-39. This was not an initiative development :)))

            What is there "opupey"?
            And what did they fail there?
            What do you always carry.
            Here and there you failed?
            Actuals are absolutely true. Having information on Harrier2
            What was the AV8A?
            The combat radius of this cuttlefish with 1 ton and half-empty tanks is already ..... 90 km
            Chef must do something!
            And since 1970 work has begun to boil))
            Ours carefully watched this circus, were in no hurry to remake their Yak 38.
            By 1985, finally managed to give birth to the AV8B layout
            And having drunk money, they were finally able to issue a prototype in 1980.
            A thicker carbon wing (prices are not small!) Stuffed more kerosene.
            True, it did not add up.
            But this is nothing for the ship !?
            You understand!
            Oh! Finally, the dutiks have been removed from the tips
            And then he kept trying to drop the poor thing overboard.
            And what is the output?
            The combat radius of hellishly increased - it became as much as 200km with 1 ton of cargo!
            True, they say that beyond 170 km it did not work out.
            By 1985, it was finally commissioned.
            It was at this time that the Yakovlevites closed the topic with Yak 39. seeing this shit.
            Well done boys.
            All done right.
            And two years later they lifted the Yak 41.
            1. Kyzmich
              Kyzmich April 22 2018 08: 55
              0
              Quote: Kyzmich
              By 1985, finally managed to give birth to the AV8B layout

              amendment 1975
          4. Kyzmich
            Kyzmich April 22 2018 09: 23
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Why are they in the area of ​​the springboard? The Yak-141 took off with a short take-off run on an airplane, lifting engines are not used. But for the vertical landing - there were runways.

            Quote: Kyzmich
            For him, even starting positions weren’t there and couldn’t be, so as not to burn the deck.

            There for the smart it is in the area of ​​the springboard.
        2. Kyzmich
          Kyzmich April 18 2018 18: 52
          +2
          In general, I have doubts that the Yak41 was planned as part of the TAKR Kuznetsov air wing.
          The simple question is, how can he sit down, for example, in the area of ​​aerofinisher?
          It turns out he could take off and land only after taking the third position on the corner deck and in the stern area, and further away from the Cortik launcher
          My doubts are confirmed by the fact that data on the Yak41 as part of the TAKR Kuznetsov air wing disappeared from the "vykipediya".
          You can also take a look at the hypothetical planning of the start of Takr Ulyanovsk
          Pay attention to where the launch positions of the Yak 41 are.
          There are no starting positions in the area of ​​the springboard.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            April 18 2018 19: 04
            +3
            Quote: Kyzmich
            My doubts are confirmed by the fact that data on the Yak41 as part of the TAKR Kuznetsov air wing disappeared from the "vykipediya".

            Listen, if your knowledge is based on Wikipedia, then bother to master at least the wunderwaffe (I'm talking about the site, not about weapons) before writing comments of "devastating" content.
            Murzilka of Ulyanovsk (performed extremely illiterate) is not impressive at all. Do you even understand that you brought a picture of a person very far from the fleet?
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. Scaffold
                Scaffold April 20 2018 10: 03
                0
                VUS is a military specialty. So VUS is not "your own" but "your own," if that.
                1. icant007
                  icant007 April 22 2018 17: 20
                  0
                  In practice, it is used as a masculine word. VUS is him, the military specialty is already her. wink
                  1. Scaffold
                    Scaffold April 22 2018 21: 56
                    0
                    In the Chukchi language - probably. But not in Russian. We have everywhere and the word "couple" is used in the genitive case: "I have a couple of tips for you." I’m not going to repeat after ignoramuses.
                    1. Golovan Jack
                      Golovan Jack April 22 2018 22: 01
                      +1
                      Quote: Scaffold
                      We have everywhere and the word "couple" is used in the genitive case: "I have a couple of tips for you"

                      belay
                      For some reason, it reminded the immortal:
                      Spin the cudgel ...
                      1. Scaffold
                        Scaffold April 23 2018 07: 37
                        0
                        Therefore, the immortal. wassat
                    2. icant007
                      icant007 April 23 2018 08: 24
                      0
                      Yes, in our army they mostly talk on mate-math, what are the rules wink
                      1. YELLOWSTONE
                        YELLOWSTONE April 23 2018 13: 22
                        0
                        as if such a serviceman Kuzmich, who does not understand anything in the sausage, sits in the bathhouse and you can use jackets
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 19 2018 09: 16
              +2
              In general, that would be clear - an unknown "artist" managed to place the planes so that they overlap the landing strip in three rows. No one will ever do this in their right mind, since in order to ensure an emergency landing of the aircraft it will be necessary to pull them away, do not understand where.
              Alpha and omega aircraft carrier business - during takeoff and landing operations, the landing strip NEVER closes. An exception to the US aircraft carriers is in one case - when you need to raise a very large air group, then there may be 2-3 aircraft on the landing plane that will take off immediately behind those that are on the catapults
              1. Kyzmich
                Kyzmich April 19 2018 19: 22
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Alpha and omega aircraft carrier - during takeoff and landing operations, the landing strip NEVER closes

                Who told you this nonsense?
                What are you making up on the go?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 20 2018 00: 21
                  +3
                  Quote: Kyzmich
                  Who told you this nonsense?
                  What are you making up on the go?

                  What, Wikipedia did not write about this? Ay-yai-yay ... Listen, sailor, or whatever you like. You served in BS5, excellent. But do you even understand that what you learned and saw there is 0,5% of the history of naval aviation? What do you know about, say, American AB? What do you know about serving them? And what, in fact, do you know about the ship on which you served? What they told you, and the fact that he himself asil on Wikipedia? So this is not enough. Start with Aircraft Carrier Flight and Hangar Deck Fire Protection: History and Current Status
                  Or try turning on your head and think for yourself which alternative-gifted one will fly without being able to provide a quick landing
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      April 21 2018 10: 36
                      +4
                      Quote: Kyzmich
                      Once again, call your soy VUS?

                      But I don’t have it - I didn’t serve it. AND?
                      Quote: Kyzmich
                      If you think that I’ve known nothing more than 40 years in my life, you obviously have problems with your psyche.

                      Court of comments, with your psyche you have problems, not mine
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        April 21 2018 12: 00
                        +3
                        Kyzmich,
                        Quote: Kyzmich
                        Then, what can you know about the service on the ship?

                        Little. It can be said that nothing. Only here is bad luck - I do not position myself as a connoisseur in this matter :)))
                        But ABOUT SHIPS, I know a lot, much more than you.
                        Quote: Kyzmich
                        And hw here to throw tantrums.

                        Kuzmich, you are throwing tantrums here alone.
                        Quote: Kyzmich
                        I lied here with three boxes.
                        Now you're trying to have a break.

                        Well, defeat me with your counterargument, since it’s so smart. Only you are not smart, Kuzmich, you are flashy :))) You know that on the Internet you won’t be anything for it,
                        Quote: Kyzmich
                        Dressed warrior

                        Here is a throat and you fight. Well, you jump off the topic whenever it comes to specific issues and start yelling about my VUS :)))
                        As for problems with the head - you can say so, I have problems with my eyes, and they are in my head
                  2. Kyzmich
                    Kyzmich April 22 2018 09: 12
                    +1
                    you
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Listen, sailor, or whatever you like.


                    When, what kind of regular genius starts a conversation about the fleet, I always wonder what kind of VUS is.
                    A man who served in the navy to argue with the “boots” -do not respect yourself.
                    Especially to argue with a disguised warrior like you.
                    From yours and your like bullshit on the Internet will soon not be breathed.
                    Hollow Nuts.
                2. Kyzmich
                  Kyzmich April 22 2018 09: 29
                  0
                  Still ,
                  Runway on an aircraft carrier with a catapult -60-90m
                  A landing 180m
                  But the length of the deck is more than 300m.
                  This is so for your mental activity.
                  Maybe it's even clever that you scribble the thread.
              2. Kyzmich
                Kyzmich April 22 2018 08: 59
                0
                Eccentric, didn’t it occur to you that the picture just shows a diagram of the possible arrangement of the aircraft?
                Where and how can stand at the start?
                No?
                Hysteria for any reason, instead of thinking about what nonsense you are writing here.
      2. find2312
        find2312 April 18 2018 21: 43
        +4
        [quote = Andrey from Chelyabinsk]
        Why, before making such categorical statements so erroneously, not try to somehow study the mast? At least at the level of the marine collection - then you would know that on Kuznetsovo there are three runways (10x10 m) designed for vertical landing of the Yak-41, which were laid out with AK-750FM heat-resistant (up to 9 ° C) plates

        By the way, on Kuznetsovo there were two runways (runways) equipped with heat-resistant tiles, there was also a gas pad in the stern, starboard side.
      3. maximghost
        maximghost April 19 2018 01: 20
        +2
        Because without a springboard, the performance characteristics of the Yak-141 were lower than the baseboard

        Why exactly without a springboard? MB without WRC, in any form?
    2. Kyzmich
      Kyzmich April 18 2018 17: 11
      +3
      Next
      Yak 39 did not do, look at what shit came from the "friends" of "Harrier 2"
      And why write nonsense comparing Yak38 with SU27?
      Yak 38 according to TK -light deck assaultbecause
      Moreover, vertical take-off and landing.
      At the time of its creation, it was practically no different from ordinary deck aircraft of this weight.
      the same Vought F-8 Crusader with 8 bombs (1500kg) had a combat radius of ..... 117km
      A-4A Skyhawk
      Deck Etandar
      You can add here all sorts of "alpha .jets"
      Radar nebylo?
      Well, there were few of her on any attack aircraft
      Su 25, for example, does not have a radar, and the A-10 also has an HO?
      What for write this nonsense?
      And to compare is not comparable?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        April 18 2018 18: 01
        +1
        Bother first to answer what you were told above. Then I, so be it, will answer the nonsense that you wrote here
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 18 2018 18: 36
          +4
          Well, I promised - I answer.
          Quote: Kyzmich
          And why write nonsense comparing Yak38 with SU27?

          Because the tasks for the TAKR were "cut" precisely in the calculation of an adequate wing. There are air defense units and a whole bunch of everything. And the Yak-38 did not answer these tasks from the word "in general"
          "Witnesses of the Yakovlev sect" are unable to understand one simple thing - the fleet needed a ship whose aircraft could fulfill almost the entire range of tasks of naval warfare. Ustinov, who shoved the TAKR with the VTOL aircraft, believed that yet such aviation would appear. Instead, it was "A formidable Yak is flying in the sky. A Yak is on the deck ... of that one."
          But the defenders of the yaks in their repertoire - instead of recognizing the elementary truths, a comparison begins between the Yak-38 and Harrier .. who did not solve the tasks of carrier-based aviation from the word "in general". Well and so on.
          In general, Kuzmich, strain your gyrus and try to introduce yourself as a TAKR commander. You have tasks
          - cover of shipborne formations against air strikes, their anti-submarine and anti-hacking support;
          - ensuring the military stability of strategic missile submarine cruisers in combat patrol areas;
          - ensuring the deployment of submarines;
          - cover for naval missile-carrying, anti-submarine and reconnaissance aircraft in the zone of reach of ship-based fighter aircraft;
          - search and destruction of enemy missile submarines as part of groups of heterogeneous anti-submarine forces;
          - defeat groups of surface ships of the enemy;
          - ensuring the landing of amphibious assault forces.
          And about all this you have the Yak-38. And when you start to ask: "And how will I intercept, for example, attack aircraft under cover of the F-14 Tomcat, if I have neither radar nor long-range air-launched missiles?" then some m will come ... eccentric and say
          Quote: Kyzmich
          Su 25, for example, does not have a radar, and the A-10 also has an HO?

          Will you explain to him that no one posed the task of conquering air supremacy and that their tasks are completely different? So you don’t understand.
          1. Kyzmich
            Kyzmich April 18 2018 19: 10
            +3
            my friend?
            And with what fright did you suddenly attribute the air defense tasks to the light attack aircraft Yak 38?
            From where you dug it.
            You composed it yourself?
            Yak 38 could carry out the interception of PLO and reconnaissance aircraft, such as Nimrod, Orion., Atlantis.
            That's it!
            From where did you bring nonsense here about the rest?
            Along the shore, he could well work in the tasks of covering the sea landing.
            1 ton of bombs is nothing at all.
            We have all the feed and the right waist were overwhelmed by them.
            In addition, he was a carrier of RN-28; RN-40; RN-41.
            Just when you undertake to write, always remember the time that was at that time.
            All over the world then there was oviotage about our "Gyrfalcons" and VTOL aircraft
            Mattresses in all seriousness considered the alteration of their "Spruyens" into similar aircraft carriers.
            The British in all built, though in two less.
            Other countries too. Italy Spain.
            The tasks of covering him were provided by 16 Bazalt anti-ship missiles, and at that time not a single NATO fleet had the means to intercept them.
            His own air defense was quite powerful at that time.
            You reason with the criteria of today.
            From here and all this nonsense from the author.
            You read what was going on with Harier then, and how many years the United States and Britain have sucked into it.
            What would the combat radius he became instead of 90km as much as 170km, like the Yak38))
            1. Kyzmich
              Kyzmich April 18 2018 19: 21
              +1
              From personal archive
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. Kyzmich
                  Kyzmich April 18 2018 22: 15
                  +2
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  The missile defense was set by the TAKR, which I wrote in the commentary. And to solve these problems, the TAKR had only Yak.

                  The Yak did not have 38 air defense tasks.
                  Hwa to lie.
                  It was pointed out that the Yak 38 has the ability to intercept low-speed PLO aircraft and enemy reconnaissance. Actually, like the Su25 attack aircraft, which has P60 in the state of armaments.
                  Air defense was provided to the ship by Buki 611 Storm complex and the near zone two Osa1M air defense systems 8 AKA 630-30mm and two AKA 76
                  Plus the most powerful electronic warfare.
                  At the time of the appearance of Takr “Kiev,” the NATO members had nothing against him, except for bombs. And connecting in the composition and 3-5 ships with Storm complexes, air defense tasks were provided with a margin.
                  1. Kyzmich
                    Kyzmich April 19 2018 21: 00
                    0
                    Comment on the photo.
                    In 79g they dropped In 611 .4K60
                    Fell right to the OSU1M air defense missile system.
                    At the same time, the nasal crane was loading vegetable provisions))
                    Thank God it all ended happily.
                  2. Kyzmich
                    Kyzmich April 19 2018 21: 02
                    0
                    amendment is not Buki and Vedi B-611
                2. The comment was deleted.
                  1. Varna
                    Varna April 19 2018 00: 04
                    +1
                    Quote: Kyzmich
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    This "bike" was born just on the deck, it’s a shame not to know :))) And who and what would be torn off - how brave you are in the internet, and how modest in life :))))

                    With me and the service of my comrades, this bike was not on the ship.
                    I remember about five years ago it was written on Wikipedia that the pilots were poorly fed and they did not eat the poor thing.
                    Removed
                    I would like to look into the eyes of this bitch.

                    There is no doubt that all the bikes in the world are born much after the events and much farther from the places of events and not much by people who are direct participants in the events.
              2. NN52
                NN52 April 18 2018 21: 44
                +2
                Kyzmich

                And what year is the photo and what aircraft carrier?
                That's interesting.
                1. Kyzmich
                  Kyzmich April 18 2018 22: 04
                  +3
                  SZM 79g TAKR "Kiev"
                  1. Kyzmich
                    Kyzmich April 18 2018 22: 24
                    +3
                    The second exercise "Run-79"
                    1. Taoist
                      Taoist April 18 2018 23: 47
                      +2
                      Greetings to a colleague ... Which warhead? Here, too, sometimes I start telling “academics” the practice - they don’t believe it ... They say it doesn’t agree with the “Murzil” ... ;-)
                      1. Kyzmich
                        Kyzmich April 19 2018 00: 20
                        0
                        БЧ5.ЭТД, ЭТГ1.
                      2. Kyzmich
                        Kyzmich April 19 2018 00: 52
                        +2
                        Add.
                        To this day, there are practically no publications on the Internet from the developers themselves on the Yak-38.
                        Moreover, all monographs on the tests and problematic aspects of VTOL disappeared. Moreover, to the direct question to the developers, a link to state secrets!?.
                        The developers themselves are surprised what nonsense they write about the Yak 38 but they have no right to refute.
                        It seems to me that when it became clear that Lockheed could not do the VTOL again, they decided to cover up information on their developments.
                        It turned out (suddenly) that the fan was not at all “cold”, in addition it weighs three times more than a pair of RD41.
                        That the combat radius has not grown.
                        Which is very limited landing weight.
                        Vobschem everything. As with the Yak 41 ... 30 years ago.
                        And electronic gadgets are not an indicator of the flight qualities of an aircraft.
                        Yes, and they become obsolete rapidly.
                  2. Kyzmich
                    Kyzmich April 19 2018 21: 17
                    +1
                    Comment on the first photo
                    This is testing a color spot bombing.
                    Then they nearly bombed the British destroyer. D 88 Glasgow.
                    The first call to him then in 79
                    In 82 he already received a real bomb hit by the Falklands
            2. Varna
              Varna April 18 2018 23: 57
              +2
              [quote = Kyzm
              You reason with the criteria of today.
              From here and all this nonsense from the author.
              )) [/ quote]
              Quite right, absolutely right.
              It is not a question when a person talks about the past (possessing knowledge of the present) calmly, without snobbery and stebism (such as the Yakovlevs sect or hrenaki on the deck, or the keeper of the top mast). There are no sectarians here; there are only lovers of snobs and raised noses.
              Now it’s easy to consider Ustinov’s impenetrable idiot, but if you stick in it and look around, then the decisions will turn out to be quite logical (for those conditions and times) - especially taking into account the now-working f -35. So Ustinov looked far, huh?
              The article is nevertheless interesting, the author has every right: both in his own opinion and in stebism. And we have the right to comment.
              1. Kyzmich
                Kyzmich April 19 2018 00: 28
                +2
                Quote: Varna
                . So Ustinov looked far, huh?

                Well, for some reason the British are doing just that.
                The Hindus are laying a whole series of new Wikrant .. with a springboard!
                There is a question only with AWACS.
                But 280 km sees a helicopter.
                But in modern realities more is not necessary.
                In the presence of satellites.
                And basic AWACS.
                It seems that the third world war is not washing.
                And no one will drive the planes for a thousand kilometers.
                The sense from them there is only to carry a boatload.
                1. goose
                  goose April 1 2019 11: 00
                  0
                  Quote: Kyzmich
                  But 280 km sees a helicopter.
                  But in modern realities more is not necessary.

                  very doubtful since an attack by an outfit of aircraft is built at a distance of more than 350 km from the warrant. With such a range of radar, the moment of construction will be missed, and the warrant will have to fight not with carriers, but with planning bombs, missiles and anti-ship missiles, which is hopeless in today's realities.
                  Recall that the range of planning bombs reaches hundreds of km under good conditions, and 200 km can be flown at an altitude of 11-12 km in 10 minutes at transonic speed.
                  What can an aircraft carrier like Kuznetsov do in 10 minutes? Raise 6 aircraft? The outfit of forces from the American aircraft carrier will be at least 12-18 sides, and each minimum 4 ammunition. To recapture about 50-70 ammunition will be extremely difficult and costly.
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                April 19 2018 09: 19
                +4
                Quote: Varna
                It is not a question when a person talks about the past (possessing knowledge of the present) calmly, without snobbery and stebism (such as the Yakovlevs sect or hrenaki on the deck, or the keeper of the top mast). There are no sectarians here; there are only lovers of snobs and raised noses.

                This is called - do not be rude and will not be rude. With those who are able to lead the discussion correctly and the conversation will be different
                Quote: Varna
                So Ustinov looked far, huh?

                Very far. so far that the Soviet Navy since the late 60s did not have and did not receive sane carrier-based aviation
                Quote: Varna
                The article is nevertheless interesting, the author has every right: both in his own opinion and in stebism

                I'm not particularly joking about the article.
                Quote: Varna
                And we have the right to comment.

                Both on comments and on opinions different from the author. If it still expressed culturally ...
            3. Kyzmich
              Kyzmich April 22 2018 10: 13
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              - cover of shipborne formations against air strikes, their anti-submarine and anti-hacking support;

              On that day, “Kiev” had the most powerful air defense.
              On that day, Kiev was the most powerful PLO ship.
              Especially for the very smart - all air defense systems on ships can operate on airborne and surface targets.
              This is their feature-shooting on the optical sight.
              1. goose
                goose April 1 2019 11: 08
                0
                Quote: Kyzmich
                This is their feature-shooting on the optical sight.

                The firing range of modern gun mounts with a caliber of 114 mm under radar control does not exceed the range of use of the optical sight?
                Those. it can only be used against boats and yachts.
          2. find2312
            find2312 April 18 2018 23: 37
            +1
            But interestingly, the Yak-141, when tested at the Gorshkov (Baku), was supposed to carry out a program of working out shortened take-offs not only in the direction of the corner deck, but also take-offs from the technical position in different directions, even under almost 90 degrees. to the ship’s diametrical plane, this is to say that in the conditions of the Arctic it also happens that the wind blows at a speed of 20 m / s, all modern deck aircraft cannot land with an oncoming flow above the deck of more than 15 m / s, due to braking of the flow behind the stern, and a Yak-141 aircraft can land not only from the stern to the bow, like all modern planes, but also from the bow to the stern, if the ship is turned in the wind when the wind is strong, give way and thus reduce the flow rate above the deck and take planes, in such circumstances, all vaunted Hornites and Superhornes will sit on the deck.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 19 2018 09: 42
              +2
              Quote: find2312
              I mean that in the conditions of the Arctic it also happens that the wind blows at a speed of 20 m / s, all modern deck aircraft cannot land

              20 m / s is 9 points on the Beaufort scale, in such weather no aircraft fly. And RCC, by the way, too
              1. find2312
                find2312 April 19 2018 16: 31
                0
                I wrote to you later in the text about the landing limit of 15 m / s in terms of air flow over the deck, meaning the sum of the wind speed in nature and the speed of the aircraft carrier itself, because if you know the minimum speed of an aircraft carrier for normal rudder operation should be at least 5 knots (2,5 m / s), it turns out that the wind speed in nature is not more than 14 m / s plus the minimum speed of an aircraft carrier, according to the Barents and Norwegian seas, during from October to March, 50% of the time the wind speed reaches 6 points on the Beaufort scale, 30% of the time 7 points (wind up to 17,1 m / s), and it turns out that from 50 to 30% of all time, in the autumn-winter period airplanes such as Superhornet, Su-33 and MiG-27K, will be sky-ready, and aircraft like Yak-141 will fly, because as I wrote above, they can take off and land on the ANC, both in the direction of the bow and in the stern, the restrictions on the rolling of the ship are twice as high for them as for horizontal landing planes, practically UVVP planes can take off like modern helicopters, many videos on landing helicopters on ships in the storm are available on the Internet, so all the advantages of airborne landing aircraft in the polar seas are not worth a damn.
                1. Kyzmich
                  Kyzmich April 19 2018 21: 23
                  0
                  I think this speculation in VTOL is a strong limitation on the roll of the deck.
                  Because of the work of the jet rudders. Maybe today this issue is resolved, I don’t know.
                  1. find2312
                    find2312 April 20 2018 13: 17
                    0
                    I probably embellished a little about the landing of the VTOL aircraft in a storm, but there are congratulations from the US carrier-based aviation pilots to the British on their victory in the Falkland War, it says in particular that in the weather conditions of the South Atlantic, American carrier-based aircraft would not have completed one-third of flights that the British performed on the Harriers, as as Harrier in on-board and especially keel pitching during landing at least twice exceeds the corresponding parameters of the Phantom, especially when performing landing, the Phantom has a limit of keel 1,5 degrees, and on board 2,5.
                    Concerning the roll rudders on the roll, indeed, the first Yak-38 had an insufficient airflow to the jet rudders, later with the installation on the Yak-38M of a more powerful PMD R28V-300, and the introduction of additional control of traction PD, control into the pitch control roll has become effective.
                    1. Kyzmich
                      Kyzmich April 20 2018 22: 44
                      0
                      As far as I know, for this reason, the Yak38 zurubil landing with slipping, excluding the hovering mode.
                      SCM is triggered by the roll not relative to the roll of the deck but relative to the horizon.
                      1. Taoist
                        Taoist April 21 2018 12: 22
                        0
                        More precisely, SCM monitors the angular velocity along the roll and pitch channels.
                    2. Kyzmich
                      Kyzmich April 22 2018 10: 28
                      0
                      Vertical blocks have a roll limit of 3g
                      1. find2312
                        find2312 April 22 2018 22: 55
                        0
                        The landing with slippage was not used in 1989, then the Yak-38M was mainly based on the exercises in Baku and Kiev, sat down only vertically, the SK-EM worked not only in pitch and roll angles, but also in pitch and roll angular velocities, moreover, the angle of heel should reach 24 degrees. for the operation of the chair, but the angular roll speed when reaching 5 deg / s has already catapulted the pilot, therefore, as a rule, the SC-EM worked according to the angular velocity. 3 deg. side rolling is a limitation for the Yak-38 when landing with slippage, for vertical landing the limitation on pitching is higher, I won’t say the exact value but it is higher than that of the MiG-29K.
  5. Hole puncher
    Hole puncher April 18 2018 17: 16
    +1
    As Andrei, everything is cloyingly smoothly obtained. In fact, Sukhoi Design Bureau committed a crime by lobbying the useless Su-33 aboard Kuznetsov. The machine was absolutely unsuitable for use on a ship, which was subsequently confirmed in tests after which the number of Su-33s purchased was limited, he actually gouged the deck causing it to deflect, which had to be fixed. Landing mass was very limited, so the Su-33M predictably turned out to be heavier than the Su-33 was not put into service, it did not fit into the established restrictions, even with the cannon removed (and this option has been discussed for a long time).
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 18 2018 18: 03
      +1
      Quote: Puncher
      As Andrei, everything is cloyingly smoothly obtained. In fact, Sukhoi Design Bureau committed a crime

      Yeah, shoot everyone laughing
      Quote: Puncher
      The MiG-29 K required refinement, because it was actually a new machine, which the sailors were waiting for.

      And for the refinement of which there was no money. Dot.
      Quote: Puncher
      Kuznetsov was created precisely under the MiG-29 K and Yak-141, the Su-33 was imposed by Simonov.

      Do not smack nonsense, it hurts. It was the Su-27 that was supposed to be the main air group, the MiG generally got there on the initiative of Mikoyanovites, who proposed creating a decked version of the MiG
      1. Hole puncher
        Hole puncher April 19 2018 06: 55
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Do not smack nonsense, it hurts. It was the Su-27 that was supposed to be the main air group

        You are wrong and there are a few facts:
        1. Work on the MiG-29 K began in 1978, at the same time (October 1978) the development of the TTZ by 1143.5 began
        2. In 1978, the fate of the T-10 hung in the balance, it did not comply with the TTZ, and only in 1979 began work on the T-10S, which later became the Su-27, there wasn’t even a ship version, it was developed only in 1984 year.
        3. The flight deck and hangar were not provided for the operation of the Su-33. The deck was designed for landing light MiG-29 K and Yak-141, as well as the hangar for their placement. The Su-33 did not fit into the hangar, which the Sukhovites themselves wrote about afterwards and they had to sweat over the problem. This cannot be the case if, initially, the ship’s design provided for the placement of aircraft of such parameters. The landing deck was also not designed to land a 20-ton machine, so restrictions were imposed on the landing mass, the Su-33 sits completely empty and with a minimum fuel supply, even the cannon is not equipped if firing is not planned.
        The Chinese in Liaoning have exactly the same problem,
        One of the Chinese pilots complained that landing on an aircraft carrier is quite problematic. For this, the J-15 fighter needs to lose weight - weapons and fuel.

        I repeat, if the designers initially set the parameters for landing the machine 1143.5 tons at a speed of 23 km / h for project 250, then there would be no restrictions. And this suggests that the project did not provide for the operation of the Su-33.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 19 2018 08: 52
          0
          Quote: Puncher
          Work on the MiG-29 K began in 1978, at the same time (October 1978) the development of the TTZ by 1143.5 began

          Right. And the Su-27 was supposed to be put on the deck much earlier - the very beginning of the 70s, when the 1160 was in full swing. So the preliminary studies of the Su-27K were completed back in 1973
          Quote: Puncher
          The flight deck and hangar were not provided for the operation of the Su-33. The deck was designed for landing light MiG-29 K and Yak-141, as well as the hangar for their placement. The Su-33 did not fit into the hangar, which the Sukhovites themselves wrote about afterwards and they had to sweat over the problem.

          The Sukhovites themselves did not write anything like this - this, incidentally, is that the Su-33 in the "folded" state does not greatly exceed the size of the MiG-29K. Of course, they had to sweat over the folding wings / plumage, but this is a natural work on the deck version of the aircraft
          The maximum weight of the Su-27K was known at the beginning of the construction of the TAKR and did not change much later (32 - 750 kg)
          1. Hole puncher
            Hole puncher April 19 2018 10: 01
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And the Su-27 was supposed to land on the deck much earlier - the very beginning of the 70s, when the 1160 was in full swing.

            Well, Duc then believed that the T-10 will work out on time. And in 1978. at the time the development of 1143.5 began, it was clear that the T-10 was a failure and its fate was sad. The fact that the T-10C will appear is very few people knew, therefore they did not plan to board it. I think it’s not worth saying that there is a significant difference between the sketches and sketches of the project, and the specific project in which each weld is calculated and the thickness of the deck with the power set is calculated for a certain load.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The Sukhovites themselves didn’t write anything like that.

            If memory serves, “Wings above the deck” AiK. Maybe I'm wrong.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The maximum weight of the Su-27K was known at the beginning of the construction of the TAKR and did not change much later (32 - 750 kg)

            So it is not disputed. The question is that the deck for landing such a mass is not designed. If the landing mass of the aircraft with the characteristics of the Su-33 were set at the design stage, then there would be no problems. I have already referred to the Chinese pilots faced with the problem of limiting the landing mass, now in the News section there is an article on this subject.
            In the end, it is known that work on the Su-33 began in 1984, while the requirements for deck vehicles for 1143.5 were sent in 1978, they were received by Mikoyan and Yakovlev Design Bureau.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 19 2018 10: 25
              0
              Quote: Puncher
              Well, Duc then believed that the T-10 will work out on time. And in 1978. at the time the development of 1143.5 began, it was clear that the T-10 was a failure and its fate was sad.

              In 1978, nothing was clear yet. And the decision to plant at 1143.5 was made back in 1977
              Quote: Puncher
              The fact that the T-10C will appear is very few people knew, therefore they did not plan to board it.

              Government Decision 1978 - Not an Argument?
              Quote: Puncher
              If memory serves, “Wings above the deck” AiK. Maybe I'm wrong.

              Later, more serious sources came out - for example, the Su-33, the ship's saga.
              Most likely there was a confusion - the MAP board really rebelled against the Su-27, citing the fact that the MiG-29 would fit into the hangar more. This is a fact. But this does not mean that the Su-27 did not fit into the hangar, climbed, simply (which is natural for a heavy machine) in a smaller amount
              Quote: Puncher
              The question is that the deck for landing such a mass is not designed.

              It is calculated, but apparently, something is underestimated.
              The decision to land on the deck of the Su-27 was. Government Decision - was. Weight-bearing Su-27 - was. The actual development of the deck option, including numerous approvals with all authorities - was.
              Quote: Puncher
              In the end, it is known that work on the Su-33 began in 1984.

              ??? Yes, no :))) Work on the Su-27K (and on the MiG) has been conducted tightly since 1978, but then a coup occurred - the catapult was abandoned, you give a springboard. As a result, both Su and MiG had to be retrained to the catapult, and the preliminary design of the Su-27 was presented for discussion in 1984 (by the way, the Mig was about the same, if not later). It was approved, assigned the new designation Su-33 and given the go-ahead - but by then work on the plane had been going on for many years
              Quote: Puncher
              I have already referred to Chinese pilots faced with the problem of limiting the landing mass

              Landing restrictions are on all deck aircraft.
        2. Kyzmich
          Kyzmich April 22 2018 10: 36
          0
          Quote: Puncher
          The Chinese in Liaoning have exactly the same problem,

          Do not believe the American and the same problem.
          This is a problem for all deck aircraft.
    2. Kyzmich
      Kyzmich April 18 2018 18: 20
      +2
      At the expense of deflection and gouging is doubtful.
      Landing mass of Su33 is only three tons more than that of MiG29K.
      But do not forget the wing load on the Su33, it is 100 kg less.
      1. Hole puncher
        Hole puncher April 19 2018 06: 00
        0
        Quote: Kyzmich
        At the expense of deflection and gouging is doubtful

        The Chinese have a similar problem
        China has discovered flaws in its first aircraft carrier Liaoning - purchased from Ukraine and the modernized cruiser Varyag. It is reported by Asia Times.
        One of the Chinese pilots complained that landing on an aircraft carrier is quite problematic. For this, the J-15 fighter needs to lose weight - weapons and fuel.

        As you can see, when operating the J-15 (a copy of the Su-33), the Chinese faced a problem with the strength of the deck and imposed restrictions on the landing mass.
        Quote: Kyzmich
        Landing mass of Su33 is only three tons more than that of MiG29K.

        Empty weight of the Su-33 19500t., The MiG-29 K is almost six! tons less, 13700t.
        The landing speed of the Su-33 is about 250 km / h, I don’t know about the MiG-29 K, but I consider it lightly to consider three tons at a speed of 250 km / h.
        1. Kyzmich
          Kyzmich April 19 2018 07: 25
          +3
          Landing weight is limited by all deck aircraft of the U.S. Army and the USA, and the point is not in the deck but in the chassis and landing gear.
          Landing with combat load is not practiced at all for safety reasons.
          From all that you have written, it does not at all follow that the deck is bending there.
          Three tons do not fall there. Like a log.
          Aircraft have wings.
          And in this regard (wing load), the Su33 is better than the MiG.
          1. Hole puncher
            Hole puncher April 19 2018 10: 15
            0
            Quote: Kyzmich
            All deck aircraft have a landing weight limit

            Naturally, these limitations are related to the design of the ship.
            Quote: Kyzmich
            it’s not about the deck, but about the chassis and landing gear

            Here it is ... In your opinion, enough flooring from 40mm boards to lay and plant Hokai with the Tracers.
            The deck does not feel any load when a twenty-ton machine sits on it at a speed of 250 km / h, extinguishing speed to zero at a distance of 90 meters?
            Maybe then explain why there is a classification of runways at airports?
            Quote: Kyzmich
            Landing with combat load is not practiced at all for safety reasons.

            Not recommended, but practiced by Americans. You don’t think that they, before boarding the deck, stoke hanging sighting containers, for example? And with bombs they sometimes land, with PTB more often, with missiles in-in ...
            Quote: Kyzmich
            Three tons do not fall there. Like a log.

            Lie down like a feather?
            1. Kyzmich
              Kyzmich April 19 2018 19: 38
              +3
              Quote: Puncher
              Not recommended, but practiced by Americans. You don’t think that they, before boarding the deck, stoke hanging sighting containers, for example? And with bombs they sometimes land, with PTB more often, with missiles in-in ...

              What does the hanging container have to do with it? What threat do they pose to the ship. Even if it is a runway?
              With low-cost PTBs, what is the problem7 how much does an empty PTB weigh? A piece of tin.
              But with bombs they don’t land, like with missiles.
              As for the rockets.
              They do not sit down with UBM rocket weight training combat mockup.
              In addition to the GOS, there is nothing on this layout.
              We usually have black strips painted, and the stabilizers removed.
              Do not tell tales.
            2. Kyzmich
              Kyzmich April 19 2018 21: 26
              0
              Quote: Puncher
              Lie down like a feather?

              Exactly so. And what does speed to weight have to do with it?
              When the plane rolls, speed no longer matters.
              But an empty plane with a noticeably lower load on the wing (specific0 where it will sit more smoothly and with a lower vertical speed.
        2. Kyzmich
          Kyzmich April 22 2018 10: 47
          0
          Quote: Puncher
          As you can see, when operating the J-15 (a copy of the Su-33), the Chinese faced a problem with the strength of the deck and imposed restrictions on the landing mass.

          And why did you decide that this is the problem of deck strength?
          I don’t understand this moment at all?
          Where is the information about the strength of the deck?
          Link to the source.
          Su 25 was removed from the deck not because of its deflection, despite the fact that the weight was removed from the plane and it did not carry any weapons.
          The reason is the weak chassis.
          PS
          I do not envy this Chinese pilot with a long tongue
          The second aircraft carrier in China is a clone of our Varangian.))
    3. Kyzmich
      Kyzmich April 22 2018 21: 15
      +2
      For the sake of justice I will give you one fact
      .At one time, the Su-33 (Su-27K) almost lost its place on the deck of the aircraft carrier due to the fact that its overall width is much larger than that of the MiG-29K of the 1988 model (9,8 versus 7,8, 1 m), did not allow to place on board a sufficient number of vehicles. As a result, the designers of the Sukhoi Design Bureau performed a small miracle, folding the wing not half the length of the console, but 4/XNUMX of the center section (and with it the stabilizer) as a result, the Sukhoi became 40 cm more compact than the MiG!.
  6. Zakonnik
    Zakonnik April 18 2018 17: 57
    +1
    OKB Sukhov decided to create a Su-27K
    Lord - how is it written illiterate ... it directly scratches the soul. Pavel Osipovich probably turned over in his grave ... This is the level of analytics.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 18 2018 18: 04
      +4
      Quote: Zakonnik
      Lord - how is it written illiterate ... it directly scratches the soul.

      Write correctly :)))) Unreasonable moaning does not scratch my soul :)
  7. albert
    albert April 18 2018 18: 06
    0
    In fact, the first Yak-41s were supposed to be based on the aircraft carrier Baku. There was no springboard on it, and the author claims that without a springboard there are no flying qualities of the Yak. request
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 18 2018 18: 39
      +1
      Quote: albert
      In fact, the first Yak-41s were supposed to be based on the aircraft carrier Baku. There was no springboard on it, and the author claims that without a springboard there are no flying qualities of the Yak.

      And there is. What confuses you? Do you believe that a plane with any characteristics would not be allowed on deck? The answer is simple - Yak-38.
      1. Kyzmich
        Kyzmich April 18 2018 19: 24
        +1
        And there is. What confuses you? Do you believe that a plane with any characteristics would not be allowed on deck? The answer is simple - Yak-38.

        Add Harrier here.))
        In Baku, even specially designed gas ducts for Yak 41
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 19 2018 09: 25
          +3
          Quote: Kyzmich
          Add Harrier here.))

          How ubiquitous you are, right ...
          Do you even know the story of Harrier's appearance in the KVMF? Do you know what the British wanted aircraft carriers, but they showed them a muzzle with poppy seeds? Do you know that the admiralty barely managed to push through the idea of ​​anti-submarine helicopter carriers under the guise of "control cruisers"? And then what later Harrier landed on them, because the British had a great choice - not to have carrier-based aviation at all, or to have this abyss? Naturally, they chose a tombstone, because a bad plane is better than none. It should be understood that the British were never going to use the Harriers to defend their air force other than reflecting the attacks of single Soviet missile carriers that somehow flew through American air defense. When the Falklands needed this anti-aircraft defense, the harriers proved disgusting
          We TAKR-am set the tasks of full-fledged AV and armed them with Yaks
          1. Kyzmich
            Kyzmich April 19 2018 19: 43
            +2
            What about the Yankees of their AV-8A?
            And what is your approach to the issue?
            British means earhooks and good
            And we have -?
            They drained a lot of money for this couple with the USA.
            And stop that lie about the air defense plane yak 38
            He had never been given such tasks.
            He didn’t need it there.
            At that time, anti-aircraft defense systems "Storms" grabbed his eyes.
            The interceptor was only in the plans -Yak 39P
            That's what happened on Yak 38 is to go over the NATO frigate in hover mode.
            That would not have borzoi with his “Links”.
            And really could bring them GEM.
            Causing surge TNA and whether the turbine.
            1. Taoist
              Taoist April 19 2018 22: 20
              0
              Well, by the way, yaks are still not bad at driving PLO helicopters .... and other "trackers" ... And no one was really going to demand more from them ...
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 20 2018 00: 37
              +2
              Quote: Kyzmich
              What about the Yankees of their AV-8A?

              Kuzmich ... Kuuuuuzmiiiich !!! You ... decided to kill me with a laugh?
              Why do the Yankees harrier, do you even know? Do you know the tactics of its application? No? And then what kind of connoisseur are you building here?
              Harrier for the United States - this is generally NOT a DECK plane. This is a KMP plane (Marine Corps, if you are not in the know). And it was supposed to be used in this way - after the AUS provides local dominance in the landing zone, the Taraws come down and the assault begins. But this landing must be supported by aviation, and quickly, and the firepower of attack helicopters is not enough, and the aircraft carrier will not always interrogate the aircraft, it may have other worries. And for this, the United States bought the Harriers themselves - they land on mobile prefabricated airfields and from SUSHI support the marines.
              And all this crap only works on the fact that behind Tarav there is an AUS with a bunch of normal carrier-based aircraft. And if not, then no Tarava, not that in the landing, will not depart from the pier.
              Moreover, the ILC Harriers actually showed themselves poorly, even against such a relatively weak adversary as Iraq was
              Quote: Kyzmich
              And stop that lie about the air defense plane yak 38
              He had never been given such tasks.
              He didn’t need it there.
              At that time, anti-aircraft defense systems "Storms" grabbed his eyes.

              So big, but you believe in fairy tales :)))) Listen, well, if you seriously think that the air defense systems can provide something there ... I don’t know. According to your manners, it’s clear that you’re used to be rude, but you don’t think. That's how you think - do I need to educate you on these topics? Let's start from the beginning - have you heard anything about the R&D Order? What do you know about the history of the creation of TAKR? Just what the commander told you, or is it something else?
              1. Kyzmich
                Kyzmich April 20 2018 22: 20
                +2
                Once again, call the owl VUS
                The project of the ship on which you served.
                Your position
                Then talk.
                Or are you blind too
                The second time I ask a question.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 21 2018 10: 37
                  +1
                  She is not, answered above. I did not serve
                  1. Kyzmich
                    Kyzmich April 21 2018 12: 03
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Listen, well, if you seriously think that the air defense systems can provide something there

                    Remember, at that time, no plane could enter the zone of 40 km from our ship's connection for an attack.
                    Our "gyrfalcons" always went in the composition of three or four ships.
                    And the air defense zone was quite wide.
                    Plus a very powerful EW active and passive.
                    There were simply no means to attack our "gyrfalcons" at that time.
                    RCC Harpoon only just adopted (77g)
                    And their AUGs did not risk approaching us closer than 500 km.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Harrier for the USA is NOT a DECK plane at all

                    And then what does he do at UDC?
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      April 21 2018 16: 13
                      +2
                      Quote: Kyzmich
                      Remember, at that time, no plane could enter the zone of 40 km from our ship's connection for an attack.

                      I would go in without problems. Kuzmich, get your head out of the seat and finally realize that if the presence of air defense systems provided air defense, they (these same air defense systems) would not have been pressed so mercilessly in Vietnam
                      Quote: Kyzmich
                      There were simply no means to attack our "gyrfalcons" at that time.

                      It would look as follows. At a distance of 250-300 km from the warrant with the Krechet, a pair of Hokaev, covered by IA, would hang. Then strike aircraft, following the radio horizon, would deploy to attack - under the command of Hokaev essessno.
                      First, a demonstration group would go into business - they would crawl out from behind the radio horizon, the warrant would turn on the OMS radar. At that moment, an EW group would appear - and begin to crush the operating frequencies with interference and Shrikes - by the way, for this it would not be necessary to enter the reach zone of the Storms.
                      What is the effectiveness of the means of suppressing radar SLA in Americans? You can find the answer to this question in three steps:
                      1) Find a primer
                      2) Learn to read
                      3) You study the memoirs of our air defense military specialists who fought against the Jews instead of Arabs. Everything is described there in sufficient detail.
                      And at that moment when our radars were partially destroyed, partially suppressed by electronic warfare, and partially distracted by the demonstration group - attack groups appeared (from different sides). that work ... yes a lot of things, including, for example, DRP with cabling

                      As a result, the Americans, of course, suffer losses, and substantial ones. The remaining planes return to the aircraft carrier, and repeat the raid - to finish off with free-falling bombs what is left of our warrant.
                      The Americans themselves believed that their AB airgroups would be enough to destroy a large ship (RKR or TAKR) under the cover of 7-8 escort ships
                      1. Kyzmich
                        Kyzmich April 21 2018 17: 11
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        At that moment, an EW group would appear - and begin to crush the operating frequencies with interference and Shrikes - by the way, for this it would not be necessary to enter the reach zone of the Storms.

                        Hahaha
                        The launch range of your "Shrike" -15km
                        And for the first time I hear that they could be aimed at a moving target?
                        You need to write children's books for American children.
                        AnalyteG
                        At a distance of 250-300 km from the warrant with the Krechet, a pair of Hokaev, covered by IA, would hang.
                        And then they handed over their whole AUG with giblets.

              2. Kyzmich
                Kyzmich April 20 2018 22: 54
                +2
                Zrk Storm provided for the range of destruction of 37 km (from memory0
                Tell me that our TAKR was threatened at such a range.
                At what, entering this distance the air defense density increased several times, "Wasp of 1 m pennants. In number of 8 pieces.
                Chances to survive zero.
                You don’t understand that it’s 77 years old on the street.
                This is normal for people like you.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 21 2018 10: 46
                  +2
                  Quote: Kyzmich
                  Zrk Storm provided for the range of destruction of 37 km (from memory0
                  Tell me that our TAKR was threatened at such a range.

                  RCC Harpoon, for example :))) 1977, if that.
                  Quote: Kyzmich
                  Chances to survive zero.

                  At the ship, yes. Googled at leisure, as they destroyed air defense systems in local conflicts. Or do you detail the tactics of aviation to destroy highly protected targets?
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. Kyzmich
                    Kyzmich April 21 2018 12: 30
                    +3
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    RCC Harpoon, for example :))) 1977, if that

                    Well tell me when hung on the F-18 anti-ship missiles AGM-84
                    And which ship will approach our KUG with its AGM-84A balker at a launch distance of 45 km?
                    This is actually the launch range of our "Storm" 4K60
              3. Kyzmich
                Kyzmich April 20 2018 23: 11
                0
                Simple question: Where are these all AV8A based? US Marines
                I await your reply.
                I hope this time with vision everything is all right?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 21 2018 10: 46
                  +2
                  Quote: Kyzmich
                  A simple question: Where are these all AV8A based? US Marines

                  On landing ships. AND?
                  1. Kyzmich
                    Kyzmich April 21 2018 12: 17
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    On landing ships. AND?

                    That is, on the deck of the ship?
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Harrier for the United States - this is generally NOT a DECK plane.

                    As I understand it, from the deck they were brought ashore by the means of the landing?
                    All 20 pcs!
              4. Kyzmich
                Kyzmich April 21 2018 12: 14
                +3
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                have you heard anything about the R&D Order?

                In which department of this research institute did you work and when?

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Why do the Yankees harrier, do you even know? Do you know the tactics of its application? No? And then what kind of connoisseur are you building here?

                Do you know this tactic from a cad?
                You make yourself a clown.
                Then you have Harriers covering the airborne troops, Then paratroopers dig airfields for them at night, so that they would later cover them!
                What are you carrying nonsense?
                Nonsense shkoloty.
                1. YELLOWSTONE
                  YELLOWSTONE April 22 2018 08: 15
                  +1
                  in San Carlos on the Falklands in less than a day did
                  Yak-38 in Afghanistan was based on a car trailer
                  1. maximghost
                    maximghost April 22 2018 14: 55
                    +4
                    Yak-38 in Afghanistan was based on a car trailer

                    No, he was not based there on a caravan. There were 2 lanes - concrete for conventional aviation and a short metal runway for yaks. The metal one was quickly killed, because sand was blown out from under it, as a result, tests with concrete were completed. After Afghanistan, the yak was finalized - the installation angle of the PD was changed.
                    1. YELLOWSTONE
                      YELLOWSTONE April 22 2018 16: 15
                      0
                      photo is Afghan with a trailer
                      1. Kyzmich
                        Kyzmich April 22 2018 16: 33
                        0
                        There is still a video on Yutruba with a start from which it is not Afghan attached.
                        Link to the photo, please.
                      2. maximghost
                        maximghost April 22 2018 16: 46
                        +2
                        But is it exactly Afghan? Proofs in the studio.
          2. Kyzmich
            Kyzmich April 19 2018 21: 41
            0
            Listen, stop building up a connoisseur of the British post-war fleet.
            At 77 g, they still had Ark Royal and Eagle on the fly, the air group included 12 FG.Mkl Phantom aircraft
            Its size and displacement were almost equal with our "gyrfalcon"
            And that Britain weird with them after the war-an epic action.
            Especially I was touched by their aircraft carriers ....... with rubber decks and airplanes without landing gear.)))
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 20 2018 00: 55
              +1
              Quote: Kyzmich
              Listen, stop building up a connoisseur of the British post-war fleet.

              And I do not need to build :))))
              Quote: Kyzmich
              At 77 g, they still had Ark Royal and Eagle on the fly, the air group included 12 FG.Mkl Phantom aircraft

              Was that blotted out to what? Another demonstration of militant illiteracy? Do you even understand, Kuzmich, that you make three mistakes in each word?
              Quote: Kyzmich
              Its size and displacement were almost equal with our "gyrfalcon"

              Standard displacement TAKR 1143 Kiev - roughly 32 tons. Full - about 000 tons
              Odoyshies aircraft carriers (to which Ark Royal belonged) had 43 thousand standard and 53 thousand full. That is, a little more than a quarter more.
              But this is not the main thing. Do you have this phrase - Defense White Paper says anything? If in Russian - this is the White Book of Defense - such a document, which also addresses technical issues of defense. So, in this book from 1966 it was written in English on white that the country will no longer build aircraft carriers, and that all work on their further design is being stopped
              But the fact is that plans to develop a ship for basing anti-submarine helicopters, as well as a ship of a new class — a command center to support the actions of operational groups of various composition — still continued to operate. As a result, in 1966-1967, the Naval Staff issued requirements for the development of a “Command Cruiser” with a displacement of 12 tons with a crew of about 500 people, which could carry six Sea King helicopters. The project was later revised - the number of helicopters increased to nine, and the displacement - up to 1000 tons.

              Since at that moment the government would not have financed anything that even remotely resembled an aircraft carrier, they came up with a special new designation for new ships in the fleet - Through Deck Command Cruisers (which can be translated roughly as a “full-deck control cruiser”), but to the side projections of the drawings submitted for approval, the ship had the usual silhouette with a traditional superstructure.
              And then Harriers were put on this ship - exactly as I said
              1. Town Hall
                Town Hall April 20 2018 02: 37
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                and on the side projections of the drawings submitted for approval, the ship had the usual silhouette with a traditional superstructure.



                This romantic tale really fell in love with you. You don’t want to refuse it). Do you seriously believe that the simultaneous construction of the Invisibles and the development of the Harriers is a coincidence?


                All the same, you are an Anglophobe. You refuse such a pragmatic nation as the British in any ability to analyze, plan and turn them into some kind of caricatured ignoramuses in the maritime industry, playing some kind of children's games with side projections and building harriers anyway so suddenly come in handy)
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 20 2018 11: 17
                  +2
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  Do you seriously believe that the simultaneous construction of the Invisibles and the development of Harriers is a coincidence?

                  :))) Town Hall, please note that Harrier has been in production since 1967. That is, not just the design, but even the requirements for the Invincible were formulated (and, initially, without Harriers) already when the Harriers were flying with might and main
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  All the same, you are an Anglophobe

                  I'm realist. And the reality is that the British made a bunch of mistakes (as indeed all nations).
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  and building harrier anyhow so suddenly come in handy

                  Harriers were created as ground-based attack aircraft, initially there were no plans to put them on deck
                  1. Town Hall
                    Town Hall April 20 2018 11: 44
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Town Hall, please note that Harrier has been in production since 1967.
                  2. Town Hall
                    Town Hall April 20 2018 11: 54
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Town Hall, please note that Harrier has been in production since 1967.



                    Please note that you are writing about the "land" Harriers. And I'm talking about the sea ones. Which were built in conjunction with the Invisibles on the very White Paper of '66.

                    Py.Sy.: Https: //bmpd.livejournal.com/2283220.html


                    here's a classic example of how crazy stories are created, which then people who have no idea how the system works are promoted to the masses as truth. An article in a scandalous newspaper, a distorted ridiculous translation and voila - another garbage about parliament tricking with side projections becomes a "true" fact.


                    read it. and if there is a desire, I will explain to you how the reality is. And I’ll throw off a link to real documents). 1-in-1 situation with a bike about creating Invisibles
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      April 20 2018 12: 32
                      0
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      Please note that you are writing about the "land" Harriers. And I'm talking about the sea ones. Which were built in conjunction with the Invisibles on the very White Paper of '66.

                      I agree. And in what does this refute what I wrote in my comment? :))) You brought development as a counterargument, but I do not see point blank what this counterargument refers to.
                      Town Hall, I know that you are a logical person, but I can’t understand your logic, please explain your idea in more detail
                      1. Town Hall
                        Town Hall April 20 2018 14: 53
                        0
                        I'm talking about Invisible.


                        You simply repeated the projection of the side projections and the deceit of the parliament again in the post. They said that he, as a helicopter carrier and a command cruiser, had been fraudulently advanced, and then they pushed a misunderstanding into him in the form of an absurd Harrier.


                        And I wanted to say that there was nothing of the kind. He was advancing precisely as an aircraft carrier for the Harriers, initially according to the 66 White Paper, in which the decision was made to build them, both Invisible and SiHarrier.


                        And he gave a link to the aircraft carrier Trieste, to clearly demonstrate how such stories about the fraud of parliaments are born
                  3. Kyzmich
                    Kyzmich April 20 2018 23: 15
                    +3
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Town Hall, please note that Harrier has been in production since 1967.

                    What are you doing?
                    And when did he go into the series like a deck aircraft?
                    You my friend just a noob in this matter.
                    Sea Harrier is the first take-off in 1978.
                    He has a combat radius 135 km.
                    Less than the Yak38.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      April 21 2018 10: 48
                      +2
                      Quote: Kyzmich
                      What are you doing?
                      And when did he go into the series like a deck aircraft?

                      Listen, do not go where they do not ask. There are two smart people talking, and you with your cues. If I write Harrier, not Sea Harrier, then I mean Harrier. Unable to understand - why? It's your problem
                      1. Kyzmich
                        Kyzmich April 21 2018 12: 55
                        +2
                        Sorry mr smart man
                        And who do you think you are here?
                        You can’t see the difference between the deck option and the ground version.
                        From a great mind to see.
                      2. Kyzmich
                        Kyzmich April 22 2018 11: 23
                        +1
                        ..... in May 1975, the Ministry of Defense ordered a batch of 25 VTOL aircraft, called the Sea Harrier (24 single and 1 double) to equip new aircraft carriers..
                        The name of the aircraft carrier you name?
                        The first of them was lowered in1977, just when this Sea Harrier took off.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        It should be understood that the British were never going to use the Harriers for anti-aircraft defense

                        This is exactly what the tasks of Sea Harrier originally included the air defense task.
                    2. YELLOWSTONE
                      YELLOWSTONE April 22 2018 08: 33
                      +1
                      You can still write the AV-8A which in the United States ILC since 1971
                2. Scaffold
                  Scaffold April 20 2018 18: 12
                  +4
                  You do not confuse the British admirals, and politicians in parliament. The second is a uniform dubya, no better than our deputies. Look at least at Theresa May and Boris Johnson. I say, as a person who knows the situation in that country quite well.
                  1. Town Hall
                    Town Hall April 20 2018 18: 32
                    0
                    I trust your authoritative opinion in every way.


                    I just didn’t understand what was wrong with May and Johnson. Why didn’t you please
              2. The comment was deleted.
              3. Kyzmich
                Kyzmich April 20 2018 22: 59
                +3
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                So, in this book from 1966 it was written in English on white that the country will no longer build aircraft carriers

                And?
                How to build so istroit
                Or are you completely stupefied and you don’t watch the series Invisil 1980 (4pcs) the series Elizabeth2018 (2pcs)
                What are you talking about?
                Do not disgrace yourself with letters.
                1. YELLOWSTONE
                  YELLOWSTONE April 21 2018 07: 26
                  0
                  he does not consider them for aircraft carriers, big Elizabeth probably also times on them F-35B
                  in England then they were not called aircraft carriers either
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 21 2018 10: 49
                  +2
                  Quote: Kyzmich
                  And?
                  How to build so istroit
                  Or are you completely stupefied and you don’t watch the series Invisil 1980 (4pcs) the series Elizabeth2018 (2pcs)

                  Here is a diot ..... You are even unable to overpower a comment
                  1. The comment was deleted.
          3. Town Hall
            Town Hall April 20 2018 02: 19
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And then what later Harrier landed on them, because the British had a great choice - not to have carrier-based aviation at all, or to have this abyss? Naturally, they chose a tombstone because a bad plane is better than no



            Hello. Harrier was a "tombstone" by comparison? What potential enemies did Britain have in the 60-70-80s and what could they oppose to Harrier over the sea? And how did he prove himself in the Falkland War?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 20 2018 09: 01
              +1
              Quote: Town Hall
              Hello. Harrier was a "tombstone" by comparison?

              Compared to modern fighters and fighter-bombers
              Quote: Town Hall
              and how did he prove himself in the Falkland War?

              Disgusting. As in the drill in a glass afterwards
              1. Town Hall
                Town Hall April 20 2018 09: 09
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Compared to modern fighters and fighter-bombers



                I'll try again. Name the planes of potential opponents of Harrir at sea in the 60-70-80s, in comparison with which he was a "tombstone." And at the same time some examples of beating this trickster with them. Specifics but not theories
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 20 2018 11: 24
                  +3
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  I'll try again. Name the planes of potential opponents of Harrir at sea in the 60-70-80s

                  Tu-22, Tu-95 (which if he could intercept, it was with great difficulty), Mirage fighter family, Phantom, F-14, Soviet MiG-23.
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  .and at the same time some examples of the beating of this stuff by them.

                  The plane is evaluated not by whether he tapped someone on the pope or he was tapped, but by his ability to carry out the task. The Falklands during the period of May 1-25, Argentines tried 32 times to attack British ships, 104 aircraft took part in these attempts. Harriers managed to intercept groups of attacking planes 9 times (before they went on the attack), but only 6 attacks were thwarted (19% of the total), in other cases, the Argentines, although they suffered losses, still broke through to the English ships. In total, out of 104 attacking aircraft, 85 were able to attack British ships, i.e. Sea Harriers managed to thwart attacks of only 18,26% of the total number of Argentine aircraft participating in them.
                  Despite the bombing, the Harriers were unable to disable a single Arg airbase on the islands.
                  That’s why rhizomes
                  1. Town Hall
                    Town Hall April 20 2018 11: 36
                    +3
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Mirage family fighters, Phantom, F-14, Soviet MiG-23.






                    I didn’t know that the United States was listed as an adversary of the WB. About the Tu-95, I hope this is a joke?. Or are you seriously?. What aircraft carriers were they based on in May 23?)



                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    That’s why rhizomes



                    All the same, I trust English specialists more than you. And Italian and American who considered Harrier a very good fighting machine. Yes, and 80 not the worst downed Argentine planes, as hinted at.



                    "Analyzing the course of hostilities, in the next White Paper on Defense, it was noted that without the use of Sea Harriers and their land" brothers ", the UK could not regain the Falkland Islands by military means. The VTOL aircraft showed brilliant fighting qualities in air battles with such dangerous opponents as Mirage / Daguerre aircraft and fully confirmed the concept of combat use developed in England. However, it was necessary to improve the airborne systems and armament of VTOL aircraft to detect and destroy low-flying targets in the lower hemisphere and at long ranges. In 1983, the VAe began developing the advanced Sea Harrier FRS.2 with the advanced Blue Vixin radar (the nose cone changed due to its antenna) in order to accommodate additional electronic equipment. 0,36 m. The cabin has also changed - instead of dial gauges, it has two multi-funnels national display. The armament of the aircraft, currently undergoing flight tests, consists of 4 AIM-120A AMRAAM missiles for conducting air combat at medium distances. The Department of Defense plans to build 16 FRS.2 Sea Harriers and re-equip 42 FRS 1. "
                    1. Kyzmich
                      Kyzmich April 20 2018 22: 30
                      0
                      If the Argentines had at least 50% of the bombs detonated, then the entire British fleet lay at the bottom.
                      1. Town Hall
                        Town Hall April 21 2018 01: 34
                        0
                        if only my grandmother ...
                    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      April 21 2018 10: 59
                      +3
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      I did not know that the United States was listed as an adversary at the WB.

                      The United States was not listed, but Iran could easily enter
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      Ro Tu-95 is this I hope a joke?. Or are you seriously ?.

                      This is not a joke - air defense missions included the destruction of single Soviet missile carriers, it was assumed that such missiles could reach the KVMF’s areas of responsibility
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      What aircraft carriers were they based on -mig 23?)

                      And why - on aircraft carriers? On the shore, they were based, of the same Libya :)))
                      You asked me about potential opponents - well, all sorts of Argentina, Iran and Libya were there
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      Yes, and 80 are not the worst downed Argentine planes as hinted at.

                      In fact, 44 of them were destroyed. Of these, Haririers shot down 18 in an air battle :))) Another 3 were destroyed on the ground.
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      VTOL aircraft showed brilliant fighting qualities in air battles with such dangerous opponents as Mirage / Dagger aircraft

                      Given the fact that the fighters fought among themselves as many as three times (in other cases, the Harriers attacked aircraft carrying bombs) and in one of these fights the Argentines did not suffer - the usual statement to the public
                      1. YELLOWSTONE
                        YELLOWSTONE April 22 2018 08: 28
                        0
                        IS in general can carry aerial bombs, and attack aircraft can carry a R-60
      2. Kyzmich
        Kyzmich April 18 2018 19: 27
        +1
        And yet I am generally confused by the usefulness of the springboard for the aircraft layout Yak38, Yak41 and F-35B
      3. Kyzmich
        Kyzmich April 18 2018 19: 31
        +2
        The answer is simple - Yak-38.

        You forgot about Harrier))

        You were absolutely right to notice that on the third Takr Novorossiysk gyrfalcon even special flue ducts were mounted on the deck even with a fool.
        Then they realized that this is stupidity, they removed it.
        And no jumps.
        nobody interfered with delivering trams to Novorsiysk and Baku.
        Why not put it.
        1. lance
          lance April 20 2018 18: 38
          0
          no, I’m not foolish, moving the Yak -41 actually really heated the metal coating of the aircraft carriers, and at that moment our ... monkeys, about the springboard for yaks it’s more like an invention, weight distribution of the aircraft, especially with weapons, did not suggest this. I honestly don’t remember such experiments.
          1. Kyzmich
            Kyzmich April 20 2018 23: 20
            +1
            He didn’t warm up anything.
            Just in the run-up to the lifting engines, lifting wings were added., Which significantly saved kerosene.
            1. lance
              lance April 21 2018 12: 09
              0
              You are not talking about that, when taking off from a place on the potty, the metal of the deck became crimson.
              1. Kyzmich
                Kyzmich April 21 2018 14: 59
                +1
                And on “Kiev”, too, especially this was seen in the evening.
                Some were generally warm up.
                Usually this is a newcomer-delayed hanging.
                Especially on the psyche.
                1. Kyzmich
                  Kyzmich April 22 2018 11: 40
                  +1
                  Quote: Lance
                  no, I’m not foolish, moving the Yak -41 actually really warmed up the metal coating of aircraft carriers

                  When we tested on a real propulsion system for the Yak41, we realized that it was all nonsense and cut these gas ducts and rearranged everything inside the ship
                  For this reason, the delivery of Novorossiysk was delayed again
  8. Taoist
    Taoist April 18 2018 21: 05
    +1
    Oh, the author is pushing somewhere ... oh well. We read further ... Of course there was a dispute and I can’t know what Ustinov was thinking to himself. But the fact that in reality no one compared 41 with Soushki and MiGs ... that's for sure. And in general, then the ships under them were made different. Yes, the springboard was originally considered ... But here is an ambush. Under the 41 scheme, he did not give him a springboard of advantages - he worked only in minus. Checked. With WRC, Yaku needs a springboard like a stop signal for a hare ... It only interferes.
    1. Snakebyte
      Snakebyte April 18 2018 22: 12
      0
      “Harrier” the springboard does not interfere, but does Yak interfere? Maybe Yak is the wrong VTOL?
      1. Kyzmich
        Kyzmich April 18 2018 22: 44
        +3
        Harrier and Yak 38-41 have different thrust vectors for takeoff.
        And life has shown that Harrier is a dead end.
        And on the F-35 B is precisely the Yak38 circuit.
        1. Varna
          Varna April 19 2018 00: 10
          0
          Quote: Kyzmich
          Harrier and Yak 38-41 have different thrust vectors for takeoff.
          And life has shown that Harrier is a dead end.
          And on the F-35 B is precisely the Yak38 circuit.

          So here it is))))). Nevertheless, whoever you ask - Harrier - is super, and yaki is the shit - the vaunted ability of the English to work their tongues and hammer the brains of people using the channels of the discovery channel.
          1. Kyzmich
            Kyzmich April 19 2018 00: 34
            +2
            And you look at Wikipedia there data on Harrier mainly only during take-off and landing with an take-off (mileage) and it is very difficult to find its combat radius with GDP.
            But just look at its empty and take-off weight with GDP, it becomes clear that he was no different from Yak38.
            Machines of the same weight.
            And how many were killed on these Harriers also keep quiet.
            And they fought until the last day.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            April 19 2018 09: 27
            0
            Quote: Varna
            So here it is))))). However, whoever you ask - Harrier - the super,

            Yes, what is he super? The same abode as the Yak-38, well, maybe a little better, although I'm not sure
        2. Snakebyte
          Snakebyte April 19 2018 08: 30
          +2
          Quote: Kyzmich
          And on the F-35 B is precisely the Yak38 circuit.

          Come on, not even funny. Even with the Yak-141, the similarity is only in the placement of the PMD nozzle between the tail beams. About the Yak-38 and say nothing.
          1. YELLOWSTONE
            YELLOWSTONE April 20 2018 02: 21
            0
            forgot about PD and what is controlled by them
            1. Snakebyte
              Snakebyte April 20 2018 07: 49
              0
              Where does the 35th come from? There is a fan. The system of gas-dynamic rudders is also completely different.
              1. Kyzmich
                Kyzmich April 20 2018 23: 24
                +1
                Well, this is quasi reactin and is a PD on the F-35B
                True, there was a problem - this fan weighs -1800 kg versus 600 kg from two RD 41.
                and four times more in volume. especially in the midsection.
                The reliability of the tansmission is also controversial. Like angular gears. and their lubricants.
                1. Snakebyte
                  Snakebyte April 21 2018 07: 46
                  +1
                  Quote: Kyzmich
                  True, there was a problem - this fan weighs -1800 kg versus 600 kg from two RD 41.

                  And add to the 600 kg dry weight of the engines the weight of the fuel they need (200 kg per minute! Work)?
                  Quote: Kyzmich
                  The reliability of the tansmission is also controversial. Like angular gears. and their lubricants.

                  And the reliability of the two engines is not controversial?
                  1. YELLOWSTONE
                    YELLOWSTONE April 21 2018 08: 15
                    0
                    Does the fan do not consume fuel through the shaft from the engine? lol
                    not controversial, twin-engine planes are always more reliable
                    1. Snakebyte
                      Snakebyte April 22 2018 07: 45
                      +1
                      The reliability of the three-engine Yak-38 is indicative.
                      1. YELLOWSTONE
                        YELLOWSTONE April 22 2018 09: 24
                        0
                        higher than that of a single-engine F-104, although this was not required from him
                  2. Kyzmich
                    Kyzmich April 21 2018 10: 26
                    +2
                    Quote: Snakebyte
                    And add to the 600 kg dry weight of the engines the weight of the fuel they need (200 kg per minute! Work)?

                    Does your F-35B wind turbine create 8 tons of thrust in a holy spirit?
                    1. Snakebyte
                      Snakebyte April 22 2018 07: 44
                      +1
                      Quote: Kyzmich
                      Does your F-35B wind turbine create 8 tons of thrust in a holy spirit?

                      It rotates the same shaft, which rotates and the compressor of the main engine.
                      1. Kyzmich
                        Kyzmich April 22 2018 08: 01
                        +1
                        That is, fuel is not wasted?
              2. YELLOWSTONE
                YELLOWSTONE April 21 2018 07: 30
                0
                what's in the fan or the gas dynamic rudder system is complicated?
                1. Snakebyte
                  Snakebyte April 21 2018 07: 53
                  0
                  So work out. You’ll have a lot of money.
                  On this communication with this bot Pingo I finish. This genius already knows everything, it’s already impossible to tell him anything new.
                  1. YELLOWSTONE
                    YELLOWSTONE April 21 2018 08: 12
                    0
                    so it is already developed
                    communicate with anyone you like, just turn on the intellect sometimes
                    should a fan be easier? laughing
                    1. Snakebyte
                      Snakebyte April 22 2018 07: 36
                      0
                      Pingo, how are you, have you already learned to distinguish the MiG-25 from the Su-25?
                      1. YELLOWSTONE
                        YELLOWSTONE April 22 2018 09: 07
                        0
                        is the child gaining, or forgot that tomorrow at work?
                2. Kyzmich
                  Kyzmich April 21 2018 10: 31
                  0
                  What's so hard?
                  Imagine a transmission under 8 tons of traction.
                  Clutch, gear ..... grease it all.
                  Two rotors-floor turbofan engines already have.
                  1. YELLOWSTONE
                    YELLOWSTONE April 21 2018 11: 39
                    0
                    don’t panic, look better what a big quote he drove down
        3. lance
          lance April 20 2018 18: 42
          0
          stop, not Yak-38, but still Yak-41. Yak -38 they are at an angle to the nozzle, which allowed to increase the load
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 19 2018 09: 49
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      But the fact that in reality no one has compared the 41st with the Su Shkami and MiGs ... that's for sure. And in general, then the ships under them were made different.

      Kuznetsov - these are two different ships? :)))))
      Quote: Taoist
      Yes, the springboard was originally considered ... But here is an ambush. Under the 41st circuit, he did not give him a springboard - he worked only minus.

      here 2 things should be clearly divided - what they planned to receive, and what they got as a result. TAKR with a springboard was designed at the very time when the Yakovlevites could not decide on the type of power plant Yak. That is, at the time of the creation of the ship, there was an understanding that the springboard would greatly enhance the capabilities of the Yak, but how it turned out in practice is a completely different conversation.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist April 19 2018 10: 20
        +2
        Kuznetsov is a "hybrid" - its appearance and the presence of a ramp were determined when it became clear that it would be possible to put a car without SRS on the deck of the car with relatively little blood. Yes, the idea of ​​a springboard was spied on by the British, but immediately after the first experiments it became clear that the springboard works only for layout with a single engine - and the Yakovlevites refused it even before construction began in iron. (and by the way, not because the engine crews “couldn’t”, but because it became clear that this is a dead end that does not allow forcing, the “superharrier” project failed. As a result, the concept changed again. By vertical lines the ships of the 1143.1-4 project were meant and made. - and their purpose was quite noticeably different from that of 1143.5-6, but it should be taken into account that the construction of new ships with “regular air groups” did not provide for the withdrawal from the fleet of the previous series - but for the modernization of their air groups it was absolutely necessary it’s the “vertical line” that is used - the 38 was initially regarded as a machine of "trial operation".
        The fact that these plans were violated is not a matter of "intrigue" but of completely different reasons.
        The famous "hundredth" naval aviation regiment (Apakidze), in which I had the honor to begin service, was originally formed as part of two squadrons on the MiG 29K and Su 27K - and these squadrons worked out slightly different tasks. It is worth remembering that in those days having three modifications of deck aircraft for different tasks was generally normal and luxury was not considered.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 19 2018 11: 29
          +1
          Dear Taoist, there are actual timelines for making certain decisions. The fact is that the concept changed later, and at the time of designing the TAKR it was assumed that the main aircraft for it would be the Yak-41, and the MiG and Su - if possible.
          Quote: Taoist
          The famous "hundredth" naval aviation regiment (Apakidze), in which I had the honor to begin service, was originally formed as part of two squadrons on the MiG 29K and Su 27K

          Absolutely agree. But the 100 IIAP was created by order of December 1985, when many things were already looked at differently and when it became clear that the Su-27K and / or MiG-29K would nevertheless go into service with the Navy
          1. Taoist
            Taoist April 19 2018 22: 17
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            there are actual dates for the adoption of certain decisions. The fact is that the concept changed later, and at the time of designing the TAKR it was assumed that the main aircraft for it would be the Yak-41, and the MiG and Su - if possible.

            Andrei, I think you know no worse than me that the decision date and even the design stage are far from “critical points” - our TAKRs were generally designed and followed the path of “evolution” as a result of which, in theory, they had to go to the “classic aircraft carrier” - and therefore the ramp on Kuznetsovo appeared at the very moment when it became clear that it was possible to use classic planes from it and not WRC.
            There was no de facto competition between Jacob and Sushka ... these were different clusters from the very beginning and no one even tried to compare them. Our leadership was not so naive as to try to get a "universal soldier" - especially since the failure with Harrier in this regard was already obvious. Although the British then riveted them for the Air Force and Navy - but British military-technical thought has always moved very whimsically ...
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 20 2018 11: 07
              +2
              Quote: Taoist
              Therefore, the ramp on Kuznetsovo appeared exactly at the moment when it became clear that it was possible to use classic planes from it and not WRC.

              Unfortunately, the story contradicts this. First, there was Ustinov’s indication of the TAKR springboard, and only after that did Su and MiG take the initiative to adapt their aircraft to the springboard
              Quote: Taoist
              There was no de facto competition between Jacob and Sushka ...

              Dear Taoist, it is impossible to deny the fact that the fleet constantly insisted on the construction of classical aircraft carriers, while with the same persistence they imposed TAKR with VTOL aircraft. If this is not competition, then I don’t know what competition is then.
              Quote: Taoist
              Our leadership was not so naive as to try to get a "universal soldier"

              In 1985, it’s possible. And before that, she tried very hard. Pushing the VTOL aircraft as the basis of Ustinov’s aircraft fleet just implied the belief that VTOL would be able to do everything that horizontal take-off aviation does, if not at the same level, then at an acceptable level.
              Quote: Taoist
              our TAKRs were generally designed and followed the path of "evolution" as a result of which, in theory, they were to go to the "classic aircraft carrier"

              No. We simultaneously went along with the development of classic aircraft carriers and the construction of TAKR. The fleet wanted 1160 - he was allowed 1143.1
              1. Taoist
                Taoist April 20 2018 11: 23
                +2
                Andrei, it’s hard for me to argue with you for one reason - you operate on papers, but I recall what happened and certainly I see less as an eyewitness, but papers don’t convey “moods and conversations” at all ... We had a lot of things going in parallel and even perpendicularly - but there is one point that outweighs all "theoretical research" - this is the practice and tactics that really worked out in parts. Everyone understood that there would be no “big leap” and the practice of creating and using carrier-based aviation should be worked out with “step that step” - eventually approaching some optimal form. And who can’t argue about this for a long time and is pointless, because the possibilities for the practical implementation of Wishlist should be consistent. And hence the thesis of the "low value" of the guidance of the leadership. Because the instruction is given - but in practice it turns out that no does not fly ... and we begin to look for a practical approximation ... Hence, a lot of decisions contradicting often on the same project. In general, I can’t agree with your thesis about competition between Su MiG and Yak - because in practice there was also a naval regiment on MiG and Su (near Kuznetsov) - by the way, Su 25 UTG ignored you - and there were plans for it too. And the 3 combat regiment on the Yaks (which were already in full swing preparing for rearmament on the 41) - and the fact that it all ended sadly is not at all from the competition of the design bureau.
              2. Kyzmich
                Kyzmich April 21 2018 15: 28
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Unfortunately, the story contradicts this. First, there was Ustinov’s indication of the TAKR springboard, and only after that did Su and MiG take the initiative to adapt their aircraft to the springboard

                Very doubtful statement.
                ... The plan for the construction of the complex was approved on April 30, 1976 by a resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR as part of the planned program for the construction in 1978-1980 of two large aircraft-carrying cruisers with a displacement of 65000 tons with nuclear power plants, two catapults and aerofiners [6]. The construction of a training complex in the Saki-4 air garrison began in 1977 ...

                .... First, a T-1 springboard with an inclination angle of 8 ° was installed on the complex. The first take-off from the springboard was performed on August 21, 1982 on a Mig-29 plane ....
                Probably Andryusha lied again.
        2. Alex_59
          Alex_59 April 19 2018 14: 38
          0
          Quote: Taoist
          The famous "hundredth" naval aviation regiment (Apakidze), in which I had the honor to begin service, was originally formed as part of two squadrons on the MiG 29K and Su 27K - and these squadrons worked out slightly different tasks.

          And what was the difference between the tasks?
          1. Taoist
            Taoist April 19 2018 22: 08
            0
            First of all, it was understood that light and with a limited radius MiGs would perform mainly air defense functions (including intercepting anti-ship missiles for which their avionics were optimal) and 27s serve as attack aircraft (carriers of anti-ship missiles of the Mosquito type) and long-range interception of patrol aircraft enemy using long-range RVV. - in any case, such tactical schemes and combat use were practiced.
      2. lance
        lance April 20 2018 18: 54
        0
        everything is exactly the opposite. the initial task included 3t max load, and later I wanted 5-6t and therefore began to increase the main and then the marching engines r-78v giving 15t of thrust. we can say for sure that if we hadn’t stopped working today, we would have had a monster with the size of a mig-31 engine nk-32 that lifted 6 tons of load from airs, but we would have to rebuild the kuzyu.
  9. Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst April 18 2018 22: 14
    0
    I share the author’s point of view on the main reason for choosing Su-33: 1. the model is most mastered in production and unified with serial models; 2. the model is able to solve the whole range of tasks of carrier-based combat aircraft better than rivals. You also need to justify the new choice of carrier-based combat aircraft for the future aircraft carrier. At present, for re-equipment after the modernization of Kuzi, this is the Su-35, in the future (God willing for the new aircraft-carrying cruiser), this is of course the Su-57.
  10. TsUS-Air Force
    TsUS-Air Force April 18 2018 22: 54
    0
    Well, for that, the flashing and drying are still developing, but does the YAK plant exist? if only they had accepted yaki, then in the near future I would have to look again for a new, more advanced aircraft, and this is again financing
    1. Varna
      Varna April 19 2018 00: 18
      0
      Quote: NOC-VVS
      Well, for that, the flashing and drying are still developing, but does the YAK plant exist? if only they had accepted yaki, then in the near future I would have to look again for a new, more advanced aircraft, and this is again financing

      Unknown; if Russia persists as a mega-state, then, as it were, the yaks would not have to be revived (like the twinks). One type of aircraft is poverty, not need. Although, if you forget about the power and aircraft carriers are not fenced, then in general no decks are needed.
      Looks like the Hungarians: there was a time, they made tanks - now no (sovereignty is over))))
    2. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE April 19 2018 00: 19
      0
      and did a lot of them during this time?
  11. maximghost
    maximghost April 19 2018 03: 05
    +2
    Very strange formulation of the question.
    Kmk - if only for the collapse of the union on the deck, all three fighters would most likely be registered:
    Su-27k - due to the long range
    Mig-29k - because of its versatility and the fact that more twinkles than dryers will fit on a ship more simply.
    Yak-141 - as the most massive deck of the Navy (there are 4 more ships on which it is based), but only in the form of a pair of links for WRC alarm take-off.
    Where is the information about the mediocre LTH of the Yak-141 when taking off otherwise from the springboard. As far as I know, with PTB and SRS, the radius was declared at 700 km.

    About the fact that no one else did vertical work - also much. But what about the harrier with his bunch of upgrades? For the year 90, there are about the same number of ships carrying VTOL aircraft as there are conventional aircraft carriers.
    At the expense of failures in terms of 141 - why not a word that the problems were due to the fact that the engine was late.
    1. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE April 19 2018 03: 10
      0
      where did you get the last one?
      For a long time they simply didn’t want to put the Su-27 into service, why should the interceptor be maneuverable? wassat
      1. maximghost
        maximghost April 19 2018 03: 30
        +2
        where did you get the last one?

        What exactly? My last points are not about su-27.
        1. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE April 19 2018 03: 44
          0
          about the engine of the yak,
          1. maximghost
            maximghost April 19 2018 04: 12
            +2
            From monographs.
            1. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE April 19 2018 04: 12
              0
              engines of special design were not placed on any vertical line of Yakovlev, then nozzles to them were only doped
              1. Kyzmich
                Kyzmich April 20 2018 23: 34
                0
                An engine from the MiG 38 was installed on the Y-23.
                If in a hurry you hadn’t been led to Harrier and had your nozzle bifurcated, you really would have had an extra sound back in 70g.
                And so they lost 30% of the thrust right away, plus they got a big bottom drag from the aircraft.
            2. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE April 19 2018 04: 34
              0
              they also had no problems with the nozzle, just the customer wanted the aircraft carriers did not want this plane and was perverted with constant changes to the project.
    2. maximghost
      maximghost April 19 2018 03: 29
      +3
      But the defenders of yaks in their repertoire - instead of recognizing elementary truths, the comparison of the Yak-38 with Harrier begins ... which is a deck task Aviation did not decide from the word "generally."

      How so? And the British, Indians, Italians and Spaniards? He solved them, but as badly as Yak.
      "Witnesses of the Yakovlev sect" are unable to understand one simple thing - the fleet needed a ship whose aircraft could fulfill almost the entire range of tasks of naval warfare.

      Different people in the fleet had a different understanding of what the fleet needed. Including there were complete opponents of aircraft carriers. Actually, it is enough to read the book of Kuzin and Nikolsky. There they criticize everything in a row, though not at all because everything was bad everywhere.
      1. YELLOWSTONE
        YELLOWSTONE April 19 2018 03: 55
        0
        if you compare one with the other, then the harrier was inferior in speed even to the yak-36 lol already wrote about the radius of action
      2. Snakebyte
        Snakebyte April 19 2018 08: 31
        +1
        Quote: maximghost
        He solved them, but as badly as Yak.

        All the same, better than Yak. At least, shot down planes.
        1. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE April 19 2018 08: 45
          +1
          dushmans did not have them
        2. maximghost
          maximghost April 19 2018 14: 53
          +2
          Because I participated in the database. Moreover, against the enemy who had aviation, but he used (the enemy) mainly attack aircraft.
          1. YELLOWSTONE
            YELLOWSTONE April 20 2018 00: 35
            0
            mostly fighter-bomber
      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        April 19 2018 08: 59
        +1
        Quote: maximghost
        How so? And the British, Indians, Italians and Spaniards? He solved them, but as badly as Yak.

        The British, Hindus, Italians and Spaniards do not and did not have an opponent of the United States level. The same British hoped to fight off the maximum from single aircraft of the USSR, just as they made their way into their waters
        1. maximghost
          maximghost April 19 2018 10: 19
          +2
          The British, Italians and Spaniards had an opponent of the level of the USSR. But the harrier could even intercept the Tu-95 from the deck only if it flew directly above the ship, otherwise it did not catch up - the speed difference is very small.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            April 19 2018 17: 40
            0
            Quote: maximghost
            The British, Italians and Spaniards had an opponent of the level of the USSR.

            Which did not have IA within the areas of responsibility of British VTOL carriers
            Quote: maximghost
            And the Harrier could even intercept the Tu-95 from the deck only if he flew directly over the ship,

            What for? They spotted the plane, raised the Harriers to meet. You are right that even in such ideal conditions Harrier is far from Peru’s treasures, but, in principle, it could work .. a couple of times out of ten :))))
          2. YELLOWSTONE
            YELLOWSTONE April 22 2018 04: 30
            0
            From the deck and the F-14 they tried not to intercept, it's a barrage interceptor
            F-18 inexpensive non-barging + shock, and both of them were also raised when attacking an aircraft heading straight at an aircraft carrier laughing
            still forgot about the Tu-16 which the British harrier was quite tough
            in general, they were supposed to knock out not the Tu-95 missile carriers but the Tu-95RTs naval reconnaissance and Tu-142 anti-submarine ones or interfere with the work of the latter two.
            1. maximghost
              maximghost April 22 2018 15: 24
              +2
              Only harriers can not barrage for too long, and if necessary, can not cut the fast and the furious and go to intercept the target. All potential targets of harriers have a speed equal to them, or slightly less.
              1. YELLOWSTONE
                YELLOWSTONE April 22 2018 16: 19
                0
                nevertheless the Falkland supersonic beat
                1. Kyzmich
                  Kyzmich April 22 2018 16: 37
                  0
                  Shot down (boom zoom) aircraft after a bomb attack.
                  Argentines only had enough fuel for a dyn call, dropping bombs and leaving for the base.
                  No one entered into an air battle with them.
                  In general, thanks to Argentinean strategists.
                  . there were simply idiots at the headquarters.
                  But the pilots of Argentina, iron eggs.
                  Heroes!
                  1. YELLOWSTONE
                    YELLOWSTONE April 23 2018 00: 41
                    0
                    do you play checkers?
                    entered especially at first, will meet and not enter (into battle) is only when the desire is mutual lol
                    ask Afghan Dao for photos
                2. maximghost
                  maximghost April 22 2018 16: 50
                  +2
                  The Falklands had specific conditions. Aircraft went out of attack, went, most often, on the smallest and should not fall under the air defense of ships. There were interceptions of goals. In addition, the Argentines had to save fuel to fly to the base.
                  1. YELLOWSTONE
                    YELLOWSTONE April 23 2018 00: 43
                    0
                    they should not have met with harrier
                    ask Afghan Dao for photos
    3. Kyzmich
      Kyzmich April 19 2018 07: 31
      0
      Quote: maximghost
      Where is the information about the mediocre LTH of the Yak-141 when taking off otherwise from the springboard. As far as I know, with PTB and SRS, the radius was declared at 700 km.

      What does WRC have to do with it?
      You are told that the springboard in the presence of the front engines of the central heating engine only interferes. and simply unnecessary. At Harrier, the take-off thrust vector is close to the DH and there are no questions.
      If this were not so, the springboard would have appeared on the "gyrfalcons" at the same starting from the third ship
      1. YELLOWSTONE
        YELLOWSTONE April 19 2018 07: 56
        0
        during take-off and take-off, the Yaks flew up with their nose up.
        if they removed the fast-moving anti-ship missiles then it might have appeared, but on the "corner deck" it only spoiled
      2. YELLOWSTONE
        YELLOWSTONE April 19 2018 08: 55
        0
        his - in the sense of a springboard, deck
    4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 19 2018 08: 58
      0
      Quote: maximghost
      Where is the information about the mediocre LTH of the Yak-141 when taking off otherwise from the springboard. As far as I know, with PTB and SRS, the radius was declared at 700 km.

      Compare this with the radius of the MiG-29K (1300 km with the PTB)
      Quote: maximghost
      About the fact that no one else did vertical work - also much. But what about the harrier with his bunch of upgrades?

      The British made their Harrier but in the future did not begin to create a new VTOL aircraft, but only modernized the existing project. No one else suffered in the VTOL world.
      Quote: maximghost
      At the expense of failures in terms of 141 - why not a word that the problems were due to the fact that the engine was late.

      At some point, yes. But there is a fact - since 1967, when the VTOL fighter was first mentioned in a government decree and 87 years passed ... a lot of time
      1. YELLOWSTONE
        YELLOWSTONE April 19 2018 09: 09
        +1
        tried to create a lot, the same X-32 that blew the "Soviet" X-35 lol
        Yak radius greater than F-18 Hornet
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 19 2018 09: 28
          0
          Quote: YELLOWSTONE
          Yak radius greater than F-18 Hornet

          Not more
          1. YELLOWSTONE
            YELLOWSTONE April 19 2018 09: 41
            0
            a little more
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 19 2018 10: 02
              +2
              Quote: YELLOWSTONE
              a little more

              The combat radius is a very extensible concept, since it is considered differently - in the strike version, or in the fighter, with or without PTB, and also depends on the flight profile.
              At the same time, the practical range of Hornet S is 3 km. The practical range of the Yak-300 with the PTB and along the altitude profile is 141 km. Their combat radii are approximately the same.
              1. YELLOWSTONE
                YELLOWSTONE April 19 2018 12: 32
                0
                in the same, if not stretched laughing then Hornet 2017km, 83km less
                1. YELLOWSTONE
                  YELLOWSTONE April 20 2018 02: 34
                  0
                  3300 is a ferry range
      2. YELLOWSTONE
        YELLOWSTONE April 19 2018 09: 17
        0
        even the Yak-36 in 1963-64 could well destroy no worse than the MiG-17 or the same Harrier on which the radar appeared only in 1982
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 19 2018 09: 37
          +1
          Quote: YELLOWSTONE
          even the Yak-36 in 1963-64 could well destroy no worse than the MiG-17 or the same Harrier

          How to exterminate something? Terrible view? The machine could not raise weapons. Harrier as a fighter sucks, as proved by the Falklands
          1. YELLOWSTONE
            YELLOWSTONE April 19 2018 09: 44
            +1
            and a lot of them were shot down there in air battles?
            the same as Harrier, who didn’t lift him either lol
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 19 2018 10: 05
              0
              Quote: YELLOWSTONE
              and a lot of them were shot down there in air battles?

              the effectiveness of a fighter is not in the number of losses, but in the ability to establish dominance in the air. Harrier could not do this, failed to cover the ships and the landing zone, and did not fulfill elementary tasks to disable ground objects.
              There were almost no fighter fights at Falklands - in most cases, the Argentines sent attack aircraft without fighter cover. And the Harriers even couldn't handle it.
              Yak-36 except himself, beloved, could not lift anything into the air. Yak-38 and Harrier could take some weapons
              1. maximghost
                maximghost April 19 2018 11: 09
                +2
                Yak-36 except himself, beloved, could not lift anything into the air. Yak-38 and Harrier could take some weapons

                where did you get this information?
                According to Alferov’s memoirs, an unfinished yak even flew on sorties in Afghanistan. In the kite case, there are people involved in 38, you can ask them what the yak lifted into the air. Well, if there is any doubt about this, then there is a combat pilot of the yak at the air base - you can ask him.
                1. maximghost
                  maximghost April 19 2018 15: 05
                  +2
                  Or is the Yak-36 not the Yak-36m (actually 38), but namely the experienced twin-engine 36?
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    April 19 2018 16: 15
                    0
                    A man writes about the Yak-36, and the Yak-36 is well, that’s never a Yak-36m
                    1. maximghost
                      maximghost April 19 2018 19: 12
                      +2
                      I just didn’t understand it right away. Yak-36, I only look at a flying laboratory. 38-like a pilot aircraft, on which the groundwork for the future is being worked out and the last aircraft of which can be left on ships (if there are 141) until the resource is exhausted as attack aircraft and training vehicles.
                      1. YELLOWSTONE
                        YELLOWSTONE April 20 2018 01: 12
                        0
                        already and the Yak-38 became experienced laughing
                        strange and the Air Force wanted to order 20 units at once to run into these flying laboratories
                        for all of NATO at that time there were only 6 experienced Kestrels
              2. YELLOWSTONE
                YELLOWSTONE April 19 2018 12: 43
                0
                these are all common and untruthful words, because in that case the English fleet would have been utop, the landing would not have taken place, and having passed all the islands they would not have recaptured,
                "almost there", more than half of those shot down - fighters and without a single loss.
                about the Yak-36, which could even vertically a couple of missiles, and Harrier you repeat lol
                about the Yak-38 already answered
                1. maximghost
                  maximghost April 19 2018 15: 12
                  +2
                  these are all common and untruthful words, because in that case the English fleet would have been utop, the landing would not have taken place, and having passed all the islands they would not have recaptured,

                  Here I agree with the author. Harriers almost never succeeded in intercepting the Argentines and breaking off their attack. More often they attacked already used aircraft. And the ships themselves could stand up for themselves, within certain limits.
                  1. YELLOWSTONE
                    YELLOWSTONE April 20 2018 00: 52
                    0
                    And in what monograph is it written? laughing
                    almost always succeeded, until the duty air patrol ran out of weapons, further planes flew over
                    for spent aircraft, therefore, almost always were not spent
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 19 2018 16: 16
                  0
                  And the specifics with all the statistics of the harriers are laid out in my corresponding cycle of articles
                  1. maximghost
                    maximghost April 19 2018 19: 13
                    +2
                    Yes, I read. The cycle was not very bad, thanks for the work. I learned new details about the Argentines. For example, about reconnaissance by civilian aircraft and ancient AWACS, which developed a resource in the middle of the war.
                  2. YELLOWSTONE
                    YELLOWSTONE April 20 2018 00: 53
                    0
                    a list of losses by type of aircraft and why they find no problem
                    this is specificity which is more difficult to stretch
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      April 20 2018 09: 04
                      +3
                      Quote: YELLOWSTONE
                      this is specificity which is more difficult to stretch

                      In total, on May 1-25, Argentines tried 32 times to attack British ships, 104 aircraft took part in these attempts. Harriers managed to intercept groups of attacking planes 9 times (before they went on the attack), but only 6 attacks were thwarted (19% of the total), in other cases, the Argentines, although they suffered losses, still broke through to the English ships. In total, out of 104 attacking aircraft, 85 were able to attack British ships, i.e. The Sea Harriers were able to thwart the attacks of only 18,26% of the total number of Argentine aircraft participating in them.
                      This is the specifics. And loss lists are in favor of the poor
                      1. YELLOWSTONE
                        YELLOWSTONE April 21 2018 07: 41
                        +1
                        the war on the islands went from April 29 to June 14
                        you confuse the number of groups with the number of planes and extract% from this
                        in three more groups there were simply too many attacking Argentines, on which the British did not have enough arms and ammunition
                        104 - 85 is less than the number hit by even harriers in the absence of their own losses, despite the fact that Argentinean aircraft outnumbered the British several times and did not warn about the time and place of her massive attacks.
                        supersonic speed superfluous especially for intercepting supersonic targets
      3. maximghost
        maximghost April 19 2018 10: 09
        +2
        Compare this with the radius of the MiG-29K (1300 km with the PTB)

        Well, there is data about 90km, but they are doubtful, I did not write about them. Also, do not forget that the Yak-141 was only being developed, and the instant was made on the basis of an already developed machine. + the yak initially planned only 1 ptb, later they could increase the number. Met information that dumalnad increase in the number of pylons by 2.

        The British made their Harrier but in the future did not begin to create a new VTOL aircraft, but only modernized the existing project. No one else suffered in the VTOL world.

        modernization was very decent, while the Americans and the British had their own options. The more advanced VTOL projects for the British did not reach the iron, and the Americans took care of the new VTOL in 96. Everyone else just bought harry and that's it.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 19 2018 10: 46
          +1
          Quote: maximghost
          Well, there is data about 90km, but they are doubtful, I did not write about them. Also, do not forget that the Yak-141 was only being developed, and the instant was made on the basis of an already developed machine. + the yak initially planned only 1 ptb, later they could increase the number

          And do not forget that the 700-km combat radius of the Yak is nothing more than a calculated value not confirmed by tests
          Quote: maximghost
          modernization was very decent, while the Americans and the British had their own options.

          Nevertheless, everything was limited to them.
          1. maximghost
            maximghost April 19 2018 11: 18
            +3
            And do not forget that the 700-km combat radius of the Yak is nothing more than a calculated value not confirmed by tests

            I agree, but the tests were not completed to the end, so there will still be no other data.

            And in the previous post I described - not 90, but 900km.
            1. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE April 19 2018 12: 45
              0
              he passed all the tests and 12 records behind him, most of which are held up to now.
              F-18 Hornet has a smaller radius laughing
              MiG-29K had even less
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                April 19 2018 16: 18
                0
                Yeah, 12 records. AmongSVVP :)))))
                And as for the radii - as I understand it, the record is stuck?
                1. YELLOWSTONE
                  YELLOWSTONE April 20 2018 00: 37
                  0
                  the radius of the simple MiG-29 was even smaller lol
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    April 20 2018 10: 43
                    +1
                    Quote: YELLOWSTONE
                    the radius of the simple MiG-29 was even smaller

                    Simple - what is it? The first episodes or what? Firstly, I didn’t :))) With PTB - the same as with Yak with PTB. And secondly, the MiG-29 9-12 flew a little like that 10 years earlier. Maybe compare with La-5FN, so surely?
                    1. YELLOWSTONE
                      YELLOWSTONE April 21 2018 07: 44
                      0
                      MiG-29 Air Force with a radius of less than 600km
                      he was bigger (like La-5) and didn’t need
                      Hornet has a combat radius of 740
                      Yak has at least 900, even more than Superhornet
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        April 21 2018 11: 01
                        +2
                        Quote: YELLOWSTONE
                        Yak has a minimum of 900,

                        Look, growing in front of your eyes laughing
                    2. YELLOWSTONE
                      YELLOWSTONE April 21 2018 11: 47
                      0
                      write and 1000, this is consistent with 2100
                      less distillation due to the smaller number of possible PTB
              2. maximghost
                maximghost April 20 2018 13: 50
                +2
                Tests after the accident ended, unfortunately.
                1. YELLOWSTONE
                  YELLOWSTONE April 21 2018 07: 45
                  +1
                  tests were completed at the NITKA airport, on which there were no accidents
                  or do you think the Ka-27s were also tested on ships?
                  1. maximghost
                    maximghost April 21 2018 16: 38
                    +2
                    You can rest as much as you like, but the Yak-141 test program has not been completed.
                    1. YELLOWSTONE
                      YELLOWSTONE April 21 2018 17: 17
                      0
                      again in some monograph on the fence is written?
                      try to stop doing it yourself
                      under socialism, unprepared aircraft were not allowed to fly from ships, they were first tested at airfields
                      and helicopters too.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        April 21 2018 17: 46
                        0
                        Quote: YELLOWSTONE
                        unprepared aircraft under socialism were not allowed to fly from ships

                        Yeah. Please read the materiel - the MiG-29K and Su-27K conducted their flight design tests from the deck
                      2. maximghost
                        maximghost April 21 2018 18: 10
                        +2
                        Non-ready and not passed the test program - a little different things.
                        Flights from a ship for deck vehicles are also part of the test program. For example, the Yak-38, then the Yak-36m, part of this program took place on the Moscow PCR, for which they mounted a "square" from the heat-resistant flooring on the cruiser. Then 38 went to Afghanistan - to the database zone, looted for sorties. And it was also a test. And the radius was confirmed precisely during the "diamond".
                      3. YELLOWSTONE
                        YELLOWSTONE April 22 2018 00: 05
                        0
                        unprepared means not passed the test program
                        that is, the thread was built just like that for both of you? laughing and LII aerodromes is all this also no reason?
                        flights from a ship are no longer tests of an airplane or a helicopter, but tests for a ship and pilots, because the Thread does not swing on the waves.
                        on each type of ship they are carried out separately
                    2. YELLOWSTONE
                      YELLOWSTONE April 22 2018 03: 56
                      0
                      see a little higher answer.
    5. lance
      lance April 20 2018 19: 04
      0
      What engine was late?
      1. maximghost
        maximghost April 21 2018 16: 35
        +2
        Lifting and Marching R79V-300.
        After the first tests, he was sent for revision.
        However, since April 1987, flight tests of the Yak-41M prototypes have been suspended, and all the R79V-300 prototype lifting and marching engines were removed from aircraft and sent to the Soyuz AMNTK for resource control and improvements. Due to the overload of AMNTK with other tasks, this work took almost two years.
        1. lance
          lance April 21 2018 16: 51
          0
          and for how much this dvigun was made you know? not a couple 41f
          1. YELLOWSTONE
            YELLOWSTONE April 21 2018 18: 01
            0
            before the first flight of this aircraft on a suspension in the early 80s, this engine was made (it seems to be logical), so in 1987 it could no longer slow down
            approximately also under far-fetched pretexts 3 Mach "Weaving" of Sukhoi
          2. maximghost
            maximghost April 21 2018 18: 13
            +2
            About 10, if not mistaken. This is without 2 years of "resource control and improvements."
            1. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE April 21 2018 23: 54
              0
              wrong, again attached another nozzle to a pre-existing engine
              it took quite a bit of time
            2. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE April 22 2018 08: 42
              0
              or do you think that on a leash a plane can fly without an engine?
        2. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE April 21 2018 17: 28
          0
          what were the improvements and how much does resource control take?
          in what cases is this control done? lol
          now some airplane also flies for many years, and then how its engine is modernized as well.
          1. YELLOWSTONE
            YELLOWSTONE April 21 2018 17: 52
            0
            questions were because
            an engine is not put into the aircraft which this resource control (as part of its tests) did not pass at least once.
            and if it became necessary to carry it out again, it means that he was exploited for a long time both in the tail and in the mane, which means that he could not be ready before that, they would be late
            “delayed” engines cannot be on the plane and then will be sent to the resource, because they have not been developed. before development, the control (not one) is first driven separately so that it does not detonate inside the aircraft.
  12. Snakebyte
    Snakebyte April 19 2018 15: 28
    0
    Quote: YELLOWSTONE
    it was the X-35 which after the tender simply changed its name

    Hmm, everything is clear with your "knowledge."
    The contract for the development of the X-35, as mentioned earlier, was concluded on November 16, 1996.
    1. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE April 20 2018 00: 38
      0
      which account? This year, Lokhida in Russia has already caught a trace
      1. Snakebyte
        Snakebyte April 20 2018 08: 03
        0
        The one at the start of the JSF program, which marked the beginning of the F-35.
        Whose achievements the Americans used more, there is no clear data.
        Although RR offered its 3BSN development services based on its AVS development, LM preferred to purchase documentation from the Yakovlevites, because they were primarily interested not so much in the kinematics of the nozzle (it was already well known for a long time at that time), but as the accumulated experience in operating the nozzle on the Yak-141, and the Yakovlev experience was valuable because the Yak-141 scheme as a whole resembled that chosen for the X-35. Besides, cooperation with Russians seemed more profitable for financial reasons.. RR received a contract to develop the LM fan invented in LM, as well as the development of a gas rudder system (in this area, the world leadership of RR is undeniable).

        Nevertheless, cooperation with the Yakovlevites for some reason did not work out (various reasons were mentioned, which, however, are far from conspiracy theories), and in a couple of years the nozzle development contract was transferred to RR, and it is not known whether the documentation received from Russia was transmitted to RR. RR redeveloped, and according to the representatives of the company, "from scratch", and it was she who became part of the X-35 and in the future F-35.
        1. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE April 21 2018 07: 48
          +1
          there is data where they went, after which the JSF project went under which even then they hired those to whom they went,
          where is all this quoted long haze? RR with his Pegasus didn’t have anything like that, they gave the lockheed part of Yakovlevsky to them because the lockheed itself does not deal with engines laughing
          the same start was in the early 90s when they arrived in Russia, companies already come out with something to conclude a contract and for a tender.
          1. Snakebyte
            Snakebyte April 22 2018 11: 35
            0
            Ah Pingo, Pingo. Nick changed the flag, only the level of knowledge did not pull up.
            the "LiftSystem" has a shaft-driven LiftFan, designed by Lockheed Martin and developed by Rolls-Royce

            Chief Engineer of Lockheed Martin Advanced Development Projects (Skunk Works), invented the lift fan propulsion system.
            1. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE April 22 2018 14: 36
              0
              Sounds like a bad case. A fan is not an engine,
              so where did the turbidity come from above? RR had a bifurcated nozzle in Pegasus harrier and for some reason not rotary in X-32, instead of rotary "with long known kinematics" wassat
              1. Kyzmich
                Kyzmich April 22 2018 16: 43
                0
                Quote: YELLOWSTONE
                Sounds like a bad case. A fan is not an engine,

                Like not an engine.
                This is the same source of traction (8 tons) driven by the main engine.
                And this miracle weighs half a ton more than the drive motor itself.))))
                1. YELLOWSTONE
                  YELLOWSTONE April 23 2018 00: 55
                  0
                  Quote: Kyzmich
                  Like not an engine.

                  Quote: Kyzmich
                  driven by the main engine.
  13. exo
    exo April 19 2018 15: 47
    0
    The concept itself, verticals is good. The Western program "Arapaho", with take-off from container ships, is interesting. We had a similar program, as far as I remember.
    Well, only the lifting engine, the rest of the flight, almost lying dead weight, spoils the matter. At Harrier, this issue is well resolved. Although, he did not add to the speed of flight.
    In general, the fate of the Yak-141 would be decided if the USSR existed, the question is very interesting.
    1. maximghost
      maximghost April 19 2018 19: 16
      +2
      Yes, not interesting even once. Under 141 there were 4 ships. He would definitely go into the series.
      1. exo
        exo April 19 2018 21: 19
        0
        Then, already-5 ships. At Kuznetsovo, they were also planned, in a certain amount.
    2. Kyzmich
      Kyzmich April 19 2018 20: 01
      0
      If you look at the weight of Harrier's Pegasus, then it is equal to the weight of the mid-flight engine and two PD-39 PDs of the Yak 38.
      So they both dragged the extra 500kg.
      1. maximghost
        maximghost April 19 2018 21: 00
        +2
        Well, as it were, yes, but the Yak could initially accelerate to supersonic sound (M1.05, it seems), and the harrier only record highs - with a sophisticated wing profile.
        1. Kyzmich
          Kyzmich April 20 2018 23: 50
          +1
          Nothing heard on the sophisticated wing profile of the Yak38.
          According to my observations, with a dive, he skipped over to the sound
          At least the link of the yaks passed without sound, and only then did the sound wave come.
          Supersound Yak-u ruined bifurcated flywheel.
          What has become a dead end in the Harrier scheme
          The rush affected - even in the pipe they didn’t stop blowing, when the blowers understood an error - 30% loss of traction.
          1. maximghost
            maximghost April 21 2018 23: 38
            +2
            Nothing heard on the sophisticated wing profile of the Yak38.

            About a sophisticated profile - this is only a harrier concerned. Yak from the moment of testing at ground level could reach supersonic, but only small. Those. there was something of Mach 1.05-1.1.
            1. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE April 22 2018 08: 03
              0
              not that R.1154 which was never made?
  14. geniy
    geniy April 19 2018 17: 34
    +2
    But there is an idea to put twice as many planes on a Russian aircraft carrier in the hangar than it can now accommodate. The bottom line is that the overall volume of the aircraft is very large, but the required empty weight for a huge ship is relatively small. That is, the rule that one aircraft (take-off weight of 30 tons) on an aircraft carrier requires 1000 tons of displacement - this is a misunderstanding, because the lion's share of this thousand tons - about 900 tons are occupied by the ship’s hull and fuel. And for fuel and ammunition for an airplane, 100 tons are spent at best. So - if you put two instead of one airplane per thousand tons, the ship’s weight will be quite small. And if we take into account that the aircraft carrier has a huge buoyancy reserve (that is, the volume of the surface part of the hull) and a very large height of the freeboard, the draft from the additional weight will increase very little.
    So what should be done so that planes in the hangar would be cleaned 2 times more? And just place them on two floors. That is, down on the hangar deck to place aircraft with retracted landing gear on special very low carts with a height of only 200 millimeters with small wheels. And ride planes to the elevators on these carts, and then lift them with jacks to lower the chassis.
    And the second - the top floor of the aircraft will be spare. They will be suspended on chains under the ceiling, and will fall down as necessary.
    But to achieve this, it is necessary to greatly reduce the overall height of all aircraft. And then 2 actions are required. About the first - cleaning the chassis, I already wrote. And the second action is to modernize the glider of aircraft carriers so that the vertical keels fold horizontally. Well, that is, if all carrier aircraft have wing consoles and no one sees anything surprising in it, and the Su-33 also has elevators to reduce overall height, then there is no difficulty in folding vertical keels in the same way. Here are some pictures of how this might look:

    1. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE April 20 2018 01: 29
      +1
      the large radar fairing on most decks still comes unfastened and turns to the side
  15. Taoist
    Taoist April 19 2018 21: 59
    +1
    Kyzmich,
    Well, the plane is not a gadget ... you can’t read the laws of gas dynamics ... ;-) Young people often do not understand this. They think that avionics are the solution to all problems. And to put it mildly, this is not so. How many Americans didn’t fight, but they really didn’t manage to teach them how to fly normally.
    1. lance
      lance April 20 2018 19: 16
      0
      according to the assurances of the warriors from Israel, we (Russia) are not aware of the topic and the vertical has been mastered 100%.
    2. Kyzmich
      Kyzmich April 20 2018 23: 53
      +1
      Taoist-true.
      All that in the USA created yourself in terms of VTOL, these are cuttlefish
      1. lance
        lance April 21 2018 09: 11
        0
        I also don’t like amerococos and Anglo-Saxons, but like everywhere else they have smart heads that they had to meet.
        1. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE April 21 2018 11: 58
          0
          but the fact remains
          they also borrowed a tiltrotor from Canada, having broken two of its prototypes during test flights repeat
  16. The comment was deleted.
    1. lance
      lance April 20 2018 19: 24
      0
      he also said that he loves cars with the Ant-25 stable steering wheel, Chkalov had a different approach: the fighter must react to any movement with his hand or foot — the plane and the pilot are a whole. in addition, the alignment of the aircraft, because the Su-27 glider and its followers on alignment are very different from others. not without reason experienced aces of the USA fight on them.
    2. Salomet
      Salomet April 21 2018 16: 24
      +2
      The wing twist is not for inductive resistance but to control the stall of the flow at large angles of attack. Look at the bend fighters. "Streams" begin from the root of the wing is a stall. The wing ceases to carry weight almost completely, but the handling improves and the speed drops less.
      Honestly there are a lot of things, aerodynamics is a tricky science.
      The second is why they do not fix the angle. The B-29 has a difference in separation speed and maximum what? 200-250km hour.
      Maximum lift is only needed during takeoff. When cruising, the fighter lacks 2.5-3 ado. When switching to supersonic you have to tilt the plane down with your nose.
      Flying up wheels also during combat turns happens. 1 option from a height of the aircraft flips to the back while decreasing. Option 2, it's like a semi loop, only with a flip at the top point. For quick climb. Look for a video of fighter training, you will see that they are not only flying upside down. hi
  17. maximghost
    maximghost April 22 2018 00: 17
    +2
    YELLOWSTONE,
    Niet, Molotov. Flights from a ship are also tests of an airplane. It is checked as take-off / landing / radius capabilities, in different flight modes. So is the compatibility of equipment, both that which is on the ship, and that which is on the plane. After the accident, if the program had not been curtailed, the aircraft would probably have been modified so that the incident would not have happened with a hard landing.
    that is, the thread was built just like that for both of you? laughing and aerodromes LII is this also all no reason?
    flights from a ship are no longer tests of an airplane or a helicopter, but tests for a ship and pilots, because the Thread does not swing on the waves.

    Threading is only part of the test.
    1. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE April 22 2018 07: 47
      0
      What kind of aircraft tests are these if every time on a new type of ship it is necessary to conduct a new one?
      landing limits are set in advance and checked in advance before the plane has ever taken off
      hardware compatibility checked and not tested
      Quote: maximghost
      Threading is only part of the test.

      the last part of the tests of the aircraft itself, and more pilot training laughing
      so that for the first time it’s not difficult to board a ship, as well as take off from it
    2. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE April 22 2018 08: 53
      0
      take-off / landing / radius capabilities, in different flight modes - for this a ship is not needed
      1. maximghost
        maximghost April 22 2018 15: 35
        +2
        Yes? Is it accurate? If you didn’t know, then when you enter deck-based aviation, the ship does not stand still, but goes at a certain speed, and even against the wind, if there is not complete calmness around. And this reduces the speed and take-off length required for take-off, or increases the potential mass of the combat load / flight range (since a little less fuel will have to be burned at the start of the afterburner). How can this be worked out on earth?
        1. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE April 23 2018 01: 00
          0
          exactly, so it decreases and does not increase
  18. YELLOWSTONE
    YELLOWSTONE April 22 2018 04: 21
    0
    Andrey from Chelyabinsk,
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: YELLOWSTONE
    unprepared aircraft under socialism were not allowed to fly from ships

    Yeah. Please read the materiel - the MiG-29K and Su-27K conducted their flight design tests from the deck

    the materiel says that the Su-27K flew to NITKA on August 17, 1987
    boarded the Su-27K for the first time on November 1, 1989
    before all this, of course, he flew from a regular airfield

    On September 27, 1988, the first Su-27K aircraft crashed due to a hydraulic failure.
    where and what were the failures of the systems on the then restored Yak? lol
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 22 2018 10: 05
      +2
      Quote: YELLOWSTONE
      the materiel says that the Su-27K flew to NITKA on August 17, 1987
      boarded the Su-27K for the first time on November 1, 1989
      before all this, of course, he flew from a regular airfield

      And LCI did not fly :))) Mikoyan and Sukhovites specifically received permission to pass LCI on deck
      1. YELLOWSTONE
        YELLOWSTONE April 22 2018 14: 47
        0
        Is THREAD already gone along with Crimea under Ukraine? laughing
      2. Kyzmich
        Kyzmich April 22 2018 16: 46
        0
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Merging again?
        Yes?
        Smart you are a guy.
  19. Kyzmich
    Kyzmich April 22 2018 09: 39
    +1
    Andrey from Chelyabinsk,
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    But ABOUT SHIPS, I know a lot, much more than you.

    A sign that a person on the Internet is to include Caps Look. (Just in case, consider)
    You know about ships as much as about a sausage, looking at its label, without ever tasting its taste.
    To attribute to oneself superiority over other people, not knowing who they are, the level of their knowledge is also a sign of a small mind.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 22 2018 10: 06
      +3
      Quote: Kyzmich
      To attribute to oneself superiority over other people, not knowing who they are, the level of their knowledge is also a sign of a small mind.

      Come on, Kuzmich, you have already merged on all the issues that have been raised. And your level is such that the baseboard looks down on you :)
      1. The comment was deleted.
  20. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    April 22 2018 10: 17
    +3
    Kyzmich,
    Quote: Kyzmich
    The launch range of your "Shrike" -15km
    And for the first time I hear that they could be aimed at a moving target?

    So learn the materiel, Kuzmich. AGM-15A, the first modification of Shrike, had 45 km. But the AGM-45V range exceeded 40 km (according to some sources - 52 km)
    1. Kyzmich
      Kyzmich April 22 2018 13: 00
      0
      Yes, at least 100 km, it does not hit moving targets - the angle of capture of the seeker is small ..
      Well, the year of release, specify this in the series.
      From 250 km your Hokai will not be able to distinguish our Takr from a boat.
      But he will be spotted even in passive mode long before he sees anything on his screens.
      At the same time, they will reveal the lie of the AUG.
      And with what thread the nuclear submarines will cut along it a couple of dozen Granites, in addition to our Basalts.
  21. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    April 22 2018 10: 31
    +3
    Quote: Kyzmich
    Eccentric, didn’t it occur to you that the picture just shows a diagram of the possible arrangement of the aircraft?
    Where and how can stand at the start?
    No?

    An eccentric letter, have you been given a textbook? Aircraft Carrier Flight and Hangar Deck Fire Protection: History and Current Status? So learn the materiel. In the picture from the Murzilka the IMPOSSIBLE layout of the aircraft, because the aircraft in this way are not NEVER located during the takeoff and landing for the reasons I have described.
    Do you know what's the funniest thing? I was silent, but you got me, "expert".
    This picture is from a shipbucket. There is such a place on the Internet where amateurs draw pictures of warships. And then other lovers based on them draw all sorts of alternative, never-existed ships. But periodically these funny pictures fall into various kinds of publications - because, as a rule, color schemes of unrealized ships in nature do not exist, only sketches. I just laughed for a while, when one English-speaking source published a project in an analytical article - a drawing of the latest Russian aircraft carrier ... which I personally painted (I had fun on the alternative history website, TAKR Borodino)!
    In general, your picture is just from this series :))) With special knowledge, people who draw boats are not burdened, so they periodically allow wild bloopers, it is possible that some sixth grader drew yours :))))
    1. arturpraetor
      arturpraetor April 22 2018 10: 50
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Special knowledge people who draw boats are not burdened

      Why are you so on flotofila-AIshnikami, below the belt, but a puncher laughing Although in many (and even most) cases this is true. Well, recently there was a thing ...
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        April 22 2018 11: 47
        0
        Quote: arturpraetor
        Why are you so on flotofila-AIshnikami, below the belt, but a puncher

        Dear colleague, people make the majority of drawings of the package bag out of a love of art. And their level is usually limited by sharpe, in which they can easily calculate the weight summary of the battleship at 80 tons by taking the destroyer Gremyashchy as a sample laughing Yes, you yourself have witnessed that :)))
        1. arturpraetor
          arturpraetor April 22 2018 11: 52
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Dear colleague, people make the majority of drawings of the package bag out of a love of art.

          And, well, if you take a shippack separately, then yes, they don’t particularly deal with materiel, so I’m very rarely there. Although for me aesthetics is far from the last thing repeat

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          And their level is usually limited by sharpe, in which they can easily calculate the weight summary of the battleship in 80 000 and taking the destroyer Thundering as a sample. You yourself witnessed that :)))

          Oh don't remind laughing It’s still burning me after the Sharp story that I told you. And after all, people don’t care that they have the characteristics of the “Soviet Union” or “Montana” got into the 29-32 kilotons ...
        2. Kyzmich
          Kyzmich April 22 2018 12: 17
          0
          Again.
          They gave you a clever picture so that you would show us miserable where on the deck of Ulyanovsk or Kuznetsov the springboard has a starting position for the Yak 41.
          Well, you're smart
          And now you are trying to reduce the conversation to the source of this picture.
          Especially chattering essence.
          A typical example of a plum theme.
          I personally do not care who drew it
          And I do not see any contradictions in terms of it starting layout.
          Only you see.
          Places to start This picture shows absolutely correctly.
          Do not you agree?
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  22. Snakebyte
    Snakebyte April 22 2018 11: 13
    0
    Quote: Kyzmich
    That is, fuel is not wasted?

    Compare specific consumption.
    And stop giving out compelled for good.
    Lifting motors were used only because the development of a special PMD was unacceptable in terms of time.
    1. Kyzmich
      Kyzmich April 22 2018 12: 41
      +1
      Compare
      Figures in the studio?
      Do you have them?
      The ratio of thrust to weight at RD 41 (2x) 16: 1
      This windmill 4: 1, that is, we raise the extra ton, at least this miracle weighs half a ton more than the marching engine !? 1800 kg vs 1450 kg.
      One more thing.
      Thrust PMD of the engine at Yak41-10000 kg (15 000 kg afterburner) traction two RD 41 -8 000 kg
      It turns out that our Yak 41 takes off without afterburner (8t + 8t)?
      And what about the F 35V?
      he has an PMD thrust of only 13 tons and even an empty aircraft weighs 000 kg.
      The draft of the fan is also 8 000 kg (there is data that 9 000 kg)
      So you need to cut the fast and the furious (19 500 kg)
      How economical is it?
      How much is good in the rejected nozzle I will not say.
      But for the deck, it’s definitely not good.
      Moreover, they were led by a "cold fan" (in fact, more than 50C) and they catch on take-off in the same way as the Harriers and our Yak-and basic hot wave.

      The funniest thing I read about this is that some smart ones write that it has some bypass and the air of this sail is supposedly driven through PMD lowering the overall temperature of the gases, which is a stealth hood.
      Well, complete nonsense.
      And they write it on Airwar)))
      1. Snakebyte
        Snakebyte April 22 2018 20: 15
        0
        Quote: Kyzmich
        Figures in the studio?
        Do you have them?

        There are numbers for a long time. For F-135 0,86 without afterburner.
        Quote: Kyzmich
        And what about the F 35V?

        Your calculations are not correct.
        The F136 produces 18,000 lbf (80.1 kN) of lift thrust in STOVL configuration. Combined with thrust from the LiftFan (20,000 lbf or 89.0 kN) and two roll posts (1,950 lbf or 8.67 kN each), the Rolls-Royce LiftSystem produces a total of 41,900 lbf (186 kN) of thrust.

        That is, in the KVVP mode PMD does not even develop full thrust (Maximum thrust: 40,000 lbf; 25,000 lbf without afterburner).
        1. Kyzmich
          Kyzmich April 22 2018 22: 49
          +1
          Quote: Snakebyte
          Your calculations are not correct

          Well let's count
          In order not to get confused with KN, translate them into tons
          And so we have
          9-ton fan pull
          Rod PMD-8.1 ton
          Traction 2x jet-1.7 tons
          Add 9 + 8.1 + 1.7 = 18.8 tons
          Let me remind you the after-thrust of F35B = 13 tons.
          So even so afterburner.
          And the difference afterburner is not afterburner of 6.5 tons, suggests that this thrust is due to his bloated headroom.
          What does this mean for fuel consumption is not worth explaining.
          So what's your number 0.86 without afterburner there is no channel.
          Need a figure on the afterburner?
          By the way, the figure of 18.8 tons upsets, since the weight of the empty F35B is 14,65 tons.
          This ideally remains 4.14 tons on fuel = weapon gear = emergency balance.
          1. Kyzmich
            Kyzmich April 22 2018 23: 08
            0
            Quote: Snakebyte
            The F136 produces 18,000 lbf (80.1 kN) of lift thrust in STOVL configuration. Combined with thrust from the LiftFan (20,000 lbf or 89.0 kN) and two roll posts (1,950 lbf or 8.67 kN each), the Rolls-Royce LiftSystem produces a total of 41,900 lbf (186 kN) of thrust.

            18.96 tons of text
            18.8 tons with us.
            The difference is not great.
            The calculation is quite correct.

            PS
            And here it is interesting
            .....[i] (Maximum thrust: 40,000 lbf; 25,000 lbf without afterburner). [/ i...
            it turns out that afterburner thrust is even less than according to the "wiki"
            Total 18 tons
            1. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE April 23 2018 01: 04
              0
              Quote: Snakebyte
              There are numbers for a long time. For F-135 0,86 without afterburner.

              ask him better with or without a fan lol although already asked laughing
            2. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE April 23 2018 03: 13
              0
              still ask if the X-32 could take off without a partial disassembly, on which, moreover, the nozzle is not rotatable and there is no fan, and cold front nozzles
              but don’t ask, it’s Washington’s adherent of the fact that the Americans and the English have everything (but for some reason it wasn’t used), although they climbed trying to make an X-32, if only they would completely break off the nozzles, even even greater squalor in the form of XFV-12 wassat
            3. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE April 23 2018 03: 32
              0
              while continuing to fly on harriers 1967 release
              and the "proof" of their dreams they usually have only one photo with a German working engine in 1964 taken in the dark night (for some reason, not in the afternoon yes ) which they confuse with American, or pass off as English bully
              at such a time of day, an ordinary fire or a fire at the state line will give a larger torch laughing
  23. Kyzmich
    Kyzmich April 22 2018 12: 11
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    - cover of shipborne formations against air strikes, their anti-submarine and anti-hacking support;
    - ensuring the combat stability of missile strategic submarines in combat patrol areas;
    - ensuring the deployment of submarines;
    - cover marine missile, anti-submarine and reconnaissance aircraft in the reach of naval fighter aircraft;
    - search and destruction of enemy missile submarines as part of groups of heterogeneous anti-submarine forces;
    - defeat groups of surface ships of the enemy;
    - ensuring the landing of amphibious assault forces.

    Who wrote this?
    Not otherwise than a schoolboy.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 22 2018 17: 41
      +1
      Quote: Kyzmich
      Who wrote this?
      Not otherwise than a schoolboy.

      Of course, a schoolboy, Kuzmich :))) In the rank of engineer-shipbuilder, the captain of the 1st rank is a reserve engineer. Zablotsky Vladimir Petrovich. He built our TAKRs a little ... shkolota, what’s there. Where is he up to you, "expert" :)))) I, literate, will give you a whole paragraph:

      "As a result, by a government decree of September 2, 1968 No. 685-251, a joint proposal of the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Industry and Industry was adopted to stop the construction of the anti-ship missile at Nikolaev in 1123.3 pr. And to begin construction of the Kiev anti-ship missile with aviation weapons in a new way project 1143.

      The following tasks were assigned to the ships of this project:

      - protection of ship formations from air strikes, their anti-submarine and anti-boat support;

      - ensuring the combat stability of strategic missile submarines in the areas of combat patrols;

      - ensuring the deployment of submarines;

      - cover for marine missile, anti-submarine and reconnaissance aircraft in the reach of naval fighter aircraft;

      - search and destruction of enemy missile submarines as part of heterogeneous anti-submarine forces;

      - defeat groups of surface ships of the enemy;

      - ensuring the landing of amphibious assault forces.

      The decree instructed: the Ministry of Defense to issue a monthly technical specification for the design of the ship; To the Ministry of Industry and Industry (NPKB) - to develop, on the instructions of the Ministry of Defense in 1968, a preliminary design and in 1969, the technical design of anti-ship missiles, pr.1143, and also to ensure its construction at the Black Sea Shipbuilding Plant and delivery to the fleet in 1973 "


      And for the rest of the delirium - I will answer later. Listen Kuzmich, you are not only a boor, which are few, but also a complainer, am I watching? Comment my moderators banged
      1. Kyzmich
        Kyzmich April 22 2018 18: 56
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Ablotsky Vladimir Petrovich.

        What do you have to do with it?
        Huh?
        And Vladimir such nonsense as you write you never wrote.
        Liar.
        Covering our SSBNs in the patrol zone means opening their location.
        That is how in 1977 TAKR "Kiev spotted the mattress SSBN and then kept it in contact for 50 hours., Disrupting its military service.
        For this in those days removed epaulettes.
        I don’t know how it is now, but earlier it was enough to open the area (arc-radius) on which SSBN was on duty to disrupt her military service.
        And it was carefully masked.
        This is exactly what our commander Yuri Georgievich Sokolov was able to understand, looking at the maneuvers of surface and underwater crab NATO.
        The question of what to do in the reconnaissance area of ​​our aviation, I also do not catch up.
        What kind of intelligence is this when our KUG sticks out there, shining for hundreds of miles with its radars.
        All the tasks for our "gyrfalcons" are set out specifically in the technical conclusion of the Ministry of Defense.
        It is written even funnier, especially on tasks for the Yak38 per unit.
        I assure you.
        It looks more like a formal reply
        But nowhere is the task of air defense posed to him.
        The "gyrfalcons" themselves then completely carried out the air defense tasks, especially as part of the KUG.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. Kyzmich
            Kyzmich April 22 2018 19: 59
            0
            I read Zabolotsky 10-12 years ago.
            You are juggling the facts again.
            This resolution has no relation to Project 1143.
            These are just general wishes.
            No one has ever set the air defense missile light attack aircraft Yak 38.
            Stop misleading people.
            If so smart, then find a real MO technical note on the tasks of TAKRKiev and its aircraft.
            I assure you you can safely send it to the section of humor.
            There is one epic picture of the attack of the Yak 38 NAR US aircraft carrier which is worth it.
          2. Kyzmich
            Kyzmich April 22 2018 20: 11
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            You quoted a fragment of the monograph "Heavy Aircraft Cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov"

            And what side does TAKRKiev feel like?
            Air Defense Tasks "Kuznetsov without problems could fulfill
            An air wing of 50 aircraft is a very convincing argument.
            Moreover, in terms of capabilities, the MiG29 and Su33 exceeded the F-18.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
  24. Snakebyte
    Snakebyte April 22 2018 20: 21
    0
    Quote: YELLOWSTONE
    Sounds like a bad case. A fan is not an engine,

    This is to the point that you claimed that LM transferred to RR what it borrowed from Yakovlev.
    And they conveyed exactly what they invented themselves.
    1. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE April 23 2018 01: 35
      0
      LM transferred the General Electric fan to the PP exactly, and the nozzle from Yakovlev, the engine is English
      the fan is in front of the engine, the nozzle is in the back fool
      they did everything else "exactly themselves", attracting Yakovlevites in a row
      1. Snakebyte
        Snakebyte April 23 2018 13: 27
        0
        Tired of poking you nose into your ignorance in question.
        Finally. Yakovlevites were also attracted because they characterized their nozzle as being controlled in two planes. But in reality it turned out that it is controlled only in one plane. And such a nozzle in the PP in the museum stood since 1969.
        1. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE April 23 2018 14: 15
          0
          as if you’re already writing nonsense laughing the design of the plane they saw at the air show doesn’t turn him that way lol
          In which museum of the RR? so why didn’t it stand on planes, and the X-32 with the XFV-12 did without such?
          you never answered it even though you were poked into this fact clearly and three times laughing
          in 1969 Harrier adopted, also without such a nozzle
        2. maximghost
          maximghost April 23 2018 18: 27
          +2
          But was it? I heard about the fact that this was theoretically worked out, about the fact that there was a rotary nozzle with FC in the metal before ours - no.
          1. Snakebyte
            Snakebyte April 24 2018 10: 51
            0
            In this thread was, even the photo I brought:
            https://topwar.ru/132057-palubnyy-samolet-vertika
            lnogo-vzleta-plany-minoborony-i-opyt-promyshlenno
            sti.html
            1. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE April 24 2018 13: 21
              0
              .it’s all types of people who bring you, only usually then they “understand” the first time - photo of such a nozzle on the X-32 (1996) or XFV-12 (1973) where?
              on the X-35, by the way, if you look closely, it’s not
          2. YELLOWSTONE
            YELLOWSTONE April 24 2018 13: 29
            0
            such nozzles were unsuccessfully tested by the Americans from the beginning of the 70s and by the Germans in the mid-60s
            the photo is only German, which he takes for English
            neither appeared on the X-32 and XFV-12 aircraft.
  25. Snakebyte
    Snakebyte April 22 2018 20: 25
    +1
    Quote: YELLOWSTONE
    so where did the turbidity come from above? RR had a bifurcated nozzle in Pegasus harrier and for some reason not rotary in X-32, instead of rotary "with long known kinematics"

    Pingo, in the past holivar you were repeatedly explained where the 3BSN nozzle came from and when - in 1967, successful fire tests in 1969. Even the photos cited. Forgot?
    1. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE April 23 2018 01: 46
      0
      If they tried to explain to you once already and you didn’t understand, then this is for something.
      1967 (at the very end) Harrier was ready,
      1964 is a German MAN nozzle; its tests were unsuccessful. In the early 70s, the American was tested, also unsuccessfully. Therefore, the Anglo-Saxons in the X-32 at the competition had their nozzle fixed, or didn’t you read about it?
      in the USA and Germany, nothing happened with such nozzles, Rolls-Royce sawed Pegasus for harriers and did not deal with them at all.
      1. Snakebyte
        Snakebyte April 24 2018 15: 37
        0
        Google RB153.
        Or in the universe of the ignorant, the abbreviation RB does not apply to Rolls-Royce?
        1. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE April 24 2018 16: 16
          0
          in normal Rolls-Royce refers RR
          "turbofan engine developed jointly by Rolls-Royce Limited and MAN Turbo, Developed for the German EWR VJ 101D interceptor with a German-developed thrust-deflector system"
          translate it yourself?
          well, since you've already translated once, just in case:
          traction deflection system was developed by the German company MAN laughing
          1. Snakebyte
            Snakebyte April 25 2018 13: 48
            +1
            In normal RR refers to the automotive department of the holding.
            And the RB index has aircraft engines.
            So be it, I will help you one more time. Moreover, immediately conclusions on a topic of interest.
            And so that there are no complaints about the translation, you can translate it yourself.
            http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_article.html?i
            tem_id = 137
            For some reason, the site believes that such a text is unacceptable for publication. Apparently, he is afraid for the tender souls of pseudo-patriots.
            In short, the nozzle was already designed and fitted into the design of the X-35 even before Lockheed visited Yakovlev Design Bureau.
            1. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE April 25 2018 14: 13
              0
              Lockheed here has another follower besides you laughing who does not know that in the AV-8B is not a car engine F402-RR-408%
              Designed and inscribed only not in the X-35 (there illustrations are not from him) lol experienced as well as German
              for the sixth time I ask where is the nozzle on the X-32 and XFV-12?
  26. Snakebyte
    Snakebyte April 23 2018 13: 24
    0
    Quote: Kyzmich
    By the way, the figure of 18.8 tons upsets, since the weight of the empty F35B is 14,65 tons.
    This ideally remains 4.14 tons on fuel = weapon gear = emergency balance.

    It is worth noting that according to TTZ F-35B - STOVL, vertical take-off for him is simply an additional bonus.
    Interestingly, the Yak-141 with vertical take-off also remains 4,15 tons per payload.
    1. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE April 23 2018 16: 25
      0
      Is Yak's record broken? Even so (you need to check everything), it is worth noting that the empty F-35 itself weighs 1,3 times more, and even more interesting is that almost all LTXs are not in favor of the F-35, which appeared 25 years later. Stealth coverage probably weighs too much in money. laughing
      1. Snakebyte
        Snakebyte April 24 2018 10: 36
        +1
        Quote: YELLOWSTONE
        F-35 weighs 1,3 times more, and even more interesting is that almost all LTX are not in favor of the F-35

        This is in your universe ignoramus and liars LTH is not in favor.
        F-35 combat load is three times more. The speed is greater, the ceiling is greater. There is nothing to talk about combat capabilities in detecting and aiming weapons.
        1. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE April 24 2018 13: 37
          0
          Yes, but the FAA with its records does not know anything!
          the radius of the F-35 is less by at least 200 km, the speed of the F-35 is less by 0,1-0,2 Mach
          about supposedly approximately equal combat load during vertical take-off you yourself wrote lol
          you are not mistaken in the universe, learned light elf? so go to yours.
          1. Snakebyte
            Snakebyte April 24 2018 15: 36
            +1
            1930 km / h in the ignorant universe is less than 1800. And 9 tons of combat load are 2,6.
            1. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE April 24 2018 16: 20
              0
              max speed F-35B 1.6 mach, yak 1.7 - 1.8 (on the English wiki 1.4+)
              elfietts, above you wrote something about 4.15 vertical in both lol
              1. Snakebyte
                Snakebyte April 25 2018 12: 40
                +2
                How do ignoramuses know that vertical take-off for both machines is used only for demonstrations at an air show, combat use involves take-off with a short take-off. At least they read Wikipedia, it even says in plain text
                Also, both aircraft surpass the Yak-141 in maximum combat load - 2600 kg for the Yak versus 6350 kg for the X-32B and 6800 kg for the F-35B.

                However, given that weapons were installed on the Yak-e only in the form of models and there were no tests for combat use, which means that, according to the logic of the ignoramus, there was no combat aircraft. It makes no sense to compare a full-fledged combat aircraft with a record.
                1. YELLOWSTONE
                  YELLOWSTONE April 25 2018 13: 16
                  0
                  how did you "find out" from her? lol
                  like a yak then m. as much as the F-35 - 4.15 vertical? Where are the FAI inspectors yet to reach Lockheed?
                  The X-32 in general couldn’t lift itself up without partial disassembly, by the way, where is the same 12BSN in it and in the XFV-3, I ask for the fifth time? bully
                  about layouts from where? he was ready for the series, for real.
                  Quote: Snakebyte
                  Either ignoramus who cannot understand that all test flights have been completed, all that is left to do is complete reports to complete the tests. They are only able to pull words out of context, lie and dodge.

                  Adept of Rolls-Royces and Lockheed, have you already learned English and German? laughing
                  1. YELLOWSTONE
                    YELLOWSTONE April 25 2018 13: 29
                    0
                    No, it wasn’t about Yak, it was about F-35 laughing
                    Quote: Snakebyte
                    Further flights are carried out as part of the improvement and integration of new weapons.

                    https://topwar.ru/140286-ne-sootvetstvuet-pyatomu
                    -pokoleniyu-indiya-vyshla-iz-programmy-fgfa.html
                    wassat
  27. bayard
    bayard 22 July 2018 19: 56
    0
    YELLOWSTONE,
    The development of a scheme similar to the F-35 was already in 87-88. - This is me from the weekly reconnaissance bulletin "Aircraft-rocket technology" I remember the lifting fan, single-engine scheme, the configuration of the airframe is approximately the same as that of the modern F-35. But they were able to take up implementation only in the mid-90s with the help of Yakovlev Design Bureau and its designers (under an official intergovernmental agreement). If we had limited ourselves to one vertical man, it would have turned out to be an excellent deck for the Marine Corps, the best and only one in the world today, and so ... a pregnant penguin costing more than gold in specific gravity.