Military Review

Russian aircraft vertical takeoff: a look into the future

186
For many years, there has been talk of a possible construction of a new Russian aircraft carrier, which, however, has not yet led to the start of real work. In the context of such a development fleet the issue is also often discussed aviation groups for a promising ship. Some suggestions are being made, including the most daring. For example, in the past it was repeatedly proposed to resume work on the subject of vertical take-off and landing aircraft. According to some statements by officials, such a proposal could be implemented in the distant future.


Present and plans

At the moment, carrier-based aviation of the Russian Navy cannot be called numerous. Only a few dozen Su-33 and MiG-29K fighters are available to the pilots. All these machines are designed to take off from the deck, equipped with a springboard. Landing is carried out with the help of an aerofinisher. Such a grouping is sufficient to complete the only available aircraft carrier cruiser, but the construction of new aircraft carriers will require to order a certain number of additional aircraft.


Yak-141 in flight


Currently, the Russian military department is exploring the prospects for the development of carrier-based fighters, and is already forming some preliminary proposals. So, a curious option for the further development of naval aviation was proposed last year. During the International Aerospace Salon MAKS-2017, the Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia, Yury Borisov, touched on the topic of the distant future of fleet aviation. As it turned out, the Ministry of Defense has very interesting plans.

According to Yu. Borisov, the existing Su-33 and MiG-29K aircraft will gradually become obsolete, as a result, after about 10 years, the development of new aircraft will be required. At the same time, the military department already has plans for this. They provide for the development and production of new aircraft with a shortened or vertical take-off and landing. It is assumed that the new vertical take-off aircraft will be a kind of continuation of the line of such technology, which was developed in the past by the AS OKB. Yakovlev.

The Deputy Minister of Defense indicated that promising aircraft would serve on a new aircraft carrier, whose construction could begin in the mid-twenties. Other details of a hypothetical project from the future have not yet been announced. Apparently, the development of the new aircraft has not yet begun, and the specialists of the military department and the aviation industry themselves do not yet know what the new Russian carrier-based aircraft could be.

Successes of the past

Last year's statements by the representative of the Ministry of Defense did not reveal any details, but they give an interesting hint at possible further developments. According to Yu. Borisov, the new deck fighter will be a continuation of the family of Yakovlev design bureau cars. If such a proposal is chosen for implementation, the aircraft from the future may be similar to some well-known designs. This allows you to make predictions and try to predict what the new technology will be like.

Recall Yakovlev Design Bureau began to study the subject of vertical takeoff in the late fifties. By the middle of the next decade, a pilot project Yak-36 was created. Prototypes of this type showed the main features of the technology of the new class and allowed to begin to develop high-grade combat vehicles. On the basis of developments on the Yak-36 was created deck attack aircraft Yak-38. He had built-in weapons, and could carry missiles and bombs. In the late seventies, the Yak-38 was adopted and became part of the aviation groups of a number of ships of the USSR Navy. There have also been developed several projects to upgrade such a machine.

Without waiting for the completion of the Yak-38 tests, the design bureau began the development of a new aircraft with similar take-off and landing characteristics, but with enhanced combat capabilities. The new Yak-41 (later the project was renamed the Yak-141) was to become a multipurpose fighter capable of gaining air superiority, as well as striking ground or surface targets. Within the project, the designers of several organizations had to solve a large number of fairly complex tasks, which led to a certain delay in the work. Preparation for testing of experimental equipment started only a decade after the start of design.

The first flight of one of the experienced Yak-41 took place in March 1987. Over the next few years, prototypes carried out certain flight programs, which made it possible to test the operation of all onboard systems. At the very end of 1989, the first flight with hovering took place, and in June of 1990, the first vertical takeoff and vertical landing took place. After a new flight from a land aerodrome, checks on the deck were started. At the end of September 1991, the first landing of the Yak-141 on an aircraft carrier took place. A few days later and completed takeoff.

In early October, during another test vertical landing, one of the experienced aircraft exceeded the vertical speed, which led to the destruction of the structure and fire. This incident was fatal to the project. The possibility of building a new prototype to replace the lost was absent, and soon it was decided to close the project. Officially, the work stopped in 1992. The remaining Yak-141 still showed at various exhibitions, but these machines no longer had a future.

Russian aircraft vertical takeoff: a look into the future
One of the variants of the appearance of the Yak-201


Economic problems and specific views on military-political issues led to the fact that Russia in the early nineties, refused to create new aircraft vertical / shortened take-off and landing. However, the Yakovlev Design Bureau did not stop the elaboration of promising ideas and continued to work on its own initiative. In the mid-nineties, was proposed a new project multi-purpose carrier-based fighter Yak-201.

According to known data, the Yak-201 project provided for the construction of a glider made using stealth technology, which made it possible to drastically reduce the aircraft’s visibility in flight. It was planned to equip the car with one engine designed for vertical take-off / landing and horizontal flight. It was suggested to take off due to the change of thrust with the help of a rotating nozzle. Since the engine was placed in the tail of the car, an auxiliary lift system had to supplement it. Among other things, the option of mounting an additional rotor in the nose of the fuselage, driven by an extended engine shaft, was being worked out.

The specific engine for the Yak-201 was never chosen, due to which most of the flight data was not precisely calculated. The plane was supposed to get an automatic gun and internal cargo compartments for missiles or bombs. Dumped weapon it was proposed to transport on four points of the suspension. Perhaps the fighter could get pylons external placement.

For obvious reasons, the Yak-201 project has not gone beyond the preliminary design stage. The potential customer showed no interest in such equipment, and besides, he did not have the financial opportunity to order its development and construction. As a result, another promising offer went to the archive.

According to the statements of Yu. Borisov, the existing fleet of deck aircraft will become obsolete in the distant future, and they will need to be replaced. Currently, the possibility of creating vertical / short take-off and landing aircraft is being considered, which may provide certain advantages. At the same time, it is not yet specified what they will be and what opportunities they will receive. However, it is indicated that the military department intends to continue the development of the old ideas of the OKB AS. Yakovlev. Thus, you can try to imagine what the future fighter will look like.

Prospection

Of all the projects of vertical take-off planes under the “Yak” brand, the most recent one, proposed in the mid-nineties and not reaching full-fledged design work, may be of the greatest interest. Working through the appearance of the car of the future, the Yakovlev Design Bureau proposed a very interesting aircraft, which even now looks quite modern. Some of the components of this project may require significant processing in accordance with current trends, but a number of common features can be preserved.

It should be noted that a number of the main features of the Yak-201 project reminds us of the American fighter Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II, which has the possibility of a shortened take-off and landing. The Russian and American projects included reducing visibility for enemy detection equipment, used a combination of a sustainer engine with a swiveling nozzle and a lifting rotor, and also offered internal placement of all weapons. As the current state of affairs with American aircraft shows, such a variant of the technical appearance of the equipment justifies itself and is suitable for solving assigned tasks. It should be noted that obtaining the desired results in the framework of the American project was associated with many technical difficulties, delaying work and increasing the cost of the program.

Since the Yak-201 was developed in the nineties, and the design of a new similar aircraft starts no earlier than the beginning of the twenties, direct borrowing of one or another design solution is virtually ruled out. One of the main differences of the new project should be the broadest use of modern materials and technologies created after the abandonment of the draft design of the Yak-201. The same approach should be applied when creating the onboard complex of radio-electronic equipment.


Museum Yak-141


Obviously, the glider of a prospective aircraft should be built with a view to reducing visibility. It is possible that its optimal configuration will be similar to the fifth-generation Su-57 fighter glider. However, in any case there will be the most serious differences. According to known data, even within the framework of the Yak-201 project, several versions of the aerodynamic appearance of an inconspicuous car were worked out. In particular, the front and rear placement of the horizontal tail was studied.

Of all the known variants of power plants that provide vertical or shortened take-off, the one proposed in the Yak-201 project and implemented on the F-35B aircraft looks most beneficial. The main propulsion engine, showing sufficient performance, should have a swiveling nozzle. In this case, its shaft should be associated with the front rotor, which is responsible for creating thrust under the nose of the airframe. Also, the machine needs gas-jet controls on the three axes in the vertical mode and during the transition to horizontal flight.

The current progress in the field of electronic systems allows us to look to the future with optimism. A radar with a phased antenna array, including an active, optical-location detection aids and a modern aim-navigation system can appear on board a promising aircraft. In accordance with current requirements, avionics should be fully compatible with existing and advanced military communications and control.

The composition of weapons will be determined in accordance with the wishes of the military and the proposed combat missions. Domestic vertical take-off and landing aircraft were equipped with a built-in 30-mm automatic cannon and could carry a variety of aviation weapons. Thus, the Yak-141 project provided for the use of various air-to-air missiles, including medium-range products. A wide range of guided and unguided rockets and bombs was proposed to destroy ground or surface targets. The same opportunities can go to a promising aircraft. In this case, the most important feature of it will be the presence of internal cargo receptacles for weapons, allowing to reduce visibility in flight.

As follows from the well-known data, the Russian Ministry of Defense is only considering the possibility of resuming the development and construction of vertical take-off aircraft. Such proposals will be able to turn into real projects only in a few years, and then it will take some time to carry out all the necessary work. As a result, ready-made deck aircraft will appear no earlier than the second half of the twenties. By this time, it is expected to begin construction of a new aircraft carrier, which will serve as a new aviation technology.

The development of a new aircraft for the Russian Navy, apparently, has not yet begun, and this circumstance is an excellent reason for making forecasts and statements of various versions. In the meantime, military and aviation industry experts can assess the prospects of the existing proposal and decide what to do next. If the fleet really needs a plane with unusual take-off and landing characteristics, then its development will begin in the near future.

On the materials of the sites:
http://rg.ru/
https://ria.ru/
http://tass.ru/
http://airwar.ru/
http://yak.ru/
http://avia.pro/
Author:
Photos used:
Wikimedia Commons, Avia.pro
186 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Rostovchanin
    Rostovchanin April 18 2018 05: 08
    +7
    Etozh on how much money he will pull? Given the fact that a large number of them will not be needed request
    1. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE April 18 2018 05: 19
      +1
      in addition to the article in “site materials”, the author could simply indicate PRO / RU domains laughing
      1. Borik
        Borik April 18 2018 10: 16
        +7
        If they really decide to create such a plane, then the babak will leave, I think, three times more than on the SU-57. Yes, and it will cost a bunch of thuja. Or ours want to show mattresses that we, like two fingers on asphalt, create an airplane with better performance characteristics than their F-35. Create something I will not argue. But whether we need him.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 18 2018 12: 15
          +10
          Quote: Borik
          If they really decide to create such a plane, then the babak will leave, I think, three times more than on the SU-57.

          Let's clarify - the creation of the MiG-29K cost $ 2 billion, and this price included the cost of repairing an aircraft carrier :))))
        2. mac789
          mac789 April 18 2018 12: 24
          +1
          The vertical take-off device will cost a lot of money ...
          And if you think about it? ...
          We take an engine with a high bypass ratio and install it ... VERTICAL ... And we redistribute the tractive effort through a well-made air manifold ... Or collectors ... And not necessarily rotary ones. We get a relatively inexpensive ultra-maneuverable vertical take-off device.
          1. Taoist
            Taoist April 18 2018 20: 41
            +3
            It will not fly ... or rather it will fly, but there is no need to talk about over-maneuverability. The scheme you mentioned was the first thing that was tested and rejected in the end ... Check out the history of the creation and development of VTOL.
            1. mac789
              mac789 April 18 2018 21: 17
              +1
              I can not agree with you. As I wrote above, the collector must be properly designed.
              1. Taoist
                Taoist April 18 2018 23: 51
                +3
                Well, for starters, the gas path should not be called a collector. ;-) Secondly, how not to work it out and the problem is not at all in it.
                1. mac789
                  mac789 April 19 2018 06: 51
                  +1
                  No matter what you call it, the main thing is that you understand. Otherwise, all problems are solved. You just need to be smart (I hate the word "creativity")
                  By the way, pay attention to the bedbug water meter.
                  1. ZVO
                    ZVO April 19 2018 13: 37
                    +2
                    Quote: mac789

                    By the way, pay attention to the bedbug water meter.


                    Well yes. the plane is a bug-water meter ...
                    Great idea however ...
                    Probably worth a cap to buy.
                    1. t7310
                      t7310 April 19 2018 19: 55
                      0
                      being overweight in the belly which makes them almost chicken only for take-off landing, but how do you like this scheme? sits on the tail / take off, everything is simple and pretty complicated, for good controllability during takeoff / landing four fulcrum is quite enough
                      1. mac789
                        mac789 April 20 2018 07: 41
                        0
                        Well, why on the tail. Here, everything is according to the classical scheme.
                        It is one engine that allows you to lose weight. The power / mass ratio for one engine per hundred kilowatts will be better than four for 25. The main thing is to correctly redirect.
                        As there Glushko talked about ENGINE, FENCE AND ORBIT.
                    2. mac789
                      mac789 April 20 2018 07: 38
                      0
                      To the question of the bonnet - A very worthwhile thought. Do not forget to wrap the foil from head to toe. Become an aluminum mummy. By the way, the quadrocopter is made just according to the scheme of this bug.
                      1. t7310
                        t7310 April 26 2018 07: 01
                        0
                        well, do three dvigla, in flight the thrust per ton will probably still be greater, but for better maneuverability, I would suggest dvigla to be rotary, which bites off some of the thrust per ton, without any tails, flaps, wings (to save fuel wings it’s better to leave it), which will entail an increase in thrust per tonne, and turn the weapon modules with the pilot’s seat so that it can be used both during hovering and during the flight, or dvigla so that the weapons rotate 90 degrees and the seat can be left without turning and it will be possible to sit down normal and not tail, although my idea was originally in the simplicity of design without rotary dviglov but then the tail flaps ...
          2. MPN
            MPN 12 May 2018 21: 55
            +5
            Quote: mac789
            We take the engine with a high bypass ratio and install it ... VERTICAL ...
            Yes, no problem, even at an angle, here the option is described ...
            A specific engine for the Yak-201 was never selected
            It is necessary to add due to the fact that it was not and is not, there is nothing to choose from ... request
        3. 3danimal
          3danimal April 21 2021 03: 29
          -1
          The most realistic way to get AB with carrier-based aircraft is to create your own F-35B.
          Ideally - also a tiltrotor AWACS.
          Both of them will be able to take off from the deck of a large UDC (for example, pr 23900) without a catapult, while with a large load, good range and not consuming a lot of fuel during takeoff (short takeoff).
      2. Vladimir 5
        Vladimir 5 April 20 2018 11: 42
        +1
        Such topics are unnecessary. prompt thought, and to whom such topics need to be pushed ... The answer is only to those interested in cutting or enemies. Today, lagging in more significant areas is unacceptable: shock UAVs, space and air monitoring, a 5th generation aircraft - the United States has been attacking and developing for decades ...). The incredible spending goes off scale, and a shortened take-off is not the most necessary. and completely dispense with it (there will definitely be no aircraft carriers for another two decades) the aviation of the Russian Federation has other criteria and possibilities as the main ones ..
        1. mac789
          mac789 April 21 2018 03: 21
          +2
          Aircraft carriers may not be, but I'm afraid I will have to work from unpaved airfields. Kaby at all from forest glades ...
          1. Vladimir 5
            Vladimir 5 April 21 2018 16: 17
            +1
            Modern highways are already distributed according to possible applications. And in the swamps, prefabricated switchboards are being built in a matter of days, while they will bring up all the service staff ...
            1. mac789
              mac789 April 22 2018 23: 18
              0
              In the context of large-scale military operations, it is better not to count on such ersatz airfields. Especially on the road. They will be in a classic Russian state and also overloaded with people, equipment and goods.
    2. svp67
      svp67 April 18 2018 11: 14
      +6
      Quote: Rostovchanin
      Given the fact that a large number of them will not be needed

      And here is the question, but how many are needed? And the answer suggests itself - quite a lot. They can be placed not only on classic aircraft carriers, but also on promising UDKs and even on converted civilian vessels, as Great Britain did during the Malvinas-Falkland War, not only that, they obviously will not interfere, on bridgeheads, both naval and captured Airborne ...
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 18 2018 12: 15
        +4
        Quote: svp67
        and even on converted civilian vessels, as Great Britain did during the Malvinas-Falkland War

        Yet she didn’t.
        1. maximghost
          maximghost April 18 2018 15: 24
          +6
          Formally - did. Atlantic conveyor carried including Harriers who themselves flew from him to Hermes. And even if there was a use of the ship it was like air transport, and not an aircraft carrier - the second is quite possible. In addition, in the second world part of the aircraft carriers were also used as air transport.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 18 2018 15: 31
            +1
            Just the same formally - no, because the Atlantic acted only as an air transport. But not the point
            Quote: maximghost
            And even if there was a use of the ship it was like air transport, and not an aircraft carrier - the second is quite possible.

            Perhaps, of course ... But remember what happened to the Atlanik Conveyor? :)))
            1. maximghost
              maximghost April 18 2018 16: 19
              +3
              Yeah, the same as Sheffield. Despite the fact that there were no rebars on the conveyor at all, although it was possible to install at least firing dipole reflectors. There were no trained emergency teams and he was stuffed with ammunition and fuel and lubricants for aircraft.
      2. 3danimal
        3danimal April 21 2021 03: 31
        -1
        F-35B takes off perfectly from large UDC.
        The presence of this machine would still allow to have its own aircraft carrier (without building a heavy nuclear AB), with normal aircraft.
    3. iouris
      iouris April 21 2018 12: 21
      0
      Quote: Rostovchanin
      a large number of them will not be needed

      If so, the project is closed.
  2. Andrey1978
    Andrey1978 April 18 2018 05: 14
    +16
    And from the plant in Saratov where these planes were assembled, they made a shopping center .... several specialists personally know who participated in this program. Now they are old already, but there is no new change of specialists.
    1. andrewkor
      andrewkor April 18 2018 05: 54
      +9
      TAPOiCH was also “reprofiled” - most of the cars will be riveted, and the rest were hit by different owners. A shopping center, by the way, is also there. In the place of the former warehouse is “Moscow” with the proud name “Aviator”.
    2. Taoist
      Taoist April 18 2018 20: 43
      +6
      This is actually the biggest problem in everything. The continuity is destroyed. And now I'm afraid I'll have to start all over with almost 0
  3. Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 April 18 2018 06: 19
    +5
    In early October, during the next test vertical landing, one of the experimental aircraft exceeded the vertical speed, which led to the destruction of the structure and a fire.
    Is it a coincidence? Especially in the 91st?
    1. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher April 18 2018 07: 27
      +4
      Quote: Ingvar 72
      Is it a coincidence?

      No, of course, this is natural for Yakovlev Design Bureau, the most mediocre of all existing in the USSR.
      1. NEOZ
        NEOZ April 18 2018 09: 21
        +5
        Quote: Puncher
        the most mediocre

        But what about the YAK130 ???
        1. Snakebyte
          Snakebyte April 18 2018 11: 50
          +3
          Quote: NEOZ
          But what about the YAK130 ???

          Is this the one that crashed in the first flight after being sent to the test due to the failure of an integrated control system?
          Moreover, in the act of admission to the tests, there were points on the inoperability of the KSU ...
        2. Hole puncher
          Hole puncher April 18 2018 15: 08
          0
          Quote: NEOZ
          But what about YAK130

          The next long-term construction of the Yakovlevites, which the Italians helped to get out of and not completely, did not endure their stupidity. For interest, take all the post-war Yakovlev combat vehicles and see the development dates and what came of it. The same Yak141 was tormented for more than ten years, the deadlines were repeatedly postponed and a car was issued that failed miserably to the GSI.
          1. maximghost
            maximghost April 18 2018 15: 26
            +6
            For example, the Yak-23? Or yak-28? 141 terms were displaced due to an unprepared engine. And he did not fail the test.
            1. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE April 18 2018 23: 23
              +2
              due to the beginning of the restructuring
      2. lance
        lance April 18 2018 09: 56
        +5
        because others couldn’t do anything like that?
  4. Yak28
    Yak28 April 18 2018 06: 34
    +5
    First you need to understand that Russia and even the USSR had neither the experience nor the technology to build large aircraft carriers like the American ones. Even if you imagine that Russia will build aircraft carriers, it will take about 2 years to build 3-100 ships. And from vertical take-off planes and Landing Russia refused, passing documents on the Yak-141 USA.
    1. Kibb
      Kibb April 18 2018 08: 51
      +8
      EMNIP did not transfer anything special there - the Americans simply saved a little money and time on the nozzle tests, but the British and Germans did such nozzles in the 70s.
      And right after 100 years - Ulyanovsk was already quite an aircraft carrier.
      1. YELLOWSTONE
        YELLOWSTONE April 18 2018 23: 31
        0
        did but to no avail
      2. YELLOWSTONE
        YELLOWSTONE April 21 2018 05: 25
        0
        Germans in the 60s Americans in 70, the British did not
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 18 2018 12: 17
      +7
      Quote: Yak28
      First you need to understand that Russia and even the USSR had neither the experience nor the technology to build large aircraft carriers like the American

      There was absolutely everything - all key technologies, including air finishers, control systems, catapults, flight deck coverings, etc., and the USSR was also a leader in the development of electromagnetic catapults
      1. Taoist
        Taoist April 18 2018 20: 45
        +2
        Partly partly ... I myself am a witness as we tested these developments at NITK ... There before real working samples it was like "before Beijing cancer." And this is not the main thing.
  5. Hole puncher
    Hole puncher April 18 2018 07: 03
    +5
    I don’t understand, is it really harder and more expensive to create a catapult than VTOL which is worse in advance than an airplane with a classic take-off and landing?
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ April 18 2018 08: 31
      +6
      There was an idea of ​​aerodrome-free basing - theoretically, a GDP plane can be based not only on ships, but anywhere. Therefore, they hoped for a large series for the Air Force. The Yak-38 was tested even in Afghanistan, but this is not the best device in the conditions of the hot highlands, it proved to be completely lousy.
    2. Per se.
      Per se. April 18 2018 12: 48
      +12
      Quote: Puncher
      VTOL aircraft, which in advance is worse than a plane with a classic takeoff and landing?
      If we compare the advantages of some with the disadvantages of others, then, of course, it is worse, but how correct is such a "scoring"? Can a plane with a "classic takeoff" start from a short platform or from a ravine, pit? No, he can not. Can a VTOL aircraft use a start with a classic takeoff and a classic landing, yes, it can. In nature, the “classic start” is used extremely rarely, shortened, and especially vertical, is the basis. Sooner or later, VTOL will be, if not the basis of the aviation fleet, then it will rationally complement the range of capabilities of the aircraft, in which helicopters, convertible planes, and VTOL are needed. The fleet needs such vehicles, moreover, not as an alternative to deck aircraft of an ejection launch, but as an addition for UDC-type ships or light aircraft carriers. VTOL are also needed for ground airfields, especially in the event of the destruction of many kilometers of runway and the entire aviation infrastructure of airfields in a preventive strike, along with “classic takeoff and landing” airplanes.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh April 19 2018 01: 06
        +8
        I agree. Airfields are a kind of atavism at the initial stage of aviation development.
        In the future, vertical start and landing will become the norm, and the “classic” start will be the exception. The bird does not accelerate first by running on the ground, and then takes off.
        No energy, aerodynamics, physics or fuel prevents the bird from flying abruptly. Man is increasingly copying “mechanisms” from wildlife as optimal.
      2. dauria
        dauria April 19 2018 01: 11
        +5
        In wildlife, the "classic start" is used extremely rarely, shortened, and especially vertical, - the basis


        What's the news ? Helicopters took off in an airplane, especially in the heat, from the "high" airfields and especially loaded to the eyeballs. It is a fact. The second, even the helicopter is attached to the airfield - fuel, weapons, even a simple canteen and security - are always needed. And what for vertical take-off to those devices that do not need sit down to an unprepared site for the delivery of goods or people? After all, this whim translates into serious loss in performance. Okay F-35. It was originally designed for 70% compatibility on components with the usual "airplane" version. And then this "nice bonus" (three for the price of one in development) podgadil just a little to each option in the performance characteristics. With the modern depth of the front, on the contrary, all aviation must be pulled in depth. Here, an ordinary front-line aircraft with a combat radius of 500 km is not enough. And where should I put VTOL?
        1. Per se.
          Per se. April 19 2018 06: 08
          +10
          Quote: dauria
          Helicopters took off in an airplane, especially in the heat, from "high" airfields and especially "loaded" to the eyeballs. It is a fact.
          Alexey, you distort a little. To the eyeballs laden, in the heat, helicopters ... This is not about extremes, but about possibilities, this time. Secondly, they like to compare vertical lines of the first generation, with fighters of the third, fourth, and even the fifth generation ... I repeat here, VTOL is not an alternative now, but an addition. There was a time, and they mocked airplanes, believing that they were less good than a balloon, and that such an “airplane” could almost be knocked down with a slingshot if it didn’t crash before that. Yes, the VTOL aircraft is inferior in a number of characteristics to airplanes of the classical scheme, while it is inferior, but progress does not stand still, the technology is developing. That, and “what for vertical take-off for those devices that do not need to sit on an unprepared site,” so VTOL may not use a vertical landing or take off, if possible, saving fuel, take off in the traditional way. And, not from the "whim" began to develop VTOL, but from the urgent need, we had a significant lead over the "partners", and now we are convinced that this is nonsense and whim so that we will be left behind forever in the development of vertical takeoff aircraft and landing. In Russia, it is high time to create a separate commission on the facts of sabotage and ideological sabotage, both on the prospect of such influence of our "well-wishers" and on the analysis of the destruction of unique weapons, bankruptcy and the closure of strategically important factories of scientific research institutes and design bureaus. To all the "heroes" who destroyed the Soviet potential, to know in person, by name, and that they answered for it.
  6. Monarchist
    Monarchist April 18 2018 07: 16
    0
    He is only considering the possibility of renewal and construction, which means a vertical take-off, if any, then FIG knows when
    1. gridasov
      gridasov April 18 2018 08: 39
      +6
      Will never be. And physicists must understand this. Moreover, no one ever notes the correlation of mass, payload and what can be called the potential of the lifting force contained in the essence of the physical process performed by the engine and propulsion.
      1. prodi
        prodi April 18 2018 10: 40
        0
        no, well, FIG knows, for example, in light weight, a mechanical jump, and in heavier weight, a resettable accelerator
        1. gridasov
          gridasov April 18 2018 13: 56
          +2
          True. There are solutions for individual episodic situations. But flying an aircraft is not only taking off and taking off from the ground, but also the mass of transients already in flight. Moreover, it is generally necessary to solve the problem of changing proportionality in that the increase in weight or the total mass of the aircraft should not directly depend on those principles for the implementation of energy costs that exist. This means that in the process of these energy costs it is necessary to include those parameters that exist, but which are not used. These are the potential energy of an elastic medium, which is precisely the inexhaustible source of that resource, which is already hidden in the energy processes themselves. We are talking about such principles. They will ultimately allow us to level the differences in the aircraft according to the principle of the propulsion.
      2. max702
        max702 April 18 2018 12: 33
        +1
        Quote: gridasov
        Will never be. And physicists must understand this.

        That's right, if we let us create an engine that will allow us to perform vertical take-off and landing, then these same engines on a classic plane will allow it many times more. You really can’t deceive physics ..
  7. Nix1986
    Nix1986 April 18 2018 07: 27
    +10
    It has already been discussed 100 times, an expensive toy no more, we do not need it. In all respects, it loses its counterparts with the classic take-off and landing, except, respectively, for these very acceleration and landing. And loses a lot.
  8. MadCat
    MadCat April 18 2018 07: 33
    +6
    In this situation, spraying funds not for the purchase of airplanes brought to the assembly line is simply wrecking. And the fact that the exhaust from the project will be just a teary film as they did not have another 100500 billion for the prodigy is simply sure. It is not clear how much they can build su57, but also this ....
    1. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE April 18 2018 07: 38
      0
      yes, let's better build armadillos smile
      and submarines
    2. gridasov
      gridasov April 18 2018 08: 50
      +2
      There is no future with this attitude to the question.
    3. gridasov
      gridasov April 18 2018 14: 08
      +10
      What kind of spray you are talking about. Scientific research is carried out from funds that are just printed by a money machine. Therefore, simple and empty pieces of paper stimulate internal scientific and technical potential. Therefore, investment in science becomes a business comparable to the most profitable activities. At the same time, all aggregate industries are developing. And these funds do not affect macroeconomic processes. For a long time these methods have been used, but apparently not in Russia. Moreover, sometimes even fantastic projects give sometimes and often such positive results that you can’t find them in the daytime with fire
      1. YELLOWSTONE
        YELLOWSTONE April 18 2018 23: 14
        +1
        dispensers should be scientifically sound, only then can their effective financial dispersion be achieved while preserving all moment vectors without losing potential in torsion fields that everyone has been using for a long time without any technical research and restrictions
        1. gridasov
          gridasov April 19 2018 08: 57
          +4
          Excuse me ! But what you call torsion fields is just such an unfounded argument. A mathematical justification is necessary for those phenomena that actually take place, but remain completely abstract in their essence of the explanation. After all, look that in a modern turbine the basic principles of obtaining the maximum flow rate are not implemented. And this is not done only by increasing pressure and temperature. It is corny just that you can include in the process the effects of twisting the flow, the effects of air leakage both from the external environment and between the jets of the stream. An elementary solution of the same Mohammed Sagov, but adapted to a gas stream stream, can give a tremendous increase in the energy density of this stream, and hence thrust, not due to the energy of fuel combustion, but due to its own kinetic and potential energy of the stream. I am already silent about our own development of such principles and mechanisms. Because Sagov has been working for Norway for a long time. Obviously, all design bureaus are in obvious scientific stagnation. There is not a single development with real progress now and a prospect for the future. You can give critical comments on any project.
          1. YELLOWSTONE
            YELLOWSTONE April 19 2018 09: 32
            0
            perhaps it is necessary to introduce a description of the business processes of mechanisms with empirical coefficients into the expiration equation and everything will turn out, the torsion fields are not cool.
            1. gridasov
              gridasov April 19 2018 09: 52
              +1
              You just need to use new mathematical methods that describe the complex processes of transformation of elastic media and their dynamic flows in combination not only of the parameters that are used now, but also by introducing new ones. In other words, it is necessary to work with hydrodynamics as with compressible and transformable media in their energetics. This cannot be done by equations. Too many systemically connected but independent inputs and processes associated with them. Therefore, the stagnation is that there are no methods for analyzing extremely large systemically related mathematical data
              1. YELLOWSTONE
                YELLOWSTONE April 19 2018 12: 12
                0
                better than pseudostatic-bulk ones, it is by introducing new ones and then using AI then no stagnant fluctuations will be observed, but without taking into account the torsion spin factor in the first and second derivatives along the axis of the Scheidemann superscalar, they can still unexpectedly arise in the shoulder blades.
                1. gridasov
                  gridasov April 19 2018 13: 35
                  0
                  AI is a derivative of the method of analyzing big data. And in order to avoid stagnant, and according to my definitions uncontrollable analysis of space points and dynamic transformation processes, it is necessary to use the functions of a constant value of a number rather than a variable. Then it will be possible to analyze any dimensions space as a variant of a complex of events, and not engage in the search for individual solutions. Based on such techniques, the spin effect is a systemic derivative of the process of movement of any bodies in the space of elastic or the same processes in bulk and dispersed media. Therefore, there will be no need to erupt in terms of superscalars, etc. From here, processes on turbine blades can be considered as magnetic force interactions, which means that everything can be reduced to optimal data analysis, rather than fantasizing and eroding in new terms.
                  Tell me, for example, how many scientists think about dimensional relationships for the same blade along different axes in order to determine the dominant magnetic forces from the direction of the ionizing effect of the flow of an elastic medium?
                  1. YELLOWSTONE
                    YELLOWSTONE April 19 2018 13: 53
                    0
                    electro-magnetic, which is why the superscalar, by torsion suspension of these blades along the axes with the help of AI, all problems can be solved,
                    and may not be solved when relativistic wave processes are taken into account, but here it is already necessary to decide what can be neglected and what cannot be neglected yes
                    probably because of this, the rotor described in the article may be hot.
                    1. gridasov
                      gridasov April 19 2018 14: 09
                      0
                      I will answer right away that nothing can be neglected if we consider dynamic processuality. Why? Because any point in space is in transformations of the process in which it is located according to basic physical definitions. This means that some processes can be more or less dynamic in their development, which means that at each subsequent moment, these so-called unimportant assessments in subjectivity can transform processes already into dominant ones, and vice versa, processes overestimated in significance can become secondary in importance, for example, in a process destruction of individual parts. In aviation, this is generally crucial.
                      Moreover, what you mean as wave processes are described by functions of a constant value of a number as algorithmic processes. That is, any wave, including radial, processes can also be analyzed as a transformation system for all parameters of physics and at the same time mathematics and geometry.
                      It can be added that the basis of the consideration of magnetic force interactions even of a dipole, not to mention the monopole, is the deepest error, which distorts the foundation of theoretical physics, but also further considerations of all processes. Hence the spin effect exists as an abstraction, and not as a systemic component of the processes of motion. This we are not talking about several processes of motion — such as rolling moments, inverting, and other processes. So we simply underestimate them as components in the system of dynamic transformations.
  9. EvilLion
    EvilLion April 18 2018 08: 13
    +4
    This crazy idea has no future. Advocate condemn as pests undermining defenses.
    1. gridasov
      gridasov April 18 2018 08: 52
      +5
      That’s how the essence of people is revealed so easily.
  10. tchoni
    tchoni April 18 2018 08: 37
    +2
    Russian aircraft vertical takeoff: a look into the future
    - Dad, is that true !?
    - No, son, this is fantastic.
  11. Spook
    Spook April 18 2018 09: 05
    0
    stupid question, but can 29 instantly put on the tail and let it take off? Well, he seems to have more than 1
    1. Kir
      Kir April 18 2018 09: 33
      +2
      Spook, the question is not only and not so much to take off vertically, but also in landing on a limited area and, as correctly pointed out, not yet equipped (relevant for front-line aviation and in case of emergency).
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 18 2018 16: 59
      0
      It is higher only with small downloads, although the idea is vert. take-off pretty scaffold, the projects were, you can google. You can additionally attach a rocket accelerator. The issues here are still controllability in the first seconds, since the rudder's efficiency will be close to zero, that is, the take-off should take place either under the control of the engines, or along the guide tower. As far as I understand, space rockets with this simpler, because they are symmetrical, which can not be said about the plane, it will immediately collapse.
  12. Kir
    Kir April 18 2018 09: 29
    +2
    It’s strange somehow, saying A (remembering the “lightning” of F-35), they didn’t say “B” that they had been grazing in Yakovlev’s Design Bureau for many years and it’s not a fact that without this they would have mastered the topic, although it’s not glory God the whole line of the 35s.
    Those who are right are those who point out the need to compare cars with GDP and Classic, plus you should not lose sight of the topic of aircraft with airflow control, but rather there is a future for them to perform specific tasks.
  13. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I April 18 2018 09: 36
    +6
    First you need to decide whether Russia will build aircraft carriers or not? If so, which ones? Light or heavy? Escort or helper? The type of deck aircraft depends on this! What will help determine the need and types of aircraft carriers? Of course, the naval doctrine of Russia! Does Russia have a doctrine? Please tell me who is the most versed in this! And without a common naval doctrine and a “chapter” regarding the development and role of naval aviation in possible conflicts of the future (and hence the necessity and role of aircraft carriers) to talk about carrier-based aircraft in the near future is the promise of communism in the last century 1980 .. ..
    1. Varna
      Varna April 19 2018 00: 28
      +2
      Indeed, it is worth at least deciding first - the Russian Federation needs aircraft carriers ??? (I emphasize - not Russia, namely the Russian Federation - not the Stainless, but simply one of the states of our planet).
      And there will be not one of them - but the most minimal -2. And optimum - 3. And to them 3 more accompanying groups.
      Tell me: why Russia needs three more Sochi Olympics, why? The Russian Federation barely pulled one, and then just three. Yes, we will die during these three decades of their construction, just die.
  14. Romario_Argo
    Romario_Argo April 18 2018 09: 52
    0
    The future is for the Heavy VTOL aircraft under 30 tons, the 2 option attracts me more (see below)
    1 option
    2 marching TDR AL-41F-1 x 15500 kgf, with the collapse at 35 deg. from the central axis where the take-off mode is limited ~ x 10000 kgf
    and 2 lifting taxiways x 5000 kgf

    2 option
    2 marching TDRs AL-41F-1 x 15500 kgf, with 2 reactive outputs of the 1 circuit (Harrier type but with 2-type turbojet engine)
    1. Kyzmich
      Kyzmich April 18 2018 10: 38
      0
      2.
      Such an arrangement requires either a duck or a flying wing pattern.
      The first and second are debatable for a deck aircraft.
      1. Romario_Argo
        Romario_Argo April 18 2018 12: 36
        0
        no need in evaluations to look back at what was already
        look at it in your own way
        VTOL with 2 marching turbojet engines will look like anyway like Yak-141 or Mig-31 or Su-24
        1. Kyzmich
          Kyzmich April 22 2018 15: 58
          0
          I remember, while still in service (in 77), my comrades and I tried to draw the face of the future Yak41.
          Rumors about him went in full swing, about to be a new deck.
          Helicopter pilots have already updated on the Ka-252.
          Yak 38 was not bad at the time of its creation, but by the year 80 it was clearly weak as a combat unit.
          Well, a variant of the normal scheme with two marching thrusts of about 8-10 tons each loomed in the harrows.
          But it was an option with two PDs behind the cab.
          He really looked like a MiG25 or Su 24.
          What surprised us greatly when they saw the real Yak41.
          If you put two PMD without PD then the plane of the normal scheme is not very drawn.
          An example of this is X32.
  15. lance
    lance April 18 2018 10: 26
    0
    su - 57 shortened take-off / landing. when the load is reduced to 6-7 tons, the runway approaches the aircraft carrier with a springboard, so if something happens, then not with a vertical take-off.
    1. Kyzmich
      Kyzmich April 18 2018 12: 28
      0
      In Pushkin, on MiG 29 ostentatious flights (Stygi), with half-empty tanks without BN, it took off from 10 meters, if not less))
  16. Kyzmich
    Kyzmich April 18 2018 10: 30
    +2
    Quote
    Of all the known variants of power plants that provide vertical or shortened take-off, the Yak-201 proposed in the project and implemented on the F-35B aircraft looks the most profitable
    Is it the one that is four times larger in volume and weight than the Yak41 with the same thrust?
    Doubtful benefit.
    The whole story with our vertical lines suggests that at the time of the creation of the Yak41 there were planes that are capable of taking off from a very short distance, while at the same time surpassing these vertical lines.
    And when the praises of the F-35 are sung, one thing is forgotten.
    The main modification of the F-35 is the F-35A and F-35C.
    And these are completely different planes, both of which are not VTOL aircraft.
    New materials with a low specific gravity and an increasing thrust of the engines will most likely make these VTOL aircraft simply unnecessary. At the same time, the presence of catapults on ships.
  17. shuravi
    shuravi April 18 2018 10: 34
    0
    Quote: Romario_Argo
    The future is for the Heavy VTOL aircraft under 30 tons, the 2 option attracts me more (see below)
    1 option
    2 marching TDR AL-41F-1 x 15500 kgf, with the collapse at 35 deg. from the central axis where the take-off mode is limited ~ x 10000 kgf
    and 2 lifting taxiways x 5000 kgf

    2 option
    2 marching TDRs AL-41F-1 x 15500 kgf, with 2 reactive outputs of the 1 circuit (Harrier type but with 2-type turbojet engine)



    Is the future an alternate reality? laughing
    1. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE April 18 2018 23: 11
      0
      will fly ten times slower than the Mi-24 what
  18. NEXUS
    NEXUS April 18 2018 11: 19
    +1
    The new deck, given that it will not be developed soon, since the issue of building an aircraft carrier has been at the idle talk stage for a long time, it will most likely be unmanned. Looking at how dynamically and quickly UAVs are developing, I think it is necessary to speak about the shock deck UAV.
  19. Livonetc
    Livonetc April 18 2018 11: 44
    0
    Quote: NEXUS
    The new deck, given that it will not be developed soon, since the issue of building an aircraft carrier has been at the idle talk stage for a long time, it will most likely be unmanned. Looking at how dynamically and quickly UAVs are developing, I think it is necessary to speak about the shock deck UAV.

    And what, in principle, holds back the development of shock UAVs?
    Instability of communication channels?
    Lack of full feedback between the pilot / operator and the device?
    Insufficient security of communication channels and the risk of control interception?
    Or something else.
  20. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh April 18 2018 12: 10
    +2
    "Of all the known variants of power plants that provide vertical or shortened take-off, the Yak-201 proposed in the project and implemented on the F-35B aircraft looks the most profitable" ////

    Are they also starting to design a “flightless penguin”? belay
    This is mistake! Verticals cannot fly. The whole forum knows about this - they proved convincingly laughing
    1. Kyzmich
      Kyzmich April 18 2018 12: 23
      +3
      The USSR passed this "rake" back in the distant 1991 year and gladly slipped this Lockheed rake.
      Judging by the “successes” with F35C, the lesson did not go to good.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh April 18 2018 12: 46
        +4
        Thank! The rake is excellent. F-35B (vertical) turned out well. Marines already use it, the Japanese are going to equip them with all their helicopter carriers. And the F-35C (marine) will receive a certificate of initial combat readiness in early 2019. The problems of hardware are solved. He passed all practical tests on an aircraft carrier perfectly - hundreds of takeoffs and landings with a catapult and aerofinishers.
        It is slowed down by software upgrades that pass all F-35 models, and which are behind the schedule.
        1. Kyzmich
          Kyzmich April 18 2018 12: 52
          +4
          What is the combat radius of the F-35B in the vertical take-off and landing?
          And the combat load at the same time.
          Only from a chair do not fall from laughter.
          1. lance
            lance April 18 2018 13: 05
            +2
            when loading at 3,0t with an interference fit of 250km
            1. Kyzmich
              Kyzmich April 18 2018 13: 13
              +2
              And of these 3 tons of skokA fuel?
              In Fanborough, it was announced that he had a consumption of 500 kg per minute in hanging mode, and it was empty.
              Please note that the traction on the afterburner has 19500 kg
              and empty weight 14650kg
              fuel weight 6125 kg
              1. maximghost
                maximghost April 18 2018 16: 23
                +2
                And if you take the WRC? A purely vertical take-off will be used only at the alarm of those aircraft that are in those positions after the pair on duty has already taken off.
                1. Kyzmich
                  Kyzmich April 18 2018 17: 41
                  0
                  Vertical take-off from technical position impossible
                  1. maximghost
                    maximghost April 18 2018 21: 58
                    +1
                    I do not offer it. But 3-6 aircraft can simultaneously vertically rise from the usual ones if we consider the first 4 Soviet TAKRs, which will obviously turn out faster if we release the same number of aircraft with WRC.
                    1. Kyzmich
                      Kyzmich April 22 2018 16: 07
                      0
                      We immediately lifted 12 aircraft, but they started one by one.
              2. lance
                lance April 20 2018 06: 30
                0
                do not be rude, this is the payload, but the fuel for 40 minutes of flight.
                1. Kyzmich
                  Kyzmich April 20 2018 07: 36
                  +1
                  ! 9500-14650 = 4850 - your payload is 3000 = 1850kg
                  1850kg kyrosinu?
                  For 40 minutes?
                  Fantastic.
                2. Kyzmich
                  Kyzmich April 22 2018 16: 10
                  0
                  nobody is rude to you
                  Thrust (boost) -19500kg
                  Empty - 14650kg
                  it becomes 4850kg
                  Equipment weight
                  Weight BN-3000kg
                  question: how much for fuel?
                  At the expense of 19500kg of thrust, the big question is: will there be so much of it in a deployed nozzle?
                  And a 1: 1 traction weight is not yet a take-off.
                  1. Bobik012
                    Bobik012 22 August 2018 11: 07
                    0
                    All the shortcomings of the F-35 come from the progenitor (it is believed that this is the Yak-201). F-35B is obviously worse in terms of performance characteristics of any classic aircraft (not because it’s bad, just additional functions impose restrictions). The F-35A and F-35C are also worse than analogues that would be designed from scratch, and not as a remake of the VTOL aircraft with its glider and layout features. And the American allies are buying this miracle for political reasons, I think they will not be mass purchases. Those that are built under the VTOL aircraft carriers (the British in pink Falkland glasses, the United States Naval Forces (I can’t understand these at all), and some Siamese kings) will buy them when necessary. If for the followers of these originals to make a cheaper analogue of the F-35B, it will be possible to increase the export potential, well, leave a dozen for solving specific problems. To design for myself, and even more so to build aircraft carriers for them (which are not exactly aircraft carriers), I consider it a stupid waste of money. And it’s quite possible to do something, there’s a hurt on Yak
          2. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh April 18 2018 16: 35
            +1
            His take-off is not vertical, but from a short take-off from a flat deck.
            Full load.
            A fully vertical take-off is considered an exception. Then take off with a half bomb load and a minimum of fuel. And refuel in the air.
            1. Kyzmich
              Kyzmich April 18 2018 17: 42
              +1
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Full load.

              Who's that for you?
              Have you composed yourself?
              And the short run is how much?
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh April 18 2018 18: 29
                +1
                There is enough space from any helicopter carrier.
                1. lance
                  lance April 20 2018 06: 34
                  0
                  But what about the catapult? no warrior, even a short f-35 take-off will not save. 500-1000kg will be added per 100-150 meters, not more.
            2. Varna
              Varna April 19 2018 00: 36
              0
              Quote: voyaka uh
              His take-off is not vertical, but from a short take-off from a flat deck.
              Full load.
              A fully vertical take-off is considered an exception. Then take off with a half bomb load and a minimum of fuel. And refuel in the air.

              That's right. Vertical take-off is an option, an expensive, but very useful option. Here they have it - but you don’t. And they take off - like everyone else, with a short run.
          3. EvilLion
            EvilLion April 18 2018 17: 00
            0
            He does not know, but 2 bombs on 451 kg and 2 rockets on a hundred.
        2. maximghost
          maximghost April 18 2018 15: 40
          +1
          I generally have the feeling that the Japanese were building their ships with an eye on something like f-35b.
          Well, by the way, it is in its performance characteristics that the f-35 is not very outstanding. That more equipment "makes" the plane.
  21. shuravi
    shuravi April 18 2018 12: 55
    +3
    Quote: Kyzmich
    The USSR passed this "rake" back in the distant 1991 year and gladly slipped this Lockheed rake.
    Judging by the “successes” with F35C, the lesson did not go to good.



    You see, this is which side to look at. If on LTH and operation, then verticals are certainly flawed. But if you are a manufacturer and impose this “wunderwaffe” on your satellites, where will they go, then it’s even nothing.
    1. Kyzmich
      Kyzmich April 18 2018 13: 23
      +1
      at one time, Lockheed and her F-104 Starfighter already marked
      Result of the nickname "Flying Coffin"
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh April 18 2018 18: 34
        +1
        Lockheed noted a lot. For example, with the F-16 - the most common fighter-bomber in the world. smile
        1. ZVO
          ZVO April 20 2018 06: 30
          +2
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Lockheed noted a lot. For example, with the F-16 - the most common fighter-bomber in the world. smile


          Let's be honest.
          F-16 - this is not Lockheed, this is General Dynamics.
  22. trahterist
    trahterist April 18 2018 13: 06
    +3
    Ayayayay, and again on the subject of explicit copying of the 'golden' f-35.
    I remember, one comrade, not so long ago, in one topic about VTOL aircraft at a high school, with foam at the mouth argued that the F-35 is a Americans own development, which has nothing to do with the Russian Yak.
    The emphasis was on the propulsion system, they say, they came up with the drive of the lifting fan laughing
    I looked at the Yak-201 ...
    As they say, find ten differences.
    When did the Yak-201 start designing, ???
    A strange coincidence, it was during this period that the Yakovtsy collaborated with the Americans, and successfully leaked them all the documentation for the development.
    Awww, comrade, what are we going to cover? am
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh April 18 2018 16: 38
      +1
      On Yaks, vertical take-off / landing is carried out by means of two additional jet engines. The F-35 drives a fan from the main engine.
      1. Kyzmich
        Kyzmich April 18 2018 17: 45
        +2
        The scheme for thrust vectors in the Yak38 and F-35B is the same, unlike Harrier.
        And what works as a PD does not matter.
        These are the same planes with take-off aircraft with the Yak 38-41.
        In this case, the circuit with the fans loses much (at times) the weight and volume of two PD40s for the Yak-A with the same thrust of 8 tons. In addition, it inflates the midsection and reduces the internal volume in the fuselage.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh April 18 2018 18: 37
          0
          "hang and the volume of two PD40" /////

          Which were famous for their reliability. smile
          How many crashes did Jacob test and run on an aircraft carrier?
          The F-35B with its terrible fan has zero losses.
          1. YELLOWSTONE
            YELLOWSTONE April 18 2018 23: 37
            0
            has it been in operation for a long time? and all this time for some reason near the shore. laughing
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh April 19 2018 01: 11
              0
              Two years already. Regular exercises of the marines. Near the shores of Japan.
              Marines do not attack from the middle of the ocean. F-35B is needed to support landing operations.
              1. YELLOWSTONE
                YELLOWSTONE April 19 2018 01: 20
                0
                beautiful hentai excuse laughing
                What about the F-35C? in the middle of the ocean F-35B for their support (protection against air attacks) do not need to take off?
                1. voyaka uh
                  voyaka uh April 19 2018 19: 01
                  +1
                  F-35B - for UDC with a flat deck. F-35C - for aircraft carriers with a catapult. What is incomprehensible here?
                  1. YELLOWSTONE
                    YELLOWSTONE April 20 2018 00: 27
                    0
                    What is incomprehensible in the fact that the F-35B in the middle of the ocean may also be needed?
          2. Kyzmich
            Kyzmich April 19 2018 01: 24
            +5
            we have run-in for three years accidentally sat .... one Yak.
            The plane is intact and the pilot Vasily Glushko, too.
            And how much do you have when running on your aircraft carrier?
            As the statistics on Yak38. Show they fought mainly because of equipment failures.
            50 hours raid is the reason.
            Well, organizational problems.
            States to their decision went almost half a century.
            And their planes both fell and fall.
          3. Kyzmich
            Kyzmich April 19 2018 07: 47
            +2
            Actually, there are still not a few problems with the windmill.
            And this design turned out to be more complicated than unpretentious low-resource and, most importantly, cheap single-circuit PD41.
            Sizes them with a milk can.
            And in terms of reliability, everything is okay because of the simplicity of the design.
            And in the list of failures it will be difficult to find them.
            The Yak38 had technical accidents due to technical failures.
            1. Taoist
              Taoist April 19 2018 22: 27
              +1
              Let's just say there are no more of them than on conventional aircraft. And in terms of the number of accidents, the Yak is generally a very friendly plane .... Harrier is just hell by comparison.
              1. Kyzmich
                Kyzmich April 20 2018 07: 51
                +2
                Yak 38 just slandered car far ahead of its time.
                Failures. Which push up to her, are not hidden at all in her design.
                My opinion is the problems of the Yak38 and generally carrier-based aircraft in reluctance, inability. Our Navy will use and maintain this equipment.
                One fight for the "deep shoulder straps" which was worth it.
                The unwillingness of the bureaucrats of the navy to understand the difference between carrier-based aviation and coastal.
                Well, and much more in the plan of the organization.

                The recent fall of the MiG 29K is an example of this.
        2. Bobik012
          Bobik012 22 August 2018 11: 20
          0
          a circuit with two PDs wins in weight and dimensions of the fan. But there was some kind of jamb that could not be eliminated. Therefore, a fan was planned on the Yak-201. The same scheme was passed on to the Americans. Yak developed verticals for forty years. And here Lockheed over a dozen solved all problems :-). What happened to the Boeing without extraneous borrowing, everyone remembers. Could not fly
      2. trahterist
        trahterist April 18 2018 20: 14
        +2
        Can we read ?? we are talking about the Yak-201 project, which was precisely developed under so many specialists 'fan' circuit.
        F-35 its direct embodiment, without any 'without'
        I understand it's a shame, but the facts speak for themselves
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh April 19 2018 01: 13
          +1
          Nothing offensive, thanks to Yakovlev Bureau for good ideas, prototypes and aircraft.
    2. lance
      lance April 20 2018 07: 15
      0
      I don’t know what kind of comrade you’re talking about, but before the proposal from Amers, what you call the Yak-201 was worked out without a rotary fan. this is exactly their Wishlist and proposal because The r-78v engine did not pass the declared loads in terms of power, interestingly see its dimensions. Yes, and the main dvigun is one of the options for the NK-32.
    3. Kyzmich
      Kyzmich April 22 2018 16: 21
      0
      I’m sorry, now I won’t find the source, but the Yak-Vlevtsy, just tried to dissuade Lockheed from this windmill.
      Put two meters in the midsection is not komelfo.
      Gyroment.
      Yes, and a dubious win was drawn.
      What happened as a result.
      And in the sketches of these Yak 2XX there were many
      Seicha, where is it all gone?
      1. lance
        lance April 22 2018 16: 58
        0
        when considering the Yak -41m, the Americans were surprised at the volume occupied by the 2nd RD-41. the shaft from the main engine lift vent is easier to change along the body of the aircraft. in general, they are right in this. there was an option on 2venta, and at least the amras rejected it. but they didn’t win anything on the fu-35 layout. but other programs were stopped ..
        1. Kyzmich
          Kyzmich April 22 2018 18: 37
          +1
          hard to understand. what did you write?
          1. lance
            lance April 22 2018 18: 49
            0
            they say one is good, but two is better. difference in ascent and descent. Ved was not 2pd 41 option, but one with reduced fuel consumption
            1. Kyzmich
              Kyzmich April 22 2018 20: 32
              0
              I think that creating an economical engine with traction in the aisles of 9-10 tons or two of 4-5 tons is quite possible.
              But it seems to me that the problem was not there in RD 41.
              By design, they were very simple and cheap due to the calculation of a small resource.
              They worked at full thrust for 3-5 minutes on departure.
              There’s nothing to break
              Although in the midship two meters (1800 mm) at the F 35, it was quite possible to cram a dual-circuit turbojet engine.
              How they managed to make a fan weighing more than half a ton than a march (PMD) motor is incomprehensible
  23. Spook
    Spook April 18 2018 13: 23
    +2
    By the way, let's move on to the second question - do we need aircraft carriers, given the fact that we are the personification of the Heartland i.e. civilization of land, I think that we do not need aircraft carriers
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin April 18 2018 15: 05
      +4
      Drums are not needed. But air defense carriers are needed. And we really need it. With its good AWACS. With a developed component of the PLO (helicopters.) And you need to think about them now. And we also need to think about airplanes for them now.
      1. Spook
        Spook April 18 2018 16: 22
        +1
        If so, is this somewhere Kuzi's displacement? and a group of 30 fighters? maybe yes, but expensive. And we already have no fleet
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin April 18 2018 16: 45
          +1
          Kuzi displacement. A nuclear installation unified with the "Leader" two pieces. Balanced flexible wing. Necessarily developed aircraft AWACS. Necessarily distant UAV reconnaissance aircraft to ensure the horizon. target designation for anti-ship missiles escort ships. Our helicopters are quite on the level. Kamov provides. Remain fighter interceptors with strike capabilities.
          Start building such aircraft carriers should only be after the reconstruction of a full-fledged fleet. And before that for a long time. But to create separate elements: (scout. Decks of a new generation. Modernize helicopters.) We need now. So as not to lose the qualification completely.
  24. gridasov
    gridasov April 18 2018 14: 13
    0
    Quote: Kir
    It’s strange somehow, saying A (remembering the “lightning” of F-35), they didn’t say “B” that they had been grazing in Yakovlev’s Design Bureau for many years and it’s not a fact that without this they would have mastered the topic, although it’s not glory God the whole line of the 35s.
    Those who are right are those who point out the need to compare cars with GDP and Classic, plus you should not lose sight of the topic of aircraft with airflow control, but rather there is a future for them to perform specific tasks.
    1. gridasov
      gridasov April 18 2018 14: 17
      +2
      It’s only necessary to understand that it is not a simple vector of the flow that needs to be specified, but that the potential of the flow is controlled in the form of its complex of vectors. Then the flow can be very easily manipulated without reducing the engine operating modes, but simply redistributing its potential throughout the spherical space.
  25. Strelets1
    Strelets1 April 18 2018 14: 53
    +3
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    First you need to decide whether Russia will build aircraft carriers or not? If so, which ones? Light or heavy? Escort or helper? The type of deck aircraft depends on this! What will help determine the need and types of aircraft carriers? Of course, the naval doctrine of Russia! Does Russia have a doctrine?


    Hehe ... modern Russia has "our everything" - the HSE office responsible for the bazaar ... sorry ... for the market ...
    And here you are climbing with some kind of naval doctrine ... we don’t need it ... the liberals will not understand ...
  26. shuravi
    shuravi April 18 2018 15: 12
    0
    Quote: garri-lin
    Drums are not needed. But air defense carriers are needed. And we really need it. With its good AWACS. With a developed component of the PLO (helicopters.) And you need to think about them now. And we also need to think about airplanes for them now.



    Yeah. laughing
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin April 18 2018 16: 47
      +1
      You do not agree?
  27. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman April 18 2018 15: 19
    +2
    Quote: Borik
    If they really decide to create such a plane, then the babak will leave, I think, three times more than on the SU-57. Yes, and it will cost a bunch of thuja. Or ours want to show mattresses that we, like two fingers on asphalt, create an airplane with better performance characteristics than their F-35. Create something I will not argue. But whether we need him.


    Mattress so-called F-35 was created in kb. Yakovlev under the name Yak-41, when it turned out that Yeltsin’s Russia didn’t need him, through the goodwill from Chubais-Gaidarov and Co. ° was proposed kb. enter into cooperation with mattresses, which received all the documentation and technologies for a penny (the mattresses themselves were not able to create VTOL as they did not puff up). In the shortest possible time, the master F-35 won the competition, because he showed better parameters than the competitor, especially in terms of GDP. But for every tricky ass, there’s a tricky device, problems started. Yak was not brought to the series, raw technology went to the Maras. But to bring them to mind was not so simple. The new VTOL is an even more electronics-rich unit that provides such interaction between the pilot and the car, when in fact the aircraft is driven by artificial intelligence, as on the Su-57, and the pilot exercises general leadership. Apparently, the mattress mattresses did not cope with this task, therefore it seems to fly, but everything is buggy! Ours on the Su-57, or rather on the Su-35, coped with this task, and it will be easier for them to create a new VTOL aircraft. Only now will KB work on this. Yak and Su! Alone it will be long and expensive, and both already have a super-duper operating time, joining forces a breakthrough is guaranteed!
    VTOL is much more promising than any aircraft (what mattresses are they grasping on this technology? They took into account, calculated and compared everything! The game is worth the candle!). Its operation does not require expensive infrastructure, it can be brought as close as possible to the forefront, saving flight time, fuel, resources and money! This means that the combat load will not be inferior to a conventional aircraft, and the combat radius will increase significantly. The Yak-141 was supersonic, vertical take-off with a load of more than a ton to a height of 10 km. about a minute! The absolute world record! With the latest technology, such as supersonic without afterburner, etc. bells and whistles, it will already be almost a flying saucer!
    I am not a specialist in aviation, but even its promisingness is obvious to me!
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh April 18 2018 16: 41
      +4
      Yak-141 was an excellent development ahead of its time. At that time it was not possible to make vertical take-off automatic. It all depended on the pilot's experience.
    2. Dart2027
      Dart2027 April 18 2018 20: 21
      +1
      Quote: sib.ataman
      what mattresses are seizing on this technology? They took everything into account, calculated and compared! The game is worth the candle

      But they themselves use normal aircraft carriers, and they sell it to the Allies.
      1. YELLOWSTONE
        YELLOWSTONE April 21 2018 05: 34
        0
        They themselves do not use F-35B? they still took all the harriers from the British because they themselves are lacking.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 April 21 2018 06: 48
          0
          Quote: YELLOWSTONE
          they themselves do not use F-35B

          The basis of their naval aviation are aircraft carriers designed for conventional takeoff aircraft. B-shki they shove on UDC instead of helicopters.
          1. YELLOWSTONE
            YELLOWSTONE April 21 2018 07: 08
            0
            together with helicopters and convertiplanes
            their main quantity for the USA
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 April 21 2018 13: 31
              0
              Quote: YELLOWSTONE
              together with helicopters and convertiplanes

              Turnplanes are designed for transportation, so this is a slightly different area. , helicopters and verticals are essentially a means of supporting the landing, and given that the last full-fledged landing was a very long time ago, the probability of their combat use is extremely low.
              1. YELLOWSTONE
                YELLOWSTONE April 21 2018 13: 55
                0
                tiltrotor can do all the same as a helicopter, only faster and further
                they are all recently applied
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 April 21 2018 15: 41
                  0
                  Quote: YELLOWSTONE
                  tiltrotor can do the same thing as a helicopter

                  Can. But the Bell V-22 Osprey in service with the United States is still a transporter.
                  1. YELLOWSTONE
                    YELLOWSTONE April 21 2018 15: 58
                    0
                    V-22 is of three species, and three more are proposed and tested.
  28. shuravi
    shuravi April 18 2018 17: 09
    +1
    Quote: garri-lin
    You do not agree?



    You know, I heard about strike aircraft carriers, as well as about escort aircraft carriers that are in the past.
    But air defense carriers, this is something new. No.
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin April 18 2018 17: 39
      +1
      As for me, this is the only use for an aircraft carrier in a big conflict. In this hipish without restrictions, the London and Hague courts, in the war of survival.
  29. shuravi
    shuravi April 18 2018 17: 10
    +1
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Yak-141 was an excellent development ahead of its time. At that time it was not possible to make vertical take-off automatic. It all depended on the pilot's experience.



    Again automatic take-off. laughing
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh April 19 2018 01: 16
      +3
      Again. Until you understand that "automatic" is NOT manual according to the readings of the instruments,
      and when the pilot does not touch the helm during the take-off process.
      Like on civilian autopilot airliners.
  30. shuravi
    shuravi April 18 2018 17: 11
    0
    Quote: sib.ataman

    I am not a specialist in aviation, but even its promisingness is obvious to me!


    Strange, but the dead end is obvious to me.
  31. shuravi
    shuravi April 18 2018 17: 45
    0
    Quote: garri-lin
    As for me, this is the only use for an aircraft carrier in a big conflict. In this hipish without restrictions, the London and Hague courts, in the war of survival.


    Sorry, but the idea of ​​using aircraft carriers as floating airfields for air defense forces is absurd.
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin April 18 2018 17: 55
      0
      Can you argue? The statement is too categorical. I would like to hear your arguments.
  32. shuravi
    shuravi April 18 2018 17: 58
    0
    Quote: garri-lin
    Can you argue? The statement is too categorical. I would like to hear your arguments.



    So, since you invented the air defense carriers, then tell me where and how you are going to use them. And then I'll tell you what the absurdity is.
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin April 18 2018 18: 08
      0
      Well first thing. I didn’t invent anything.
      The second one. You do not know what air defense is and why it is needed? Large ship formations far from its shores need to be covered? Are we not going to cover strategic submarine deployment zones either?
    2. garri-lin
      garri-lin April 18 2018 18: 09
      +1
      And forgot to add. Waiting for a story.
  33. Mihail28
    Mihail28 April 18 2018 18: 29
    0
    And I propose for naval aviation to build not VTOL aircraft, but aviation of underwater take-off and underwater landing. Aircraft carriers build on the basis of submarines. Say it is not possible? But rockets are building an underwater launch, which means planes can. Especially if you develop new top-secret super-duper-nano-invisible-inaudible-stealth technologies. Which will be orders of magnitude superior to the most technologically advanced enemy technologies. By the way, it will be much cheaper and more efficient than the construction of aircraft carriers according to the classical scheme. And if you take into account the need for the construction of ships and escort ships for carrier carriers, deck-type aircraft of the classical type, the gain will become even more noticeable.
  34. shuravi
    shuravi April 18 2018 19: 19
    0
    Quote: garri-lin
    Well first thing. I didn’t invent anything.
    Second.


    Yah? Well then, at least indicate where, when, and by whom did the air defense carriers generally be mentioned? lol


    You do not know what air defense is and why it is needed?


    Much better than you.

    Large ship formations far from its shores need to be covered?


    I understand that you have not heard anything about ship’s air defense?


    Are we not going to cover strategic submarine deployment zones either?


    Bravo, this is generally fantastic. The question is, why all these measures to covert exit, in order to illuminate all the surface group in a given area? laughing

    And forgot to add. Waiting for a story.


    What about cockroaches in your head? Well, you at least reveal them in more detail. I'm not an extrasensory. request
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin April 18 2018 19: 43
      +1
      My friend, you are a troll. Knock not only one argument in the chest. Pearl about the hidden exit and glare by the surface group very well shows the level of your competence in this matter. Go learn the materiel. You are our specialist in naval air defense.
      1. shuravi
        shuravi April 18 2018 20: 22
        -1
        Quote: garri-lin
        My friend, you are a troll.


        My friend has the data in the profile. Unlike you, the boy is "silent."

        Knock not only one argument in the chest.


        Arguments against what? Your unspoken bullshit?

        Pearl about the hidden exit and glare by the surface group very well shows the level of your competence in this matter.


        Excuse me, are you? How else to understand your idea of ​​covering aircraft carrier’s strategic submarine deployment area with aircraft carriers?
        So, according to the strategist garri-lin An aircraft carrier formation with an escort is advancing into the area.
        Then there are submarines, I pop up and strike.
        The only question is, why then should submarines go underwater? Isn’t it easier in the water position, undercover. Anyway, why are they needed in this case.

        Go learn the materiel. You are our specialist in naval air defense.


        I studied it back when your dad and mom went to kindergarten. That's it, baby. bully
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin April 18 2018 20: 55
          +2
          Can you imagine what the SSBN deployment area is? (in Soviet times, if I’m not mistaken, the bastion) how many thousand square meters are there. miles of water surface? This water area should be controlled permanently. Regardless of whether there are boats there or not.
          This is the only argument that I have against your ignorance in this matter.
  35. Taoist
    Taoist April 18 2018 20: 54
    +3
    Another "vertically carrier srach" ...
    Honestly - this is how a person whose specialty is vertical I would love to see them again in the sky. There is for them both an appointment and a job for which they are a good tool.
    And as a techie (I hope it’s still not bad) I don’t see any special questions here.
    Another thing is that the “price of the issue” for today is clearly higher than the potential profit - and that is why we most likely will not see those “verticals”. But taking into account the development of drones, then most likely they will take on this role. And most likely this will be exactly the option of a non-aerodrome launch and landing. Easier, cheaper, more specialized and able to work on any ship platforms (up to the notorious "submarine aircraft carriers")
  36. shuravi
    shuravi April 18 2018 22: 29
    +1
    Quote: garri-lin
    Can you imagine what the SSBN deployment area is? (in Soviet times, if I’m not mistaken, the bastion) how many thousand square meters are there. miles of water surface? This water area should be controlled permanently. Regardless of whether there are boats there or not.


    And how many air defense carriers you invented would be needed? Can you keep up with a thousand? laughing


    This is the only argument that I have against your ignorance in this matter.


    That’s why the Internet is wonderful, that every schoolboy like garri-lin will be sitting under an anonymous nickname to invent a child prodigy and accuse the professional military of ignorance. laughing
  37. bk0010
    bk0010 April 18 2018 22: 59
    0
    Before making a new VTOL aircraft, I would first look at what will happen to amers with the F-35B. Suddenly there will be the same crap as Harrier for the United States Commission. But if it goes and ours will make a normal VTOL (albeit subsonic, albeit with a load of 1-2 tons, the main thing is not to beat and the radar was), then it must be riveted not so much for the fleet as for the ground forces (make vertical lines in army aviation) . There will be very interesting application profiles, many surprises for the NATO Air Force. Or, if the land investigators do not cope with the maintenance of aircraft, then in the Air Force, but for deployment and work at the forefront.
  38. Shadow shooter
    Shadow shooter April 19 2018 06: 02
    +1
    Why is it needed at all? We should even rivet 50 Su-57 pieces
  39. gregor6549
    gregor6549 April 19 2018 07: 42
    +1
    With the current level of technology, you can do anything you like, including a vertical take-off / landing airplane. The question is the price of the question and why such a plane is needed in principle. To equip Russian aircraft carriers, in principle, it is not needed. with the tasks that would be assigned to such an aircraft, ship versions of the MIG and SU are quite successfully coping. It could be useful for equipping a Mistral class UDC, but the Mistrals sailed away from us far away, but would there be a big question for them instead. But the main thing is not even that. Without the presence on board an aircraft carrier or UDC of a well-balanced aviation group, which, in addition to fighters and attack aircraft, should include AWACS and U-planes, tankers, transport planes, electronic warfare aircraft, etc. the whole idea of ​​developing separate classes of aircraft like developing an airplane vertical take-off resembles a children's but very expensive game. For example, the presence of RLDN or RLS helicopters with AFAR on Sushki in no way can replace a full-fledged AWACS and U. And for such aircraft, an aircraft carrier with a catapult is needed. There was a good project in Ulyanovsk but he rested in a Bose and it is not known whether he will be able to reanimate him. But if it succeeds, then the primary task would be not the creation of a UVVP aircraft, but the reanimation of the project of a carrier-based aircraft; eta AWACS and the creation of a carrier-based carrier aircraft on its basis. Of course, normal heroes go their own way, but is it necessary to break their legs each time, mastering uncharted paths and spending money on their development which is not there, if the same West has already gained vast experience in creating aircraft carriers and aircraft for them. Yes, the West has developed a couple of aircraft models with air-borne aircraft such as Harrier and F 35, but these models did not bring much happiness to their customers. And expensive, and difficult and unreliable. So why step on the same rake? Moreover, Russia does not have such opportunities as the West in terms of joint financing, development and supply of components. Everything has to be done by ourselves and often “on the knee”. And, alas, one does not have to expect fast and high-quality results from such a “self-construction”
  40. garri-lin
    garri-lin April 19 2018 09: 56
    +1
    And how many air defense carriers you invented would be needed? Can you keep up with a thousand?
    Since you are a “professional military”, then it will not be difficult for you to find out how the deployment areas were protected during the Soviet Union. And how they tried to introduce the aviation component. (helicopter carriers).
  41. gridasov
    gridasov April 19 2018 15: 08
    0
    Quote: YELLOWSTONE
    probably because of this, the rotor described in the article may be hot.
    Reply Quote Complaint YELLOWSTONE

    You, by the way, correctly note. However, which part of the rotor must be hot and which part is cold.
  42. shuravi
    shuravi April 19 2018 16: 58
    0
    Quote: garri-lin
    Can you argue? The statement is too categorical. I would like to hear your arguments.



    So, since you invented the air defense carriers, then tell me where and how you are going to use them. And then I'll tell you what the absurdity is.
    Quote: garri-lin
    And how many air defense carriers you invented would be needed? Can you keep up with a thousand?
    Since you are a “professional military”, then it will not be difficult for you to find out how the deployment areas were protected during the Soviet Union. And how they tried to introduce the aviation component. (helicopter carriers).


    Kapets. laughing Helicopters during the USSR were not used for air defense needs, but to search for a submarine of a potential enemy.
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin April 19 2018 17: 47
      0
      Stroybat did not go to your advantage.
  43. shuravi
    shuravi April 19 2018 20: 34
    0
    Quote: garri-lin
    Stroybat did not go to your advantage.


    Boy, my profile shows in which "building battalion" I served. laughing
  44. lance
    lance April 20 2018 12: 34
    +1
    for the needs of air defense with our defense doctrine, an aircraft carrier is definitely not needed, too many missiles of different calibrations and instantly -31 finishes everything to the end. Americans undertook to finalize the brainchild of KB Yakovlev flag in their hands. to say that everything is fine with them - to tweak the soul. The main task is a load of 7 tons and a combat radius of 700 km with a speed of 1700 before afterburner Yakovlev has not been reached. easier to have bases in different parts with conventional 5generation aircraft.
  45. Cannonball
    Cannonball April 21 2018 22: 01
    +1
    VTOL is a dead end. He will always lose to planes traditionally taking off and landing. VTOL at best can at least somehow be justified for a small radius of action.
    1. lance
      lance April 22 2018 17: 06
      0
      There is a saying: everything is new, it is far forgotten old. I am convinced that at this stage of the development of aviation in the Russian Federation, this is a dead end branch, but not a thought. Let the Americans take part in the development of this branch of aviation. we have powerful backlogs. Now we will see where this leads.
  46. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer April 23 2018 08: 52
    0
    Another non-alternative device - without competition, from one supplier ...
    In conditions of complacency, usually nothing good is born - before there was a competition of design bureaus.
    Let the Yakovlevites compete with Sukhoi Design Bureau, at least at the preliminary design stage.
    Since the F-35 came in three versions and the vertical was not the most popular of them, there is no point in ordering one vertical - this should be a full-fledged airplane + in the vertical take-off variant for the fleet.
    1. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE April 25 2018 21: 05
      0
      What is the difference in how many variants was the F-35? Dry and then did not want to do this, but everyone competed for the MiG-29, Su-27 and Yak-45 competition, and for some reason they chose 2 out of three and not just one.
  47. VOENOBOZ
    VOENOBOZ April 24 2018 15: 48
    0
    Where is the factory? He was smashed to the foundation.
  48. Mobik
    Mobik 11 May 2018 21: 50
    0
    That only the Russians can’t think of a normal aircraft carrier not to do. Any aircraft taking off from an aircraft carrier with a catapult, according to the payload and its speed characteristics, will do such an ersatz aircraft. Yes, you can admire the Yak-141, but in terms of its flight characteristics and carrying capacity, it lost to the dryer, which took off from the springboard.