Military Review

Yak-41 against the further development of the Yak-38. Lesson from the past

424

There is a saying that the best is the enemy of the good. It should have been made the slogan of ordering structures of the Ministry of Defense. It makes sense, however, to consider this principle using a negative example from Soviet practice.


Continuing the topic raised earlier in the article "Aircraft-carrying cruisers and Yak-38: retrospective analysis and lessons", consider what ignoring this principle led to the development of the Soviet deck aviation... Of course, "good" here was very relative, if not worse. Nevertheless, the principle worked. Let's learn this lesson from the past too.

Yak-38: prospects and realities


From the very beginning, the same decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, on the basis of which the Yak-36M (future Yak-38) was created, provided for the creation of a further training two-seat version of this aircraft, and, in addition, a fighter.

Naturally, the fighter would be, as they say, the same one. The type of aircraft on the basis of which the future "vertical" fighter would be created clearly showed that its capabilities would be reduced to simple interceptions with some chances to evade the missile launched by the enemy, if there was one. This vehicle would never have been able to conduct a maneuverable battle with the Phantoms, as the base attack aircraft Yak-38 could not. But such an aircraft would have a chance to aim a missile according to the radar data.

This car could not be called useless. And we'll come back to this later.

The Yakovlevtsy began designing the fighter in 1979.

This machine was supposed to have a radar. Presumably Н019, similar to the radar station of the MiG-29 fighter. The aerodynamic configuration is "high-wing", with a significantly higher (than the Yak-38) wing located. Longer wing, possibly with more hardpoints weapons... And, as some sources indicate, a 30 mm cannon. The rest of the plane should have been widely unified with the modification of the Yak-38M attack aircraft being developed at the same time. So, the engines had to be the same. Today this vehicle is known as the Yak-39.

Yak-41 against the further development of the Yak-38. Lesson from the past
Yak-39, model and drawing.

How far has the work on the 39th machine been?

In 1985, we were already talking about the construction. That is, the main design work has been completed. There is no doubt that sometime by the end of 1986 it would have been possible to at least retrain the first of the naval air regiments for a new machine, if we tried hard.

Today we know what was done instead.

From the Yak-38 family, only the base attack aircraft Yak-38, its "correction of errors" Yak-38M and the training Yak-38U were included in the series.

It was decided not to build the Yak-39, but to focus on the more advanced supersonic Yak-41 (later, after the collapse of the USSR - 141). Today it is customary to say that it was an advanced aircraft ahead of its time, and now - have enough time for us ...

Yes, the plane was forward. And in terms of its performance characteristics, it was utterly superior to the hypothetical Yak-39, and as a percussion vehicle - the Yak-38M.

But the creation of this aircraft, however, was a mistake.

Here is why.

Miscalculation


First of all, let's voice a simple idea - a ship (deck) aircraft and its carrier ship do not exist separately from each other. They de facto form a single complex. This also applied to "verticals". And some of the nuances of how the complex from the TAVKR project 1143 and its aircraft looked, and how it would have had to fight, were disassembled in the last article.

Let us now look at the Soviet plans for the ships.

First and foremost, at the time the assembly of the planned Yak-39 began, it was already obvious that the USSR had turned towards aircraft carriers with normal aircraft. The future Kuznetsov was already under construction. The laying of the second Soviet aircraft carrier, which today serves in the Chinese Navy as Liaoning, would be several months away.

On the other hand, work on the future Yak-41 was going well behind schedule. It was supposed to take off back in 1982, but it didn't.

At this point, the military leadership had to do a very simple analysis.
Yak-38 was created for a long time. Just to repeat the quote from the previous article (commentary at the time of the Yak-38M's adoption, in 1985):

38 years have passed since the creation of the project of the first "vertical" of the Yakovlev Design Bureau until the adoption of the Yak-25M. Since the first flight of the Yak-36M / 38 - 15 years. Since the adoption of the Yak-38 into service - 8 years.

This is the time frame for such aircraft being created and brought to an operational state.

In a normally operating aviation industry, there are practically no "effective managers", no organized crime groups seeking to "straddle" financial flows in the defense industry, with minimal restrictions on money and resources. With the simplest electronic equipment of the "Stone Age", if you call a spade a spade.

A reason to think about all lovers of "vertical".

The Yak-41 has already been created for a long time. And while the results are not obvious.

The first research and development work on a supersonic "vertical" began back in 1973. 12 years before that. Eight years have passed since the day of the decree on the creation of the "41st".


The new VTOL aircraft was created for a very long time.

Everything indicated that a more high-tech and complex supersonic VTOL aircraft would be created no less than a simple Yak-38. In this case, insurance is required in the form of a Yak-39.

But, most importantly, this is that while there are "dances" with VTOL aircraft, there will be no decent number of new carriers for it.

We look at the service life of the existing TAVKRs.

"Kiev" - in operation for 10 years. If we start from the analogy with the Yak-38, then when the Yak-41 reaches combat readiness in the mid-nineties and is supplied to naval aviation, the ship will be at least 20 years old (if not more).

Minsk is the same, but with a three-year shift. When the rearmament of the next air regiment begins, "Minsk" will already be in service for 17 years. When the new planes arrive at Minsk itself, it will be 18-19.

"Novorossiysk" - most likely, the first Yak-41 would "see" at the age of 16-17, in the second half of the 90s. And by the time this ship went into first combat service with these aircraft, the service life of the first "corps" of Project 1143 ("Kiev") would have already exceeded 25 years. "Minsk" - 22 years old.

"Baku" (now "Vikramaditya" in the Indian Navy) was still under construction. Actually, it was the only ship that by the time the estimated date of completion of the Yak-41 tests (which in 1985 could have been predicted quite well, albeit approximately) could still be called the word "new". And it was planned as last in the Navy, the carrier "vertical".

It is clear that in reality the sequence of rearmament of regiments would be such that new aircraft would start flying from new ships. And, apparently, the 41st would have started flying from "Baku".

But then it was difficult to predict. But it would be quite possible to correlate the residual service life of the ships with the plans to build a series of already tested and combat-ready Yak-41. And then it was already possible to predict problems with the repairs of TAVKRs. After all, the country could not cope with the repair of ships even then. And this meant that the service life of the TAVKRs would be lower than the designated one.

And so then it began to come out. The same "Kiev" was put on a joke long before the collapse of the USSR.

Wasn't it too bold to make a fundamentally new aircraft for ships, some of which (half in fact) would have to be written off before the new "verticals" would take off their resource?

Was the Yak-41 superior to the old subsonic vertical?

Well yes. But he could not have won the "junkyard" "Phantom" or later "Hornet".

Roughly speaking, it would have very few advantages over the Yak-39 in aerial combat. Simply because the gap between its flight performance and the performance characteristics of enemy aircraft still remained critical, although it was smaller. The Yak-41, as a percussion vehicle, was also superior to the Yak-38M, and disproportionately. And the hypothetical strike version of the Yak-39 with a radar, it would be superior, but much less.

Moreover, it was significantly more expensive.

And most importantly, the naval aviation never received it. At all. Did not make it.

"Tit" lost from the hands


Consider what would have happened if resources had not been spent on the 41st aircraft at all.

Firstly, work on the Yak-39 would not have gone "on a leftover principle." Large resources would be concentrated on them. And this, with a high degree of probability, means a faster, than in reality, work progress.

That is, we can make the assumption that if it were not for the 41st, the Yak-39 could have been launched into production at the same time as the Yak-38M actually went into production. That is, since 1985. It was then that the Yak-39 could begin to enter combat units.

Further simple logic - the new aircraft would have radar and improved flight characteristics (wing). And this would inevitably force to raise the question of "bringing" the attack aircraft in line with the capabilities of the new machine.

For example, during training attacks, Yak-39 fighters would obviously carry out the tasks of escorting the Yak-38M and additional reconnaissance of targets. Simply because their radar would allow it, whereas the 38 pilots needed to detect targets visually.

Further, the question would arise of how to hit the target at a greater distance than the 7-10 km available with the Kh-23 SD. Inevitably, the enumeration of missile options, in terms of their weight and size characteristics, capable of being used with the Yak-38, would lead to the Kh-25MP anti-radar missile with a maximum launch range of 40 kilometers. But 40 kilometers is the range at which the Americans used their "Harpoons" from aircraft in real military operations! X-25MP by the mid-80s would already have been.



Attack aircraft could well have replaced the X-23 (top photo) with the X-25MP, and their modernization for a new missile was completely real.

But a bunch of Yak-39, capable of at least disrupting a coordinated attack of enemy interceptors on our attack aircraft (even at the cost of their large losses), and Yak-38M attack aircraft with the Kh-25MP anti-radar missile would be much higher in their effectiveness in attacking surface targets. than just a Yaki with an X-23 and a launch range of no more than 10 km. Yes, we would still be inferior to the Americans, but the chances of getting them would now be completely different. And all this would have been under the USSR.

You can also fantasize about a hypothetical attack aircraft with a radar. Such an aircraft could be created in just a couple of years. And the idea of ​​creating a strike vehicle was already based on the Yak-39.

They would start making them in the presence of slightly old Yak-38 and 38M - an open question. But if they did not, then the modernization of the already built "vertical units" would be completely carried out.

And I wonder if the Yak-39 would have gone along the path of evolution of a multipurpose aircraft capable of working both on ships and in the air? And obviously it would not have been without attempts to use this aircraft to obtain initial data for targeting missile weapons from ships - and not only TAVKRs. And this, in general, would open a new page in naval tactics ...

There is one more nuance. The Yaki-38s were characterized by extremely low reliability. At some point, the OKB im. Yakovleva, who "invested" in the Yak-41, simply threw this work on its own. As a result, the Yak-41 still failed. But the low reliability and high accident rate of the 38s became one of the reasons for their rapid write-off. Even before the official decommissioning.

And the last - yes, yes, it became one of the reasons for the quick withdrawal to the reserve. And then from the combat strength of aircraft-carrying cruisers.

And if the Navy had a serial, combat-capable and brought to more or less satisfactory reliability all-weather and all-day aircraft (Yak-39), then who knows, maybe it would not have been the Nakhimov that would have gone into long-term restructuring, but for example, the Novorossiysk? And "Kiev" and "Minsk" would have been used for him as donors of spare parts (suppose that "Baku-Gorshkov" would have left for India, as the newest of the ships).

And then the 39th could get a new engine. And it would not be much worse than the English "Harrier 2" and its American "brother" AV-8B. And in some ways, perhaps better. Moreover, the fact that the OKB them. Yakovleva would have been forced to continue working on the 38–39 line, giving chances for progress in improving reliability.

Although everything could have turned out and as in reality. And it is likely that in the chaos of the 90s, TAVKRs would also have been written off. But at the same time, even before the Kuznetsov, we would have had experience in operating fighter aircraft from decks and night flights. And purely psychologically, we would know that the height called "carrier-based fighter" was actually taken by us back then, in the mid-80s. A trifle, but nice ...

What happened instead?

The USSR Navy did not receive a ship-based fighter for its aircraft-carrying cruisers at all. Did not acquire the ability to fly and perform combat missions at night, which seriously weakened the political significance fleetas a tool to resist American pressure at sea during the last exacerbation of the Cold War - the 80s. This means that the USSR weakened in general, in principle.

The Navy did not acquire a means of at least some kind of long-range interception of air targets. I didn't have the prospect of creating a multipurpose ship aircraft. And he did not use even a weak excuse to defend at least one aircraft-carrying cruiser - citing the presence in the ranks of existing aircraft with more or less acceptable combat value (especially against a not very strong enemy). Aircraft, which, unlike the Yak-41 (then already 141), did not need to continue to be tested or produced. Who had donors of spare parts (Yak-38). This argument, of course, promised nothing. But his absence absolutely guaranteed something ...

The concentration of efforts on the Yak-41 ultimately turned out to be harmful for naval aviation.

And it remains only to regret that the political leadership of the USSR did not show sufficient political will to force the Yakovlev Design Bureau to fulfill its obligations.

And the Yak-41 did not have time to make.

Moreover, already, when the fate of the TAVKRs was decided (de facto), the Americans quickly financed this program. It was they who received a lot of ready-made and good scientific and technical data based on its results. By the way, to which in any other case, they would have to come themselves. And for completely different money.


This program helped some people a lot.

For us today from the Yak-141 "not hot and not cold."

The creation of new "vertical units" does not matter, as well as ships for them. This work turned out to be literally a “thing in itself” for us. And useful only to our enemies. And if the collapse of the USSR and cooperation with the United States in the 80s could not be predicted, then the timing of the creation of such a new aircraft was easily predicted even then.

This is what led to the temptation to get a supersonic VTOL aircraft with outstanding performance.

However, perhaps everything is much simpler.

Not so long ago, one high-ranking officer, who is still involved in getting new ships of the Navy "tickets to life", said this somewhat cynical phrase:

“State awards were not given for the modernization of old aircraft. And for the new - they gave. "

But the final result is important.

Conclusions for the future


As with shipbuilding, in aviation it is sometimes worth avoiding unnecessary technical risks. This does not mean that you should not work on creating new aircraft. On the contrary, in aviation, as nowhere else, progress should be ahead of a potential enemy.

But investing in "perspective" must be deliberate. Progress does not exist for its own sake, but for the sake of increasing combat effectiveness. Moreover, in the case of such an organizational and complex system as "aircraft-ship" - to increase the efficiency of the entire system. And within a reasonable time frame.

And it is absolutely certain that if the development of one of the components of such a system is recognized as a dead end (TAVKRs in the 80s), then the investment of resources in its other component ("verticals") should be minimal. It is necessary to squeeze some combat effectiveness out of the existing equipment so that the ships serve with non-zero value to the end. And that's enough.

So, the MiG-29K is enough for today. And at the beginning of work on a new ejection carrier instead of Kuznetsov, it is in the part of combat aircraft that the modification of the MiG-29K with a modified airframe will be sufficient. And with the possibility in the future to update it onboard avionics. And only after the air groups of new aircraft are formed, one can already think about some kind of aircraft of the future. And, slowly, start doing it.

The example from the Yak-141 shows us that some bugs can look very promising and attractive.

We must learn to abstain from them even when tempted.
Author:
424 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Ka-52
    Ka-52 9 February 2021 05: 19
    +23
    An interesting concept, not devoid of intelligence. A kind of embodiment of the saying "Better a tit in the hands ...."
    This, by the way, is best addressed to those commentators who like to write: "why are we starting the production of a crude (?) Su-57? It is better to invent everything (engine, AFAR) at once, and only then in years ... super plane ". And the word "modernization" seems to them abusive and is usually written in a derogatory context.
    1. Civil
      Civil 9 February 2021 08: 45
      +11
      For us today from the Yak-141 "not hot and not cold."


      Because the technologies implemented in the Yak-141 in 1991, we simply cannot reproduce in 2021.
      But investing in "perspective" must be deliberate. Progress does not exist for its own sake, but for the sake of increasing combat effectiveness. Moreover, in the case of such an organizational and complex system as "aircraft-ship" - to increase the efficiency of the entire system. And within a reasonable time frame.

      This will finally ruin the capitalist country of the third world in decline.
      1. Ka-52
        Ka-52 9 February 2021 08: 50
        +2
        Because the technologies implemented in the Yak-141 in 1991, we simply cannot reproduce in 2021.

        who said we can't? Voices in your head?
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 9 February 2021 13: 49
          +16
          Quote: Ka-52
          who said we can't? Voices in your head?

          An unbiased view of the state of science and industry.
          This is for adherents of faith in a cunning plan that everything is fine, in reality, the costs of science are decreasing from year to year, while those of "partners" are growing, and are already ten times higher than our costs for science.
          And hungry chickens, as you know, do not lay eggs. This is noticeable in the pace of work on the Armata and SU-57.
          What is your doubt about the words of the Civilian based on?
          1. Lexus
            Lexus 9 February 2021 17: 28
            +1
            Quote: Ingvar 72
            What is your doubt about the words of the Civilian based on?

            Quote: Ka-52
            Voices in my head
          2. Local from the Volga
            Local from the Volga 10 February 2021 02: 49
            +1
            on your couch looks!
          3. Ka-52
            Ka-52 10 February 2021 08: 09
            +4
            Ingvar 72 (Igor)

            An unbiased view of the state of science and industry.

            you, dear one, I ask you not to comment on my words. I am absolutely not interested in your opinion in the section "Armaments"... Graze your health in the same place as usual. Have fun with your jabbering about how we all sit in poverty and hunger. You have nothing to do with airplanes, piloting, or the aviation industry. Therefore, the opinion of what batter in this thread means exactly zero to me !.
            1. Ingvar 72
              Ingvar 72 10 February 2021 09: 15
              +1
              Quote: Ka-52
              I am absolutely not interested in your opinion in the heading "Armaments"

              And to me the side that interests you, do not lie, and do not shrink, and you will be happy.
              As always, you cannot say anything on the topic.
              1. Ka-52
                Ka-52 10 February 2021 10: 04
                -1
                And to me the side that interests you, do not lie, and do not shrink,

                I write in detail, in the context of the article. And any incomprehensible type of you flies in here with some kind of delirium. It's easy to see and compare our comments. You are a populist and write exclusively populist comments. This will work for the headings Opinion or Analytics or News. But why the hell are you getting in here? You don't know a thing about airplanes. Have you ever been to a military airfield? Were sitting in the pilot's seat? Or are you an IAS technician? Or were there RP or at least ADP? Can you tell a frame from a spar without wikipedia? Or maybe you are an LIS operator? Or maybe you can distinguish the nozzle apparatus from the guide and where is their place in the engine? maybe you have 3-5 thousand plaque in the bins? Who are you to judge me?
                1. Ingvar 72
                  Ingvar 72 10 February 2021 10: 16
                  +2
                  Quote: Ka-52
                  I write in detail, in the context of the article

                  I noticed this in the article "Scarcity - how much is in this word", where you casually, indiscriminately and for no reason spoke lousy about my mother. negative
                  And the fact that you were related to aviation does not give you the right to tell a lie. Anything to say about my "populist" commentary? Am I wrong about something? In fact? Or will you start pouring the substance again? wink
                  1. Ka-52
                    Ka-52 10 February 2021 11: 34
                    +5
                    casually, indiscriminately and for no reason spoke disgustingly about my mom

                    and who brought mom and neighbors as arguments? I asked a specific question - what were you guided by SPECIFICALLY when forming a statement about the dynamics of alcohol consumption in the Russian Federation? In response, I received a bike from home brewing in your inner circle. So do not delve into this story that does not paint you.
                    Anything to say about my "populist" commentary?

                    of course have. After leaving flight work, I have been working at the UEC for more than 10 years and do not see any particularly critical problems with scientific and production potential. Yesterday at a meeting I talked with our young designers - on the contrary, they are talented guys. Often they are the ones who bring new ideas, overcoming the hardened old thinking. And the funding for our work is sufficient. Nobody sits with us in the form of "hungry hens". What kind of nonsense ?! And the pace of work on the Su-57 is within the normal work schedule. In your world of stupid fantasies, a concept car is created in a week. There, the Americans have been developing the F-20 for 22 years (!!!), if we take the period from the creation of the ATF program to the moment the finished car was rolled out. And this is longer than the creation period for the Su-57, even taking into account the significantly greater potential of LM, GD and similar concerns, especially back in the early 2000s, when the Teshke program was launched. You do not even know this, but you are arranging a stupid op.
                    So only you manage to pour the substance. Not too different from her in composition.
                    1. Ingvar 72
                      Ingvar 72 10 February 2021 12: 40
                      0
                      Quote: Ka-52
                      who brought mom and neighbors as arguments?

                      The argument that in the village of my mother all the neighbors are drinking five-liter vodka does not give you the right to say that "your mother sells moonshine."
                      And the story of home brewing has long since come true. Google to the rescue.
                      Quote: Ka-52
                      Yesterday at a meeting I talked with our young designers - on the contrary, they are talented guys.

                      I'm not saying that our people are stupid. But judging objectively, against the background of liquidated vocational schools and curtailed institutes in the process of merging, the number of these talents is clearly not enough. My uncle has worked at UVZ all his life, there is also a lack of prepared shift. And judging by the fact that the SU 57 is pedaling like the Armata, things are no better in the aircraft industry. As in the navy, however. I have already written about contributions to science, it is easy to check. In the budget for this year, this line of expenditures has been cut again. It is a fact. So talented people will come to you less and less. There will be more sawflies.
                      And tell the Chinese about the usual schedule of work on the new plane. wink
                      Quote: Ka-52
                      Not too different from her in composition.

                      Small-minded people can only insult that without risking getting into laughter. But personally, I believe in the cycle of substance in nature. So it will come back to you. wink
                      1. Ka-52
                        Ka-52 11 February 2021 10: 36
                        0
                        The argument that my mother in the village all the neighbors drink vodka in five liters

                        however, it is bad that at +100500 comments, the truth will not reach you in any way - to determine the dynamics of any phenomenon / event / action within the territory of a state entity, statistics are required IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THIS EDUCATION! i.e if we are talking about the dynamics of consumption in Russia, then the statistics for RUSSIA is taken! And not in the village of Verkhniye Krivotupy or Bolshoye Dyshlo. Are you like a ram all about one thing and about one thing ???
                        I'm not saying that our people are stupid. But if we judge objectively, then against the background of liquidated vocational schools and curtailed institutions in the process of merging, the number of these talents is clearly not enough.

                        For fun, open an article here on VO, about the nuclear submarine "Goldfish". Like the heyday of the USSR, but how many problems exactly from the point of view of R&D. And the Tu-22, and the Su-24, which have been treated for sores for years. And this is with your "full-fledged vocational schools and institutes."
                        So talented people will come to you less and less.

                        the word "talented" is like the word "beautiful". Everyone understands it in his own way. Lev Davydovich Landau, our famous physicist, the founder of the Soviet physics of the quantum field, studied during the Civil War plus went through the prisons of the NKVD. But something did not prevent him from becoming a genius "liquidated vocational schools and institutes cut down in the process of unification." yes And the entire scientific school of the USSR in the 50-80s began training in evenings and slave schools (SHRM, school for working youth).
                        And judging by the fact that SU 57 pedals like Armatu

                        I already wrote to you about the Su-57. why are you talking like a parrot again? Finally break away from the training manual
                        Foolish people can only insult that, without risking getting into laughter

                        narrow-minded people at first, as provocateurs, write about "substance", and when they get an answer, they start yelling, "but what about us? yes
                      2. gsev
                        gsev April 27 2021 02: 33
                        0
                        Quote: Ka-52
                        Lev Davydovich Landau, our famous physicist, the founder of the Soviet physics of the quantum field, studied during the Civil War plus went through the prisons of the NKVD. But something did not prevent him from becoming a genius "liquidated vocational schools and institutes cut down in the process of unification." And the entire scientific school of the USSR in the 50-80s began training in evenings and slave schools (SHRM, school for working youth).

                        Landau studied physics in Western Europe from 1929 to 1931, mainly with funds received on the recommendation of Niels Bohr, a Rockefeller Foundation scholarship. This is a little bit not "the Soviet vocational school and the GPU or the workers' school". And for the first six months of his internship abroad, he was paid by the Soviet government.
                      3. Ka-52
                        Ka-52 April 27 2021 06: 41
                        0
                        come on, pull the owl onto the globe. Landau, by the time of his studies abroad, had already graduated from the university and was known for his work in the field of quantum mechanics. Therefore, this fact does not cancel the contradictions from my comment above.
                      4. gsev
                        gsev April 28 2021 23: 04
                        0
                        Quote: Ka-52
                        come on, pull the owl onto the globe. Landau had already graduated from the university by the time of his studies abroad

                        P.L. Kapitsa has a good article on the reasons for the non-recognition of Lomonosov's works in the West. As you know, Lomonosov conducted extensive correspondence with European scientists, but he did not personally communicate with them very much. It is in this that Kapitsa sees the reason that Lomonosov's achievements did not properly influence the development of science. When a Soviet scientist, instead of communicating with colleagues, is forced to communicate with the NKVD officers, this does not motivate him to raise his scientific level. In Kapitsa's article, everything is presented in a more reasoned and understandable way.
                      5. Ka-52
                        Ka-52 April 29 2021 05: 17
                        0
                        It is in this that Kapitsa sees the reason that Lomonosov's achievements did not properly influence the development of science.

                        the problem of not recognizing Russian achievements in science, I think, is more complex, in my opinion. By the 18th century, European science had already managed to form into a fairly strong community. With such recognized centers as the Royal Society of London or the Académie Nacional dei Lynchei or the Académie Française. The scientific community was recognized by both society and influential government officials. And in Russia science was somewhat torn off, isolated. And it was promoted more by single enthusiasts, like Lomonosov. It's no secret that even in Russia he had problems with recognition, in particular in his native Academy.
                        When a Soviet scientist, instead of communicating with colleagues, is forced to communicate with the NKVD officers, this does not motivate him to raise his scientific level. In Kapitsa's article, everything is presented in a more reasoned and understandable way.

                        as far as I remember, Pyotr Leonidovich in his article about Lomonosov did not say a word about the NKVDs laughing But only you have gone a little aside from the subject of discussion.
                      6. gsev
                        gsev April 29 2021 15: 40
                        0
                        Quote: Ka-52
                        as far as I remember, Pyotr Leonidovich in his article about Lomonosov did not say a word about the NKVDs

                        As you know, the article was written during the Soviet era. Then P.L. Kapitsa had difficulties in publishing everything he wanted to say about science. If you are interested to know what scientists think about the NKVD, read "Geniuses, villains and conformists of Russian science" by S. Shnol.
                      7. user
                        user 3 May 2021 10: 24
                        0
                        If you are interested to know what scientists think about the NKVD, read "Geniuses, villains and conformists of domestic science" by S. Shnol.

                        And there are also memories of Zeldovich, Zilberman, Kurchatov, Khariton, which are very different from what scientists think about the NKVD and Beria in particular.
                        Now ask who S. Shnol is and who the above-listed comrades are and who can be trusted, and who signed up as offended.

                        And to measure those times from the standpoint of the present time is utter stupidity.
                        With what I congratulate you.
                      8. gsev
                        gsev 3 May 2021 12: 18
                        0
                        Quote: user
                        And there are also memories of Zeldovich, Zilberman, Kurchatov, Khariton, which are very different from what scientists think about the NKVD and Beria in particular.

                        As far as I know, Kurchatov and many of his associates were educated at the Tavricheskiy University, where the democratic traditions of free communication were preserved much longer than in Moscow. They wrote about this even in Soviet times. If you are interested in the history of Soviet science, please note that the provincial Taurida University gave the country a disproportionate number of physicists with organizational skills.
  • Oleg Tchernychenko
    Oleg Tchernychenko 10 February 2021 15: 34
    +2
    I call it "Red Wall Syndrome": no matter what idea you come up with, and its implementation, through a series of emerging problems and difficulties, rests against a red crenellated wall ...
  • NEOZ
    NEOZ 9 February 2021 14: 16
    -9
    Quote: Ka-52
    who said we can't? Voices in your head?

    We cannot 100%.
    1.long
    2.expensive
    3.No need
  • surok1
    surok1 17 February 2021 14: 26
    0
    The voices in the smartphone said. You would know how many demotivators and boors are on the forums!
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 9 February 2021 09: 08
    +1
    Well, yes, some super-brutal control systems for the Su-57, so that it can almost fly with its tail forward, we are doing it, but we will not be able to control the vertical during takeoff. Not even funny. Countries of the 3rd world do not make airplanes.
  • Quadro
    Quadro 9 February 2021 11: 26
    +8
    You at least take an interest in what "third world country" means. Well, yes, again, "we cannot." Su57 could, otherwise we will not be able to, well, just build a star cruiser. By the way, many countries of the "third world" type are building nuclear power plants, putting ships into space and keeping one of the most modern and strongest armies on a ball? The USA's "first world" has already been transported through us for 10 years, they have lost their competence in the atom, and now they don't even produce tanks, because instead of a factory, there is a field of rubble, in a country that lives at the expense of wars. And also they cannot bring their plane for 15 years, being at the peak of power. And now the Indians write software for them for airliners and they fall in piles. Here they are right on the rise.
  • Local from the Volga
    Local from the Volga 10 February 2021 02: 48
    -5
    what have you forgotten then ?! run!
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • yehat2
    yehat2 9 February 2021 15: 40
    +13
    I think the concept of a titmouse in the sky is poor. For the USSR in the 30s, it was good, but for the USSR in the 60s and 70s, it was too weak.
    But I would like to open the same topic from the other side. During the Gorbachev era, the USSR suffered greatly from a huge number of thoughtlessly opened and unfinished projects. The monstrous money that could have been used to improve life and the economy simply disappeared, was stolen and became "streams" on which the "necessary" people were planted. At the beginning of the 80s, almost complete destruction of investments in 5 years became apotheosis. Moreover, Gorbachev personally took an active part in this. By this time, the USSR had accumulated a colossal technological potential and tried to step forward, but most of the steps were inept or intentionally nullified. It was then that we sank sharply in terms of economic indicators and a deficit appeared.
    To understand what the USSR had potential, it is worth remembering the Yak-40, which Yakovlev made, and in a short time. For its niche, this plane was technologically equivalent to a starship - there was nothing like it in the West. Another demonstration car is the Mig-23. The most difficult project, which the USSR calmly pulled out. I specifically cite examples of only machines that were actively put into operation, and how many cool prototypes there were!
    1. Aag
      Aag 9 February 2021 17: 28
      +1
      Quote: yehat2
      I think the concept of a titmouse in the sky is poor. For the USSR in the 30s, it was good, but for the USSR in the 60s and 70s, it was too weak.
      But I would like to open the same topic from the other side. During the Gorbachev era, the USSR suffered greatly from a huge number of thoughtlessly opened and unfinished projects. The monstrous money that could have been used to improve life and the economy simply disappeared, was stolen and became "streams" on which the "necessary" people were planted. At the beginning of the 80s, almost complete destruction of investments in 5 years became apotheosis. Moreover, Gorbachev personally took an active part in this. By this time, the USSR had accumulated a colossal technological potential and tried to step forward, but most of the steps were inept or intentionally nullified. It was then that we sank sharply in terms of economic indicators and a deficit appeared.
      To understand what the USSR had potential, it is worth remembering the Yak-40, which Yakovlev made, and in a short time. For its niche, this plane was technologically equivalent to a starship - there was nothing like it in the West. Another demonstration car is the Mig-23. The most difficult project, which the USSR calmly pulled out. I specifically cite examples of only machines that were actively put into operation, and how many cool prototypes there were!

      IMHO: You have a chronological glitch, even a complete chaos in time (with all the resulting errors in conclusions), - "early 80s ...", "Gorbachev ...", "streams", and "the right people" ... In a critical mass, all this struck later.
      Maybe you poorly formulated your idea? (Or I am not aware of everything ...) repeat
      1. yehat2
        yehat2 9 February 2021 19: 53
        +6
        this is a rift in chronology. I spoke about the power of the nomenklatura and the placement of people with connections, the formation of permanent sources of income for thieves' communities.
        1. Aag
          Aag 10 February 2021 16: 35
          +1
          Quote: yehat2
          this is a rift in chronology. I spoke about the power of the nomenklatura and the placement of people with connections, the formation of permanent sources of income for thieves' communities.

          To eliminate misunderstandings: Gorbachev began to act as general secretary in March 1985 ...
          The "nomenclature" "managed" before him ... If about aviation (not special), then on hearing, since the Second World War, the eternal confrontation between the OKB (Tupolev, Yakovlev, Sukhoi, Ilyushin ...) That is, apparently , this should not be attributed only to the Gorbachev times.
          If it doesn’t make it difficult, please explain to those who are not knowledgeable: "In the early 80s, almost complete destruction of investments in 5 years became Apotheosis. Moreover, Gorbachev personally took an active part in this."
          How, about what cash flows, thieves communities are we talking about?
          Gorbachev has a lot of other "merits" to the country and the people. Once again, he "initiated" the process. And what you write about, IMHO, happened (is happening) with his followers.
          1. yehat2
            yehat2 10 February 2021 17: 02
            +2
            Quote: AAG
            To eliminate misunderstandings: Gorbachev began to act as general secretary in March 1985.

            but where was he before that? was he, as a random bum from the trash heap, indicated and chosen?
            he just had a lot of fun.
            1. Aag
              Aag 10 February 2021 17: 36
              0
              Quote: yehat2
              Quote: AAG
              To eliminate misunderstandings: Gorbachev began to act as general secretary in March 1985.

              but where was he before that? was he, as a random bum from the trash heap, indicated and chosen?
              he just had a lot of fun.

              If you look against the background of the Central Committee of the Politburo, then practically, yes)) ...
              In any case, this does not explain the processes that you wrote about during the specified period. Accordingly, I asked: “In a critical mass, all this burst out later.
              Maybe you poorly formulated your idea? (Or I am not aware of everything)? "...
              And he duplicated: "How, what kind of cash flows, thieves communities are we talking about?"
              Believe me, - not for the sake of confrontation, but for the benefit of, - maybe I don't know what, that's why I asked. hi
              1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 9 February 2021 17: 41
      -4
      Quote: yehat2
      it is worth remembering the Yak-40, which was made by Yakovlev, and in a short time. For its niche, this plane was technologically equivalent to a starship - there was nothing like it in the west.


      Why was the Yak-40 so cool and why did it not become a super profitable export product?
      1. yehat2
        yehat2 9 February 2021 19: 56
        +8
        Yak-40 was not created for export. And it was created without really looking back at the benefits.
        you don't understand at all the criteria for what the union demanded. It was created for ordinary residents, so that they not only fly, but also do it using advanced technologies.
        If the goal was to create an export plane not for the domestic market, it would be completely different - a typical example of a Czech l-ka.
        1. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 9 February 2021 20: 04
          .
          That is, there are no analogues, because no one else needs this starship.

          Quote: yehat2
          It was created for ordinary residents, so that they not only fly, but also do it using advanced technologies.


          And, what is important, they flew on free kerosene. It remains only to understand that the Yak-40 was "technologically equivalent to a starship."
          1. yehat2
            yehat2 9 February 2021 20: 08
            +6
            and you, without mockery, compare the Yak-40 with the one that flew on a par with it.
            really what the trash looks like. I just remind you that the Yak-40 was transferred from Li-2 and other machines of the same level. In addition, it is worth recalling that Boeing and 2 other Western companies also tried with a similar project, but they completely crap, and Yakovlev made a good car.
            1. The eye of the crying
              The eye of the crying 9 February 2021 20: 11
              -8
              Quote: yehat2
              and you, without mockery, compare the Yak-40 with the one that flew on a par with it. really what the trash looks like. I just remind you that the Yak-40 was transferred from Li-2


              You see ... what the Yak-40 was transferred from does not say anything about the fact that the Yak-40 is equivalent to a starship. It could have been a starship compared to Li-2, but DC-3 probably outlived this starship.

              Quote: yehat2
              that Boeing and 2 other Western companies also tried with a similar project, but completely shit


              And their requirements were different. For example, kerosene is not free.
              1. yehat2
                yehat2 9 February 2021 20: 30
                +11
                damn, you would know how much gasoline cost before the oil crisis. no one really considered him.
                stop comparing Soviet aviation, whose machines are all over 40-50 years old
                and today's requirements and technologies. At the time, everything looked very different.
                For example, the Poles were proud of the fact that they produced the An-2, which is now just terribly unprofitable, much worse than the Yak-40.
                1. The eye of the crying
                  The eye of the crying 9 February 2021 20: 33
                  -3
                  Quote: yehat2
                  you would know how much gasoline cost before the oil crisis. no one really considered him.


                  You would know that fuel efficiency has been required for commercial vehicles almost always.

                  Quote: yehat2
                  For example, the Poles were proud of the fact that they produced the An-2, which is now just terribly unprofitable, much worse than the Yak-40.


                  I realized that the Yak-40 was just a starship compared to the An-2 and Li-2.
                  1. yehat2
                    yehat2 9 February 2021 20: 52
                    +13
                    you just troll and refuse to listen
                    comparable with foreigners who flew in parallel with the Yak-40



                    I intentionally inserted only American ones, because the rest were usually worse
                    the best of them DC-9-40 (last photo), appeared almost simultaneously with the Yak-40, but
                    the yak-40, in contrast to it, could be based on village take-off sites and had a much shorter takeoff and landing mileage, while it had an even longer range and comparable efficiency.
                    Why jet engines - an alternative to turboprop then were very noisy.
                    And in general, the Yak-40 turned out to be the best in comfort in its class.
                    it was then, years later, bombardiers, embryors, etc. appeared, which are now better.
                    But then the Yak-40 was awesome.
                    1. The eye of the crying
                      The eye of the crying 9 February 2021 21: 19
                      -9
                      Quote: yehat2
                      just troll


                      Not. The Yak-40 was a typical Soviet aircraft with distinctive designs. He was not a starship.

                      Quote: yehat2
                      the best of them DC-9-40 (last photo), appeared almost simultaneously with the Yak-40, but
                      the yak-40, in contrast to it, could be based on village take-off sites


                      The DC-9 carried 2-4 times more passengers, 2-3 times farther, and at the same time faster.

                      Quote: yehat2
                      then the yak-40 was awesome.


                      ... compared to Li-2 - probably.
                    2. yehat2
                      yehat2 9 February 2021 22: 03
                      +7
                      Quote: Eye of the Crying
                      The DC-9 carried 2-4 times more passengers, 2-3 times farther, and at the same time faster.

                      DC-9-40 (this is important because it was later 9-50)
                      carried the same number of passengers, had a 200 km shorter range, but flew faster.
                      Are you just talking nonsense or have you read the data from somewhere?
                    3. The eye of the crying
                      The eye of the crying 9 February 2021 22: 12
                      -3
                      Quote: yehat2
                      Are you just talking nonsense or have you read the data from somewhere?


                      I read it, of course. And you?

                      DC-9-10: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aliner/dc9.html

                      56 people, early Yak-40 - 27.

                      The DC-9-40: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-9#Series_40

                      "With a 6 ft 6 in (2 m) longer fuselage, accommodation was up to 125 passengers."

                      Give your data sources.
                    4. yehat2
                      yehat2 9 February 2021 23: 00
                      +3
                      what does DC9-10 have to do with it, it's a different class plane
                      and the DC-9-40 cannot physically accommodate many passengers.
                      it is almost the size of a yak.
                      I flew a Yak-40 with 38 passengers.
                    5. The eye of the crying
                      The eye of the crying 9 February 2021 23: 10
                      -4
                      Quote: yehat2
                      and the DC-9-40 cannot physically accommodate many passengers.
                      it is almost the size of a yak.


                      The fact that the DC-9-40 model could accommodate 125 passengers is written in two sources - Wikipedia and https://www.aircraftcompare.com/aircraft/mcdonnell-douglas-dc-9-40/ Will you give your source or not?

                      Quote: yehat2
                      I flew a Yak-40 with 38 passengers.


                      Nobody disputes that there were such models.
      2. surok1
        surok1 17 February 2021 15: 16
        0
        They have almost free kerosene, they pay for it with cut paper.
        1. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 17 February 2021 16: 14
          0
          They, d (y) crayfish, save this cut paper.
  • Aag
    Aag 10 February 2021 15: 50
    0
    Quote: yehat2
    Yak-40 was not created for export. And it was created without really looking back at the benefits.
    you don't understand at all the criteria for what the union demanded. It was created for ordinary residents, so that they not only fly, but also do it using advanced technologies.
    If the goal was to create an export plane not for the domestic market, it would be completely different - a typical example of a Czech l-ka.

    "If the goal were to create an export plane not for the domestic market, it would be completely different ..."
    However: "Yak-40 became the first Soviet aircraft that was sold to countries with their own developed aviation industry" - from Viki ...
  • Nemchinov Vl
    Nemchinov Vl 11 February 2021 03: 58
    0
    Quote: Eye of the Crying
    Why was the Yak-40 so cool and why did it not become a super profitable export product?
    absolutely nothing (!), for passengers ..(!).. On the AN-24, it was three times more comfortable to fly (!)... Yak-40 "nodded", sharply nose, in takeoff and landing modes (!)...
    Anyone else, but I was uncomfortable in them ...
    Here on "Annushka" (on short lines) or on TU-134 (on medium), flying was much more comfortable (!!)... yes hi
  • 911sx
    911sx 9 February 2021 20: 53
    +5
    Here you can add the Tu 104. My friend, a Cypriot flew on it to the continent in the 60s and 70s. He said the plane was super at that time. As you can see, our aviation was often breakthrough and Western airlines confirm this by operating our equipment.
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 13 February 2021 02: 56
      -1
      Tu-104 as a commercial aircraft - in general, complete crap. Some foreign companies operated the Yak-40, but not massively and not for long.
  • Souchastnik
    Souchastnik 10 February 2021 11: 48
    +1
    it is worth remembering the Yak-40

    He still has a chance to "shoot" thanks to SibNIA. If again all the funds are not spent on the development of Mars and flights to neighboring galaxies.
  • pmkemcity
    pmkemcity 9 February 2021 06: 17
    -5
    World attraction - Pierre Timokhin counts a penny!

    Compared to other programs, both the program of the 41st and the program of the 39th cost a penny. It was just a strong-willed decision - no need!
    1. Local from the Volga
      Local from the Volga 10 February 2021 02: 53
      -3
      and now also on special planes ...
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 9 February 2021 06: 27
    +6
    And most importantly, the naval aviation never received it ... In general. Did not make it.

    Well, this is an afterthought ...
    And to throw a vertical line, in my opinion, was unwise. After all, what a decent experience. The MiG-41 brought the USSR to a completely new, unattainable for anyone, level in terms of VTOL aircraft.
    And about the aircraft carriers. Of course, almost classic aircraft carriers have already been built and planned. However ... how many would the Union have mastered? 3-4, maybe 5 ... I doubt more. For a global confrontation with the NATO Navy, it was clearly not enough. And under the Yak-41 could be built a numerous series of small and simpler aircraft carrier ships with a squadron of new yaks on board. And together with the mastodons of the Ulyanovsk type, this would be a serious challenge for the Anglo-Saxon maritime domination ...
    1. qQQQ
      qQQQ 9 February 2021 09: 04
      +22
      Quote: Doccor18
      And to throw a vertical line, in my opinion, was unwise.

      The SVP will never be able to compete with a normal aircraft. It was cheaper to build a normal aircraft carrier than to produce underplanes, the purpose of which, at the cost of their death, to try to reduce the damage from the attack.
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 9 February 2021 09: 37
        +6
        Quote: qqqq
        The SVP will never be able to compete with a normal aircraft.

        Of course, but partly all this became known later, and partly - they were created for specific tasks and even ships. They even invented the concept for this all their own .... Were these decisions wrong? Sure. But it was not so obvious in advance, plus there was extraordinary pressure from the close political leadership ...
        Quote: qqqq
        ... than to produce underplanes, whose purpose, at the cost of their death, is to try to reduce the damage from the attack.

        40 years ago, long before the mass production of UAVs, VTOL aircraft did not look like such a weak project. And they had some advantages, at least - based on relatively small ships.
        And not only in defense, the Yak-41 could work out, but also in the attack ...
        1. alexmach
          alexmach 9 February 2021 15: 47
          +3
          Of course, but partly all this became known later.

          Were these decisions wrong? Sure. But it wasn't so obvious beforehand

          Here, this is that important point that is very often overlooked in all "historical" analyzes, starting from their post-knowledge.
          1. timokhin-aa
            9 February 2021 16: 49
            +1
            Here, this is that important point that is very often overlooked in all "historical" analyzes, starting from their post-knowledge.


            At the time of the refusal to build the Yak-39, the experience of the USSR with verticals was tens of years. One could understand what and how.
            1. Alex777
              Alex777 9 February 2021 17: 33
              +3
              Do Americans, British, Japanese, Turks, Koreans, etc., all those who put F-35B on their ships or were going to put something important in this life do not understand?
              1. timokhin-aa
                9 February 2021 19: 59
                +1
                Yes, in short.
              2. 911sx
                911sx 9 February 2021 21: 00
                0
                There are offers that are difficult for them to refuse.
              3. LastPS
                LastPS 10 February 2021 00: 00
                0
                They understand that they simply cannot afford it, or if there is no need for a full-fledged aircraft carrier. Here, of course, the British stand out, but they did not seem to really understand what they were doing, or the public did not allow them to do what was needed normally. The ILC of the Americans simply do not have normal aircraft carriers, they are not supposed to be a kind of troops, but attack aircraft would like their own so that there are no delays in agreement with the Navy and the Air Force. The Japanese, Koreans and Turks have / want to have light aircraft carriers, it is simply physically impossible to base full-fledged aviation there. It makes sense in verticals, but they will definitely be inferior to classic planes.
                1. Alex777
                  Alex777 10 February 2021 16: 29
                  +1
                  Here, of course, the British stand out, but they themselves did not really understand what they were doing.

                  Brilliantly! wink
                  It is easy to give a damn about almost 40 years of real experience of operating more than 400 Harriers of various modifications by the Britons.
                  To use them in combat - too.
                  The fact that the United States purchased more than 120 Harriers and operated them for a long time - too.
                  All those who have paid hundreds of millions for SUVVP understand nothing!
                  Shine! laughing
                  1. LastPS
                    LastPS 13 February 2021 09: 40
                    0
                    Was this experience positive for the British? I don’t remember that the British Harriers were particularly effective. A light attack aircraft with a very limited range, the only advantage of which is the ability to be based on non-aircraft carriers. And why is the example of the USMC in general? Well, the ILC does not have aircraft carriers, there is a BDK, where there are no alternatives to these machines, of course, they are the best in this role. As for Queen Elizabeth's aircraft carriers, just read about what they were supposed to be, the Queen was supposed to carry the vertical, and the Prince was normal aircraft, as a result, both will carry the vertical, and the point is not that "40 years of real operational experience by the Britons is more than 400 Harriers of various modifications "so wonderful, they just cut the funding again and didn't have enough to catapult the prince. By the way, they generally wanted to sell the Queen to someone else, even when they thought that the prince would be with catapults, but somehow they defended it, which is logical, because you need at least two aircraft carriers, the prospect of repairs is far from illusory. All those who paid for VTOL aircraft cannot use normal deck boats due to the limited size of their ships, or, as in the case of Britain, the ships are sharpened under VTOL aircraft because you don't have to bother with a catapult. All those who paid for VTOL aircraft do not "understand anything" they are simply limited financially or technically. If VTOL aircraft were as effective as classic cars, who would buy these classic cars at all? But physics can't be fooled ... yet.
                    1. Alex777
                      Alex777 13 February 2021 12: 24
                      -1
                      Was this experience positive for the British? I don’t remember that the British Harriers were particularly effective. A light attack aircraft with a very limited range, the only advantage of which is the ability to be based on non-aircraft carriers.

                      Now they have quite a carrier. More Kuznetsov.
                      Once they built ships of normal VI, nothing prevented normal aircraft from basing there.
                      If the Britons wanted catapults, the Yankees would have sold.
                      Therefore, I believe that the UWMS is a deliberate choice.
                      All those who paid for VTOL aircraft do not "understand anything" they are simply limited financially or technically.

                      Everyone has financial restrictions. But the Britons do not have them of such a scale that because of this they abandon ordinary planes in favor of UVVP. Are verticals cheaper than conventional planes? wink
                      1. OgnennyiKotik
                        OgnennyiKotik 13 February 2021 12: 40
                        0
                        On the British AV, catapults are constructively provided and a place is reserved. But when the question became about buying, they refused. The difference between the F35C and B in money is $ 7 million, in performance characteristics ~ 250 km (20-25%) of the combat radius. But in any case, the F-35B has a greater combat radius than the F-14/18.
                        In general, it is cheaper to buy the B version than to install a catapult, in real possibilities the B version is not inferior to the C.
                      2. Alex777
                        Alex777 13 February 2021 14: 06
                        -1
                        If I understood you correctly, my thesis:
                        The Britons deliberately chose the vertical

                        do you support?
                      3. OgnennyiKotik
                        OgnennyiKotik 13 February 2021 14: 09
                        0
                        Of course. Moreover, this decision was weighed 33 times. In addition, they have access to all the classified data, it was not a comparison of performance characteristics from the wiki.
                  2. LastPS
                    LastPS 13 February 2021 18: 36
                    +2
                    I did not see the characteristics of 35 B before this dialogue and thought that version B is worse than C, but in the end it is worse only in combat radius and then it is above the 18th, which discards all questions about the choice. Well, in general, this is some kind of magic. I do not understand at point-blank how airplanes with almost the same mass and engine thrust can have a difference in carrying capacity twice, the Americans either lie a lot, or make the 35th from some hitherto unknown materials, despite the fact that the superhornet is also not from shit and sticks collected.
                  3. OgnennyiKotik
                    OgnennyiKotik 13 February 2021 18: 52
                    -1
                    Quote: LastPS
                    almost the same mass and thrust of engines can have a difference in carrying capacity twice, the Americans either lie a lot

                    The dry weights of the Super Hornet and the F35B are practically the same, but the maximum take-off weight of the F / A-18E / F is higher for obvious reasons.
                    Americans do not lie for the better in performance characteristics, i.e. the declared characteristics may be worse than the real ones, but not vice versa. Otherwise they will be sued.
                    In general, paper performance characteristics do not mean much, in reality, success consists of many factors.
                    And yes, the F-35 is a great 5th generation fighter, it really surpasses all 4s. Therefore, 600+ of them were produced and the queue is 6-8 years ahead.
                  4. LastPS
                    LastPS 14 February 2021 20: 40
                    0
                    The dry weights of the Super Hornet and the F35B are practically the same, but the maximum take-off weight of the F / A-18E / F is higher for obvious reasons.

                    Yes, higher, but the 35th has twice the declared combat load. How have these indicators been achieved? The thrust is the same, the mass is almost the same, but the load is doubled, I would still understand if the difference was two tons due to optimization of the design, materials, but not twice.
                  5. OgnennyiKotik
                    OgnennyiKotik 14 February 2021 20: 52
                    -1
                    In the Russian-language Wiki, see? There is a complete mess written.
                    The Super Hornet has a maximum payload of 8 tons, the F-35B has 6,8 tons. A / S has 8,2 tons.

                    https://www.f35.com/f35/about.html
                  6. The comment was deleted.
                  7. LastPS
                    LastPS 14 February 2021 21: 03
                    0
                    It is interesting that the data on the 18th from the lockheed site were taken on the wiki, damn the first time the wiki lied so much to me) Really complete crap.
                  8. OgnennyiKotik
                    OgnennyiKotik 14 February 2021 21: 28
                    -1
                    I'm not in the first one, so on the manufacturer's website, at worst, in the English-language wiki I look, there is more precise information.
                    The difference between 8 tons and 4 tons of payload arose due to the fact that Super Hornets, according to the charter, must fly from 2 PTBs to 2 tons. Those. on papers 8 tons of weapons, in reality 4 tons. The F-35B actually uses 1,3 tons, A / C slightly more than 2 tons.
                    The MiG-29K and Su-33 have the same jokes, all paper performance characteristics need to be divided by 2-3. The 29th, when working from the deck, has 4 tons for everything, fuel and missiles.
                  9. Lozovik
                    Lozovik 14 February 2021 22: 45
                    +1
                    Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                    The MiG-29K and Su-33 have the same jokes, all paper performance characteristics need to be divided by 2-3. The 29th, when working from the deck, has 4 tons for everything, fuel and missiles.

                    Another alternatively gifted?


                    We believe:
                    Fuel in tanks 4655 kg (hereinafter ρ = 785 kg / m³).
                    PFB 190 kg + 1570 kg of fuel (total 1760 kg);
                    1,2 nodes - transitional beam 10 kg, AKU-58 179 kg, Kh-35UE 550 kg (total 1478 kg);
                    3,4 nodes - design bureau with a pylon 150 kg + 902 kg of fuel (total 2104 kg);
                    5,6 knots - P-72-1DB 49 kg, P-73 105 kg (total 308 kg).
                  10. OgnennyiKotik
                    OgnennyiKotik 15 February 2021 09: 39
                    -2
                    Pictures are of course good, but a real video where he takes off from the deck, with such a load? Yes, so that would be without gluing.
                  11. Lozovik
                    Lozovik 15 February 2021 21: 45
                    0
                    Can't you see the effluent gases? Then it's even clearer:

  • Local from the Volga
    Local from the Volga 10 February 2021 02: 55
    0
    Well, you figured it out quickly, after 40 years! aviator!
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. The comment was deleted.
  • qQQQ
    qQQQ 9 February 2021 17: 03
    +1
    Quote: Doccor18
    VTOL aircraft did not look such a weak project.

    I don't know how you can ignore what the engine needs to do for vertical takeoff + fuel + the wing lift is not used during takeoff, which reduces the payload and even many different disadvantages, with a very dubious plus in the form of a cheaper ship. Now it would be called a grand drank of dough.
  • A_Lex
    A_Lex 9 February 2021 22: 53
    0
    Were these decisions wrong? Sure. But it wasn't so obvious beforehand


    Correctly. We worked out the project. We looked at it during real application. We made sure that the results are not so great. We estimated how long it will take to reach acceptable indicators, taking into account the resources already spent. The project was closed. And all this in a fairly short time, instead of spending 25 years in aggregate.
  • Sergey Sfiedu
    Sergey Sfiedu 13 February 2021 03: 09
    0
    As the Yak-41 is not impressive. The concept is the same as the Yak-38 - two lifting turbojet single-circuit (!) Engines, large dimensions and a small wing. Those. all the critical shortcomings of the Yak-38 remained. The Yak-38 was also conceived as a moderately supersonic aircraft, but imperfect aerodynamics did not allow it to go to supersonic, on the Yak-41, the designers seemed to be fixated on supersonic and forgot about the shortened takeoff and landing and about hemorrhoids when starting the engines. In the Yak-39, the wing looks even more interesting - it is almost straight, with a large aspect ratio. Considering how much kerosene is needed for supersonic flight - supersonic for SV / KVP at the level of technology development in the 80s is a whim.
  • Shopping Mall
    Shopping Mall 9 February 2021 09: 44
    +8
    Quote: qqqq
    Quote: Doccor18
    And to throw a vertical line, in my opinion, was unwise.

    The SVP will never be able to compete with a normal aircraft. It was cheaper to build a normal aircraft carrier than to produce underplanes, the purpose of which, at the cost of their death, to try to reduce the damage from the attack.


    And they should not replace, but they can completely supplement. I would not say that the F-35B is "underplane". The United States may well "nullify" the aircraft fleet of a small country with these "underplanes" only with the help of the Marine Corps.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2021 09: 50
      +10
      Quote: AVM
      The United States may well "nullify" the aircraft fleet of a small country with these "underplanes" only by the marines.

      If the country does not have naval aviation, then yes, it can. If it has, and in terms of number is approximately equal to those of the F-35 that will be in the conflict zone, then my grandmother said very much in two
      1. Shopping Mall
        Shopping Mall 9 February 2021 10: 50
        +9
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: AVM
        The United States may well "nullify" the aircraft fleet of a small country with these "underplanes" only by the marines.

        If the country does not have naval aviation, then yes, it can. If it has, and in terms of number is approximately equal to those of the F-35 that will be in the conflict zone, then my grandmother said very much in two


        If a country has an Armed Forces approximately equal in size and technology to the enemy's Armed Forces, then of course. This applies to any technique. I mean, if we, for example, supply Argentina with 50 MiG-35s, with AFAR, with weapons, and they will resist on the F-35B, then Argentina will again blow through with a probability of 99%. The fact that the MiG-35 can "twist" the F-35B, that it has a larger radius, will not help them in any way. The decisive role will be played by avionics and stealth. And the possibility of vertical takeoff is just a way to deliver VTOL aircraft to this hole on various vessels adapted for their takeoff.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2021 10: 59
          +12
          Quote: AVM
          I mean that if we, for example, supply Argentina with 50 MiG-35s, with AFAR, with weapons, and they will resist on the F-35B, then Argentina will blow again with a probability of 99%

          Andrey, look at how effective the Super Etandar + Neptune combination was at the Falklands. The British could not oppose this at all. They were not gouged for one reason - the "Neptuns" collapsed from old age in the most interesting place, and the air-based anti-ship missiles of the Argentines had nothing but nothing. At the same time, even after the "Neptune" stopped flying, VTOL aircraft could not prevent a single attack from the "Super Etandars".
          So I would bet on the MiG-35 :)))
          1. Shopping Mall
            Shopping Mall 9 February 2021 11: 14
            +5
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Quote: AVM
            I mean that if we, for example, supply Argentina with 50 MiG-35s, with AFAR, with weapons, and they will resist on the F-35B, then Argentina will blow again with a probability of 99%

            Andrey, look at how effective the Super Etandar + Neptune combination was at the Falklands. The British could not oppose this at all. They were not gouged for one reason - the "Neptuns" collapsed from old age in the most interesting place, and the air-based anti-ship missiles of the Argentines had nothing but nothing. At the same time, even after the "Neptune" stopped flying, VTOL aircraft could not prevent a single attack from the "Super Etandars".
            So I would bet on the MiG-35 :)))


            It's just that Harier, like the Yak-38, is really quite primitive. And it is hardly possible to simply transfer those battles that were "then" to "now." Once upon a time, the MiG-21 coped with the Phantoms, despite the strong lag in avionics, simply due to the imperfection at that time of technology for medium-range battles. Now it will be more often like this: the first one saw - the first one killed.

            And what are the advantages of the MiG-35 versus the F-35B, apart from maneuverability and a 135 km greater radius?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2021 11: 35
              +7
              Quote: AVM
              It's just that Harier, like the Yak-38, is really quite primitive. And it is hardly possible to simply transfer those battles that were "then" to "now."

              You are right in many ways, but you can, with reservations.
              Quote: AVM
              Now it will be more often like this: the first one saw - the first one killed.

              Will not be. But it's not that
              Quote: AVM
              And what are the advantages of the MiG-35 versus the F-35B, apart from maneuverability and a 135 km greater radius?

              Speed, for example :))) But again, that's not the point.
              The bottom line is that a ship with a VTOL aircraft on board, when impacting along the coast, will be forced to act in conditions of superiority of the enemy's situational awareness. He will be able to deliver a sudden blow to a stationary target and escape undetected. But even a war against a third world country cannot be won that way. And with systematic hostilities, he will betray himself very quickly, as happened with the British in the Falklands. They were discovered by both the Neptuns and civilian airliners converted into reconnaissance aircraft, and by coastal radar stations, having discovered the Harriers' take-off / landing area.
              In these conditions, it is not difficult to plan an operation to destroy the enemy in one powerful raid. For example, a large UDC with 24 F-35 on board simply will not be able to repel the impact of a 24 MiG-35. In order to resist such a strike, you need to know about it in advance, and the VTOL carrier does not have AWACS aircraft.
              1. Shopping Mall
                Shopping Mall 9 February 2021 12: 58
                -2
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                The bottom line is that a ship with a VTOL aircraft on board, when impacting along the coast, will be forced to act in conditions of superiority of the enemy's situational awareness. He will be able to deliver a sudden blow to a stationary target and escape undetected. But even a war against a third world country cannot be won that way. And with systematic hostilities, he will betray himself very quickly, as happened with the British in the Falklands. They were discovered by both the Neptuns and civilian airliners converted into reconnaissance aircraft, and by coastal radar stations, having discovered the Harriers' take-off / landing area.
                In these conditions, it is not difficult to plan an operation to destroy the enemy in one powerful raid. For example, a large UDC with 24 F-35 on board simply will not be able to repel the impact of a 24 MiG-35. In order to resist such a strike, you need to know about it in advance, and the VTOL carrier does not have AWACS aircraft.


                With regard to aircraft carriers with VTOL aircraft, the issue of AWACS is always raised. But the absence of AWACS, although it weakens the AUG, does not make it useless in expeditionary wars. Firstly, the F-35B itself can partially fulfill the role of AWACS. At a short distance from the AUG, with the PTB, the patrol time of the F-35B could be four hours? In the end, there are AWACS aircraft without all-round visibility and nothing, and the F-35B radar is quite perfect + a very perfect OLS.

                In principle, the development of an AWACS UAV is also quite realistic, for example, a drone on a power cable (they are generally extremely important for ground air defense, to repel attacks at low altitude. Or, as an option, radars with AFAR suspended under the wing of a VTOL aircraft to perform the role of an AWACS aircraft ...

                But the main thing is tactics. The same Alexander Timokhin wrote about the possibility of active maneuvering of the NK. If the British have screwed up somewhere, is it not just a technical problem? It is possible to process the coastline from the maximum distance, to destroy the coastal radars. Then approach and strike in depth, maneuvering the ship after takeoff. You can land troops on a bridgehead, which will deploy positions and its own radar. Etc.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2021 17: 45
                  +1
                  Quote: AVM
                  But the absence of AWACS, although it weakens the AUG, does not make it useless in expeditionary wars.

                  the conversation is not about uselessness, but about a hypothetical situation "a certain number of ground-based MiG-35s against the same number of VTOL aircraft on a standard carrier"
                  Quote: AVM
                  Firstly, the F-35B itself can partially fulfill the role of AWACS. At a short distance from the AUG, with the PTB, the patrol time of the F-35B could be four hours?

                  Yes. The problem is that the F-35 is never an AWACS. And not a plane capable of performing RT reconnaissance
                  Quote: AVM
                  In the end, there are AWACS aircraft without all-round visibility and nothing, and the F-35B radar is quite perfect + a very perfect OLS.

                  The sector of view and the detection distance is what is important. And here the F-35 loses to a specialized aircraft with a bang.
                  You will understand one simple thing. Enemy aircraft must be detected strongly in advance in order to have time to respond to a massive raid - to raise fighters into the air, etc. Place a patrol - a pair of F-35s close - you will not have time to react. Place it far away - 2,5 evil MiG-10s will arrive at 35M, from which they cannot screw -35 due to lack of speed, and you will have 2 F-35s less. And the raid will take place like a thread another time :))))
                  Quote: AVM

                  But the main thing is tactics. The same Alexander Timokhin wrote about the possibility of active maneuvering of the NK. If the British have screwed up somewhere, is it not just a technical problem?

                  well, the British "screwed up" already 3 times, but as sailors and aviators, they will still be better than the Argentines :))))
                  Quote: AVM
                  It is possible to process the coastline from the maximum distance, to destroy the coastal radars.

                  And then to be "burned" by the mobile station RTR ... That's why I say
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  If it has, and in terms of number is approximately equal to those of the F-35 that will be in the conflict zone, then my grandmother said very much in two
                  1. The eye of the crying
                    The eye of the crying 10 February 2021 00: 14
                    +3
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Place a patrol - a pair of F-35s close - you will not have time to react.


                    At 15 km, the theoretical detection range will be ~ 500 km. Who will not have time to react to what?
              2. ironic
                ironic 9 February 2021 14: 59
                0
                Well, yes, only you fly at this speed for a short time at this speed, it is either to catch up, or to leave the battle, over the battlefield the difference is leveled. One powerful raid of 6 ordered MiG-35s with an unknown when AFAR ready for serial production, the American UDC with escort ships cannot be destroyed.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2021 17: 45
                  +3
                  Quote: ironic
                  in the day with a powerful raid of 6 ordered MiG-35s with an unknown when ready for mass production of AFAR

                  You read the text of the discussion. I won't even answer this nonsense
                  1. ironic
                    ironic 9 February 2021 19: 01
                    -2
                    That's right, no need to answer nonsense, but why, I very politely hinted.
            2. EvilLion
              EvilLion 9 February 2021 11: 38
              +6
              The MiG-35, at least, will be faster, so with equal provision of AWACS and others, I see no reason to consider the MiG-35 worse than the F-35. I don’t believe in fairy tales that missiles will not be aimed at the F-35.
              1. Shopping Mall
                Shopping Mall 9 February 2021 11: 54
                +4
                Quote: EvilLion
                The MiG-35, at least, will be faster, so with equal provision of AWACS and others, I see no reason to consider the MiG-35 worse than the F-35. I don’t believe in fairy tales that missiles will not be aimed at the F-35.


                The question is not whether they will visit or not, but with what probability and from what distance. Low visibility is needed in order to reduce these parameters, and electronic warfare further increases its effectiveness.

                The same AWACS aircraft will detect the F-35 later than "their" AWACS finds our MiG-35.
                1. Mooh
                  Mooh 9 February 2021 14: 53
                  -2
                  In a hypothetical conflict between the United States and Argentina, not one UDC will participate, but at least the fleet. And even if, by some miracle, the Argentine MIG-35s crush the Avik with a sudden blow, they will definitely suffer losses and there will be a few moments left against a whole UDC with destroyers and cruisers. Anyone without a chance. Even if you discard the rest of the fleets, allies and other replenishment opportunities.
                2. EvilLion
                  EvilLion 10 February 2021 08: 27
                  +1
                  Do you know these probabilities and detection ranges? I doubt it. Which makes the discussion meaningless, but in history something is not visible, so that at a close technological level, one of the parties could shoot the other, like in a shooting gallery. The same F-15s proved to be excellent machines for almost unpunished destruction of the enemy, inferior in those. the level of 15-20 years, in conditions when a qualitatively new plane was rolled out almost every 5 years.

                  Of course, the F-35 is noticeably more expensive and should win with equal numbers, otherwise why is it needed at all, but it’s not a fact that the final result will justify the high cost, or the quality will cover the numerical superiority of cheaper cars.
              2. ironic
                ironic 9 February 2021 14: 55
                +3
                They will aim when they find and lock the target. But when he will have AFAR and an order not for 6 aircraft, it is not yet very clear.
                1. EvilLion
                  EvilLion 11 February 2021 12: 34
                  0
                  Do you even understand that the MiG-35 is purely conditional here? There will be Su-35s instead - nothing will fundamentally change.
                  1. ironic
                    ironic 11 February 2021 17: 26
                    0
                    Changes one multipurpose front-line fighter, and the second air superiority fighter. So with whom should carrier-based aircraft face more often? Do you understand that?
            3. ironic
              ironic 9 February 2021 15: 05
              0
              Harier is a thing of the past, but he can hardly be called primitive for his generation. Maneuverability at what speed and in what maneuver? At speeds of about 1M in braking and accelerating again, without performing any complex piloting for this, the F-35 is one of the best aircraft in the world.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2021 17: 46
                +1
                Quote: ironic
                At speeds of about 1M in braking and accelerating again, without performing any complex piloting for this, the F-35 is one of the best aircraft in the world.

                In the fantasies of a certain Sasha ...
                1. ironic
                  ironic 9 February 2021 18: 54
                  +3
                  And even if there was no one Sasha, simply Russian analysts cannot get rid of the magical influence of somersaults of Migov and Su at low speeds at an air show. And accordingly, it influences Andrey's idea of ​​what is fantasy in his thinking and what is not, but outside of Andrey's thinking, everything may not be quite so and even not at all so.
              2. Lozovik
                Lozovik 9 February 2021 20: 34
                0
                Quote: ironic
                Maneuverability at what speed and in what maneuver? At speeds of about 1M in braking and accelerating again, without performing any complex piloting for this, the F-35 is one of the best aircraft in the world.

                Do you know what the altitude-speed characteristics of the engine are?
                1. ironic
                  ironic 9 February 2021 20: 39
                  0
                  Do you mean the relationship between thrust and fuel consumption at a given speed and altitude?
                  1. Lozovik
                    Lozovik 9 February 2021 20: 40
                    0
                    Fuel consumption is not counted, only traction.
        2. ironic
          ironic 9 February 2021 15: 08
          0
          The F-35 will never "twist" neither the Mig nor the Su in a close-range collision. It will play acceleration-deceleration at speeds around 1M. This is his thing.
          1. qQQQ
            qQQQ 9 February 2021 17: 12
            0
            Quote: ironic
            The F-35 will never "twist" neither the Mig nor the Su in a close-range collision. It will play acceleration-deceleration at speeds around 1M. This is his thing.

            And if there is IR or FC guidance, what will slow down or even freeze? It will be like a dead poultice.
            1. ironic
              ironic 9 February 2021 18: 09
              +3
              The target must first be captured no? Otherwise, why does the twisting exist? And this is a different style of maneuvering, which knocks the enemy out of attempts to gain an advantage by being ahead on a turning maneuver and does not allow to capture the target. And today it is possible to launch a rocket with an active head into the rear hemisphere. But then twisting is even less useful, especially at super cruise speeds, where the turning radius of all is limited to 9G, regardless of the type of aircraft.
              1. Crimean partisan 1974
                Crimean partisan 1974 9 February 2021 22: 50
                +1
                where the turning radius of all x is limited to 9G, regardless of the type of aircraft ..... well, San is the question ... and you know a lot of air-to-air and ground-to-air missiles that have transverse overloads above 9 F and, importantly. aerodynamic quality in the form of wing load (if any) ..... come on ... burn
                1. ironic
                  ironic 10 February 2021 19: 18
                  0
                  Vov, I'm a little older than you think, I can just not answer and I will not sit quietly crying in a corner, ah I was not appreciated somewhere in the network. Do you really think that I do not know with what overloads modern missiles fly at air targets? But I also know that first you need to lock the target, and then not lose it with the active homing head. And what if a battle occurs at close distances, then it rather arises not from the desire to conduct it, but from the fact that something went wrong at more distant distances and on collision courses, launching missiles in a battle that turns into a close one at afterburner supersonic speeds is practically impossible and there are quite science-based reasons for this, and the subsequent maneuver follows the oncoming maneuver, and then a battle will follow with the maximum attempts to turn the aircraft body so that it is possible to seize without changing the direction of flight, and this requires a sharp loss of speed, and after this the same sharp set and with afterburner you can't turn all this, and in order to effectively use the advantages of the variable vector, you need not high speeds, but in order to abruptly go from them to high you need afterburner, if there are no afterburner, super cruise capabilities in your pocket, and afterburner burns fuel not childishly, super cruise also burns, but not like the afterburner. And for the rapid aiming of weapons away from the direction of the antenna, especially in conditions of massive use of electronic warfare, one cannot do without AFAR and a powerful computing complex. And the specific wing loading of the F-35A with a takeoff weight of 24 tons is 569 kg / sq. m. But they do not enter into close combat with wings hung with bombs. Those. in reality it will not be more than 20 tons, moreover, with missiles not placed under the wings. If you load the Dryer proportionally, then it will not turn out much better, taking into account the suspensions under the wings. After all, the take-off weight of the Su-35 is 25t, and this is, for a moment, an air superiority fighter. As for the length of the wing, Raphael has it about the same as the F-35A.
                  1. Crimean partisan 1974
                    Crimean partisan 1974 11 February 2021 08: 48
                    0
                    Vov, I'm a little older than you think, I can just not answer anything ..... fair ... but I was interested in your knowledge in the field of transverse overloads of V-V and Z-V missiles .... there is no banter and what is the interest of the interlocutor on this proposal ... so as it is ... well, what about the lateral overload of missiles ...
                  2. ironic
                    ironic 11 February 2021 17: 02
                    0
                    MAI scientists claim that modern rockets have achieved results in 40G ...
                  3. Crimean partisan 1974
                    Crimean partisan 1974 11 February 2021 17: 24
                    0
                    MAI scientists claim that modern rockets have achieved results in 40G ...
                    Sanya, along the way you did not understand the question .... but it was like this ... what is the LATERAL G-load, that is, the G-load that acts on the board perpendicularly .. I am not interested in the longitudinal (from stern to bow), the longitudinal one can be increased to 70 F
                  4. ironic
                    ironic 11 February 2021 17: 34
                    0
                    So far, I found it for the Aster SAM, it is 12g. There is an assumption that the rockets of the Python-5,6 type have more.
                  5. Crimean partisan 1974
                    Crimean partisan 1974 11 February 2021 18: 54
                    0
                    While I found it for the Aster missile defense system, it is 12g .......... this value is not constant ... as the fuel depletes, the strength of the hull decreases so that the chances of evading the airplane from the missile defense or V-V are very high ... attack ... for example ... by the middle of the Vietnam massacre, losses among Phantoms sharply decreased ... because the tactics of Phantoms and other rocket hawks when firing missiles changed, instead of fleeing from missiles on afterburner if the altitude allowed, they went on a collision course where the total the speed increased and 3 W was enough for the phantom to evade while remaining intact ... which is characteristic that the Phantoms suffered the lowest losses from missiles in relation to all jet aircraft
                  6. ironic
                    ironic 11 February 2021 19: 25
                    0
                    Today, missiles successfully attack a target in the front hemisphere, and there are already those capable of attacking a target located in the rear hemisphere. The limitation is greater on the minimum distance of such an attack.
                  7. Crimean partisan 1974
                    Crimean partisan 1974 11 February 2021 19: 53
                    0
                    Today, missiles are successfully attacking the target ... ... everything is correct, it should be so. .. nevertheless, I will remind you that the military aviation of the world is stuffed with no less advanced SOEP and electronic warfare that neutralize advanced missiles and explosives even at dagger distances ... "The limitation is greater in the minimum distance of such an attack." everything is correct, the surprise of the attack ..... here is high maneuverability for aviation and ... cannon armament from which neither the SOEP nor the Rab will save
                  8. ironic
                    ironic 11 February 2021 20: 53
                    0
                    Well, yes, a fight between sword and shield. Yes, the ability to turn the nose of the aircraft without changing the direction of flight is of great importance. But additional feathering and a change in the thrust vector gives an advantage in this matter, mainly not at transonic and supersonic speeds, but at the border of subsonic and supersonic, the super cruise mode without afterburner gives more advantage and it is not the caliber of the gun that gives an advantage in head-on collision at such speeds, but her rate of fire.
                  9. Crimean partisan 1974
                    Crimean partisan 1974 11 February 2021 21: 13
                    -1
                    not the caliber of the gun gives ....... the caliber for air guns has long been determined and sorted out with an acceptable rate of fire, the only thing is choosing the "golden mean" of the power of the ammunition between the mass of the projectile and its initial velocity ....
                    advantages are given by the super cruise mode without afterburner ... here is just an interesting topic ....... it is still not clear to me why the Yakovlevites did not move the Yak-36, but decided to hang a dead weight in the form of two lifting engines on the Yak-38, as for me, the Yak-36 was a wonderful machine and would take its place without straining in the form of an attack aircraft like a hariton ... but something went wrong ... just unclear ... the story is silent about it
                  10. ironic
                    ironic 11 February 2021 21: 49
                    0
                    In the first case, this is not entirely the case. The 30mm cannon has a relatively low rate of fire for air combat, besides, not the most outstanding initial velocity of the projectile, which limits the range of destruction, but most importantly, the low durability of the barrel.

                    In terms of the second, the plane itself could not determine its future. It should have been determined by the aircraft-ship tandem, but what went wrong with that, I think in general terms, is clear.
                  11. Crimean partisan 1974
                    Crimean partisan 1974 11 February 2021 22: 13
                    +1
                    The 30mm cannon has a relatively low rate of fire for air combat, ... well, wax the optimal caliber is 23 mm ...
                    tandem aircraft-ship, but what went wrong with this, I think in general terms it is clear ...... nothing is clear ... everything is dark ... they hacked down a promising car in exchange for "yak on deck shmyak"
                  12. 3danimal
                    3danimal 17 February 2021 23: 22
                    0
                    the optimal caliber is 23 mm

                    Agree good
                    There is GSh-23. The only thing that needs to be upgraded for the projectile from Shilka (also 23mm), it has a higher muzzle velocity (comparable to Vulkan - 980-1000m / s).
                    Rate of fire - 3000-4000 rds / min, comparable to the 25mm F-35 cannon (as well as in terms of mass and muzzle velocity of the projectile).
                    yak on deck shmyak

                    EMNIP, in the original instead of shmyak there was another word smile
                  13. Crimean partisan 1974
                    Crimean partisan 1974 18 February 2021 09: 39
                    +1
                    The only thing is that we need modernization for the Shilka projectile (also 23mm), ..... 23 mm have one common story from 152-23 for the Volkov Yartsev cannon, and later N-23 later AM-23 ... so this is not a question .... moreover, the distance of a direct shot is much farther than that of the famous GSh-301 and series A ... therefore, in close combat, it is the ageless 23-152 that is preferable
                    EMNIP, in the original instead of shmyak there was another word ....... we on VO aloud and in print do not pronounce this word, as in Harry Potter
                  14. 3danimal
                    3danimal 18 February 2021 10: 58
                    0
                    Aviation GSh-23, the one that was / is on the MiG-23 and others, it is under the 23x115mm projectile (with a muzzle velocity of 720 m / s), which is inferior in direct firing range to 30mm GSh-301 (which has 880 m / s).
                    Therefore, I immediately noted the need for an upgrade for a 23x152mm projectile. The recoil will certainly increase a little (36%), mass, but it's worth it.
                  15. Crimean partisan 1974
                    Crimean partisan 1974 18 February 2021 13: 06
                    -1
                    it is under a 23x115mm projectile ...... speaking about such animals for the first time I read .... it is quite possible to assume that there were such for testing, for example, at Shpitalny and Berezin, but to open them it is necessary to sniff archival dust ... maybe you confused with 20mm-114, this ammunition was just for ShVAK and B-20, the caliber of ammunition 14.5-115 was increased ... by the way, Nudelman also developed the NS-20 for this ammunition, but he did not even put it forward because of the projectile itself , and immediately developed a line of NS-23, NS-37, and NS-45 of which only 23 and 37 fit into life, nevertheless the 23-152 projectile took root very much for the long range of a direct shot, much higher than the larger air calibers
                  16. 3danimal
                    3danimal 18 February 2021 17: 39
                    0
                    https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/23_%C3%97_115_%D0%BC%D0%BC

                    https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ГШ-23#Модификации

                    No, it is the very same aircraft rapid-fire GSH-23 request
                    By the way, in DCS on the same MiG-21bis it is worth, you can estimate: akin to Vulcan (queue density), but slightly inferior in direct shot range.

                    https://youtu.be/k7bEuTtFvOg
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 11 February 2021 12: 39
    0
    Do you understand that when both are 25 tons each, but one has 19 tons afterburner, and the other has 29, then the former will not be able to maneuver or even get out of the battle?
  • ironic
    ironic 11 February 2021 18: 10
    -1
    And you understand that for the first, the weight of 25 tons is already a bomb load, with which they do not enter into close combat, but enter with ~ 20 tons, and for the second it is a takeoff weight with 50% fuel without weapons. And you understand that afterburner in close combat is in order to fly out of it with a bang, and not to maneuver, a couple of three of these and generally need to be washed off, because the fuel is kapets, despite the fact that it will not be possible to reach maximums like 2.25 in order to return to battle , optimal is 1.5, maximum 1.8, and 1.5 can be afforded by the enemy, so the advantage is nothing. And the enemy does not need to turn on the afterburner at all, because his engine is optimized for super cruise in the range 0.9-1.2 and from this mode he is not going to just go out and he has maximum maneuverability and maximum performance in acceleration and "braking", and you just not able to support, because you have a maximum of 1.1 and then at low altitude.
  • surok1
    surok1 17 February 2021 16: 32
    0
    We put the MiG in obviously unfavorable conditions. Fka flies straight towards, and MiG dodges as best it can.
  • ironic
    ironic 17 February 2021 16: 43
    0
    In fact, putting the enemy in a notoriously disadvantageous condition is a large part of the job of winning a battle.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 11 February 2021 12: 37
    0
    9g is a strength limitation; not everyone and not always have a real opportunity to reach such an overload.
    1. ironic
      ironic 11 February 2021 19: 32
      0
      The Americans tested this on a special version of the F-15 with additional tail and a variable vector, and for near-sonic and supersonic speeds, they came to the conclusion that this side-chapel is easily achieved without these additives, so they abandoned them for the F-15.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2021 17: 46
    +2
    Quote: ironic
    The F-35 will never "twist" neither the Mig nor the Su in a close-range collision. It will play acceleration-deceleration at speeds around 1M. This is his thing.

    God, what nonsense .... March to learn the basics of air combat!
    1. ironic
      ironic 9 February 2021 18: 13
      +1
      The basics of air combat of the past are in the past.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 11 February 2021 12: 35
    0
    I understand that the F-35 is on the head, but maybe it's worth looking at the thrust-to-weight ratio of the aircraft.
  • 911sx
    911sx 9 February 2021 21: 04
    0
    Against Argentina, there were striped ones, and the French were very strongly asked not to supply the Exocets
  • qQQQ
    qQQQ 9 February 2021 17: 08
    0
    Quote: AVM
    And they should not replace, but they can completely supplement. I would not say that the F-35B is "underplane". The United States may well "nullify" the aircraft fleet of a small country with these "underplanes" only with the help of the Marine Corps.

    It will be much cheaper for them to zero if a normal aircraft carrier is adjusted. But it depends on the goal, if you need to give the right people to earn money, then yes you can and the F-35B. I understand an attempt to use a SVP when there is no normal aircraft carrier, but with the number that America has, using a vertical is simply ridiculous.
  • ironic
    ironic 9 February 2021 14: 53
    +1
    Does he need? Did the Harriers also build based on the cost of their death?
  • Souchastnik
    Souchastnik 10 February 2021 12: 03
    +1
    War is such crap, during which lives are sacrificed to achieve certain goals. More advanced armament minimizes losses. But unfortunately, they cannot be avoided.
  • surok1
    surok1 17 February 2021 15: 40
    0
    All this slowness is due to disbelief and residual funding.
  • Sergey Sfiedu
    Sergey Sfiedu 9 February 2021 17: 19
    0
    In the USSR, vertical structures would hardly be needed for confrontation with NATO. But for work in the third world - quite. At least cover the convoys to Vietnam from the Chinese Tu-16s. Well, or somewhere in Mumboyumbia to support or eliminate the mess.
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 10 February 2021 17: 37
    0
    It is enough to calculate the cost of development and launching into production of an engine for a vertical. Then calculate what the series will be. The engine price will be cosmic. Then do the same with the plane itself.
    Well them, these verticals. Any Su-27 would be cheaper. And then there is nothing to compare.
    We need either normal aircraft carriers or none.
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 13 February 2021 06: 48
      0
      PMD for the Yak-38 was a modification of our main engine for front-line aviation, the cost of its development and serial production was unlikely to be exorbitant. But an aircraft carrier with catapults and aerofinishers is indeed a very complex and expensive product, and the British abandoned the classic aircraft carrier precisely because of its price.
      1. mmaxx
        mmaxx 13 February 2021 09: 42
        0
        A modern engine has been created for 20 years. All R&D costs for engines, aircraft, etc. are primarily related to the planned production series. Then later. And so: let your series of planes with a stretch of 50 pieces. Or 1000 pcs. How much? And the ship under the VTOL aircraft is another thing. In our conditions, it is not good for anything at all. I'm not talking about little things like training pilots and personnel. The plant should be allocated for this business. Invest in a series. This is a lot of money. Now the plane cannot be assembled in small batches on the knee. It should be laid as a series. All costs and rather big ones. Even just a place it all takes. And now there is nothing free in the country. And each plane must be accompanied during the life cycle ...
        From a technical point of view, VTOL aircraft should be proud. We could. But the real sense is one hemorrhoid.
  • Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 9 February 2021 06: 38
    +10
    The concentration of efforts on the Yak-41 ultimately turned out to be harmful for naval aviation.
    For naval aviation, it was not the Yak-41 that was harmful, but the destruction of the Soviet Union. And the whole article on, if only it were built, unlike the previous one, is very weak argumentation against the Yak-41.
    1. Ka-52
      Ka-52 9 February 2021 09: 11
      +8
      And the whole article on, if only it were built, unlike the previous one, is very weak argumentation against the Yak-41.

      VTOL aircraft are in any case partly flawed due to many restrictions machine. Both Sea Harrier and F-35B only confirm this. If we go along the path of creating aircraft carriers, then design them for the "chilled" versions of standard vehicles. Without any mischief with VTOL aircraft.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 9 February 2021 09: 42
        +5
        Quote: Ka-52
        VTOL aircraft are in any case partly flawed due to many restrictions machine.
        If you find fault with the restrictions, then the helicopter, for example, is simply yubludokk child of sin of biplane and mower.
        Quote: Ka-52
        Both Sea Harrier and F-35B only confirm this.
        I won't say it for Penguin, but the Weasel could be used from container ships, and at least sat on them to reload at the Falklands ..
        Quote: Ka-52
        If we go along the path of creating aircraft carriers
        VTOL aircraft can be planted on any trough with a slightly suitable deck.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2021 09: 48
          +6
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          If you find fault with the restrictions, then a helicopter, for example, is just a yubludokk child of sin of a biplane and a mower.

          The helicopter has its own tactical niche. VTOL aircraft - no.
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          I won't say for the Penguin, but the Weasel could be used from container ships

          And what is the benefit here? "Atlantic conveyor" to you an example of how irrational it is to base expensive aircraft on non-combat ships
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          VTOL aircraft can be planted on any trough with a slightly suitable deck.

          What for?:))))
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 9 February 2021 10: 23
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            VTOL aircraft - no.
            The same tactical niche as in light fighters like the MiG-29, only with the possibility of basing on almost any "trough", which significantly increases the number of the air wing of the formation, and even, in principle, gives aircraft, and this opens up new tactical opportunities.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And what is the benefit here? "Atlantic conveyor" to you an example of how irrational it is to base expensive aircraft on non-combat ships
            I did not expect such nonsense from you, "A.con." they sank like a banal merchant, there were helicopters and airplanes in the boxes. But the "Arapakho" system could be stuck on any mobilized container ship.

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            VTOL aircraft can be planted on any trough with a slightly suitable deck.
            What for?:))))
            Then, I will duplicate: "The niche is similar to that of light fighters like the MiG-29, only with the possibility of basing on almost any" trough ", and I will add: VTOL aircraft makes it possible to build light aircraft carriers, which means lifting aircraft carriers for the economy, and, for example, even mediocre fighters sharply reduce the capabilities of the PLO BPA.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2021 10: 51
              +10
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Same tactical niche as light fighters like the MiG-29

              In it, they miserably lose to the MiG-29 in terms of combat capabilities. But they are more expensive. What for?
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              only with the possibility of basing on almost any "trough"

              What for? What tactical benefits are you going to get from this?
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              I did not expect such nonsense from you, "A.con." they sank like a banal merchant, there were helicopters and airplanes in the boxes. But the "Arapakho" system could be stuck on any mobilized container ship.

              Can. But "Atlantic" was not planned to be used as a full-fledged aircraft carrier - it was planned to use it as an air transport with the possibility of taking off VTOL aircraft and helicopters. And even for that, it had to be modernized.
              But if it is necessary, as you propose, to use a civilian vessel as a carrier of VTOL aircraft, then it will be necessary not only to strengthen the deck, as was done on the "Konveyor", but also to mount a bunch of equipment on the ship. We need tanks for aviation fuel, a refueling system, rooms for storing ammunition, systems for their supply. The ship will have to mount a flight control system, military communication systems, hangars for storing aircraft on the deck (it will wash away in a storm). electronic warfare system, fired traps, etc. etc.
              In general, you will face the fact that in order for such a vessel to use at least 6 VTOL aircraft to the fullest, you will have to significantly upgrade it. And this modernization will cost you a pretty penny, not to mention the fact that its size requires advance work, that is, even before the start of the conflict.
              And then you will find that the "ordinary dry cargo ship" + VTOL aircraft on it costs you so much that you need to somehow protect the indicated investment, at least at the minimum level. ZAK or ZRAK will appear, and some, at least the most primitive, structural protection measures.
              As a result, you will come to the following. In order to effectively use VTOL aircraft, you will need a very expensive alteration of a civilian vessel, which must be done in advance. But the problem is that with such a modification, the operation of this ship as a civilian will no longer be profitable, and it does not matter to the warship, as to China backwards. In the end, you will spit on everything, and you will build specialized carriers of VTOL aircraft ...
              ... or lose expensive planes in any conflict, along with civilian ships that are obviously not intended for their deployment.
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              VTOL aircraft makes it possible to build light, and therefore lifting aircraft carriers for the economy

              Doesn't the example of the British mean anything? They created a normal aircraft carrier for the F-35. One problem is that the MiG-29 could be placed on this ship without any problems (yes, minor changes to the project, under a separate landing deck and aerofinishers).
              That the light carrier of VTOL aircraft, that the light carrier of the MiG-29 - there will be no difference in price for a ship, and a huge difference for aircraft. Not in favor of VTOL aircraft
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 9 February 2021 11: 39
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                In it, they miserably lose to the MiG-29 in terms of combat capabilities. But they are more expensive. What for?
                Many conventional fighters lost with a crash to the MiG-29, which did not stop building them.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                But if it is necessary, as you propose, to use a civilian vessel as a carrier of VTOL aircraft, then it will be necessary not only to strengthen the deck, as was done on the "Conveyor", but also to mount a bunch of equipment on the ship. We need tanks for aviation fuel, a refueling system, rooms for storing ammunition, systems for their supply.
                All this was taken into account in the "Arapaho" system, and the difficulties with deck reinforcement are simply far-fetched.
                http://war1960.ru/vs/arapaho.shtml
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                And then you will find that the "ordinary dry cargo ship" + VTOL aircraft on it costs you so much that you need to somehow protect the indicated investment, at least at the minimum level.

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                or to lose expensive aircraft in any conflict, together with civilian vessels that are obviously not intended for their deployment.
                Ships can be built following the example of Dobroflot, taking into account mobilization and corresponding constructive improvements. And as it is strange, the same aircraft carriers are not particularly protected and without an escort, in principle, do not go, why would the "self-made" aircraft carriers one by one? So "any conflict" does not at all mean the sinking of an "aircraft carrier on its knees."

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Doesn't the example of the British mean anything? They created a normal aircraft carrier for the F-35. One problem - the MiG-29 could be placed on this ship without problems.
                In general, it does not speak about anything with its 70 tonnes of displacement, but the Spaniards, Italians and even Thailand, with their 000-10 and 15 thousand tonnes, speak.

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                What for? What tactical benefits are you going to get from this?
                I have already written about the threat of an anti-aircraft missile attack with the support of its nuclear submarines and SSBNs, and a distraction to small aircraft carrier detachments of "real" UAGs, this is just what came into my land mind.
                1. Mooh
                  Mooh 9 February 2021 15: 39
                  -1
                  In modern conditions, when everyone is building a UDC in batches, VTOL aircraft with the capabilities of the Yak-41 will at least not be superfluous. VTOL aircraft expand the UDC functionality at times. From this it does not become an aircraft carrier, but from the class of barges it abruptly turns into serious warships. If the UAV AWACS (GDP :) is invented, on the basis of such a ship it will be possible to assemble an almost full-fledged battle group.
                  Another VTOL aircraft can be used quite effectively with traditional Kuzi-type avics and various disposable ersatz. The meaning of this is the ability not to lose planes when the carrier is destroyed / damaged or to use poorly equipped jump airfields. (We took off from the Avik with a full load, bombed, sat in the parking lot at the supermarket, refueled from the tanker truck and went home to the Avik)
                  1. OgnennyiKotik
                    OgnennyiKotik 9 February 2021 16: 12
                    0
                    Quote: MooH
                    UAV AWACS (GDP :), on the basis of such a ship it will be possible to assemble an almost full-fledged battle group.

                    There are simpler solutions, an AWACS based on Osprey (if you really want it, you can make it unmanned), the USA and Asian allies do not really need it, there is E2 in commercial quantities, but with an increase in the number of UDC and light AVs, they will appear.

                    1. Mooh
                      Mooh 9 February 2021 20: 07
                      0
                      This is certainly a great option, but only one country has a flying tiltrotor, and even that, according to rumors, did not work out very well.
                      1. OgnennyiKotik
                        OgnennyiKotik 9 February 2021 20: 09
                        -1
                        Some have succeeded, others will succeed. Childhood illnesses are resolved, serious accidents ended in 2017.
                  2. mmaxx
                    mmaxx 10 February 2021 17: 42
                    0
                    Eh! The film came to mind with Schwartz. How he shot a terrorist on Harrier!
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2021 17: 58
                  +1
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  All this was taken into account in the "Arapakho" system

                  Were not. I will disappoint you - Arapaho is for a couple of helicopters.
                  Aviation fuel (kerosene No. 5) was stored in standard tanks with a capacity of 19 liters in the stern of the vessel.

                  Fuel supply for ONE helicopter on corvette 20380 - up to 20 tons.
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  and the difficulty of reinforcing the deck is far-fetched.

                  Well, yes, and why did the British modernize the Atlantic Conveyor? The mind is incomprehensible.
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Ships can be built following the example of Dobroflot

                  Which absolutely did not justify themselves as civilian ships. Surprise
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  And somehow strange, the same aircraft carriers are not particularly protected and, in principle, do not go without an escort

                  You are simply not aware of the aircraft carrier's defense systems
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  In general, it does not speak about anything with its 70 tonnes of displacement, but the Spaniards, Italians and even Thailand, with their 000-10 and 15 thousand tonnes, speak.

                  Queen Elizabeth is a real war aircraft carrier that can effectively operate a full-fledged air regiment (24 aircraft) and maybe more
                  The Indians have a place to be Vikramaditya, a standard water displacement of 37K, capable of carrying 16 approximately MiG-29K
                  The Italians have a Cavour in 27K standard with 8 VTOL aircraft. feel the difference
                  1. The eye of the crying
                    The eye of the crying 10 February 2021 01: 53
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    The Italians have a Cavour in the 27K standard with 8 VTOL aircraft.


                    The network slanders that Cavour has 10 AV-8Bs + 10 helicopters, or 16 AV-8Bs.
                  2. Vladimir_2U
                    Vladimir_2U 10 February 2021 04: 10
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    I will disappoint you - Arapaho is for a couple of helicopters.
                    It was a SCALABLE container system for any reasonable number of helicopters with the ability to service aircraft:
                    Seven US Navy and Marine Corps helicopters carried out test flights from the Export Leader container ship in the Chesapeake Bay. At sea in 40 hours, they made 178 landings during the day and 45 at night. Helicopters of four main types participated in the flights: 5N-ZN Sea King, CH-46E Sea Night, 5N-2E Sea Sprite of the LEMPS Mk1 system and NN-1K Iroquois (fire support). ..... You can make a hangar for helicopters from container modules (aircraft) ...
                    As the number of Harriers increases, the number of Marines on board decreases. Therefore, it is planned to include merchant marine vessels equipped with the Arapakho system in the landing formations to strengthen aviation support landing. .... According to the foreign press, a container system is currently being created to combat air targets. It includes a flight deck with a special diving board, aircraft with vertical or short take-off.


                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Aviation fuel (kerosene No. 5) was placed in standard tanks with a capacity Software 19 liters aft.
                    Fuel supply for ONE helicopter on corvette 20380 - up to 20 tons.
                    I apologize, but how many standard tanks can you place in 20 standard containers, for example?
                    The entire set, consisting of 60-70 containers with a total weight of 900 tons, must be prepared at the air base
                    These ten containers are the difference, isn't it fuel there?
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    and the difficulty of reinforcing the deck is far-fetched.
                    Well, yes, and why did the British modernize the Atlantic Conveyor? The mind is incomprehensible.

                    Far-fetched, does not mean that the deck does not need to be reinforced, but the awful complexity and high cost of this upgrade should not be attributed either, that's all.
                    The upper deck was reinforced .... ..... Therefore, at the start points of the VTOL aircraft, sheets of heat-resistant steel are mounted on the deck. The rest of the revision was minor. Cut off the bow mast and all the ventilation fungi on the deck.
                    As it does not pull at monstrous costs, neither in time nor in means. And in general, I cited this system as an example of a very quick deployment of VTOL aircraft on any suitable vessels, which is impossible even with the MiG-29 with anything else like that.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Ships can be built following the example of Dobroflot
                    Which absolutely did not justify themselves as civilian ships. Surprise
                    For you, maybe, but I, for example, are aware of the initial unprofitability of Dobroflot and its subsidies by the state, however, the unprofitability and subsidies are somewhat different from the full maintenance of not even combat, but auxiliary vessels and ships of the Navy, don't you think? And this difference is simply unimaginable if we compare a container ship re-equipped with VTOL aircraft and at least some of the most seedy AV special buildings.

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    You are simply not aware of the aircraft carrier's defense systems
                    Well, if you are talking about constructive protection, then admit to yourself, what's the point of it for an aircraft carrier without escort ships? And what kind of air defense do modern aircraft carriers have in comparison with at least URO frigates? That's right, slightly better than the RTOs.

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Queen Elizabeth is an aircraft carrier for a real war, which can effectively operate a full-fledged air regiment (24 aircraft) and maybe more ...
                    The Italians have a Cavour in 27K standard with 8 VTOL aircraft. feel the difference
                    The difference in what, in price, in the lousy architectural solution of the Italian? And for example "Chakri Narubet" can carry 6 VTOL aircraft with a sixfold lower displacement and 20 !!! multiples of the lower cost! Let's multiply not even by twenty, but by the same six times the Thai himself and his air group, what will come out? And this is without taking into account helicopters, of which there are also 6 on board.
                    Well, Lizka's ridiculous air defense pulls in an illusory compulsory escort. So so difference.
              2. maximghost
                maximghost 9 February 2021 12: 47
                0
                You shouldn’t drown so much against VTOL aircraft.
                The example with the Harriers in the Falklands - not applicable for the F-35.
                The difference in the performance characteristics of the F-35 is much less than that of the FRS.1 harrier and its modern fighter. Weapon systems are generally the same.
                What for? What tactical benefits are you going to get from this?

                The same that the United States and Britain received from escort aircraft carriers.

                We need tanks for aviation fuel, a refueling system, rooms for storing ammunition, systems for their supply. The ship will have to mount a flight control system, military communication systems, hangars for storing aircraft on the deck (it will wash away in a storm). electronic warfare system, fired traps, etc. etc.

                Ports for military equipment were provided on Soviet civilian ships.
                Yes, and there were experiments on the use of verticals from civil ships. On the ro-ro, it was possible to lower the aircraft into the hold.
                What happened to the Atlantic conveyor, in fact, was a coincidence (it was not completely unloaded) + what was supposed to be used as a transport and nothing more.


                In it, they miserably lose to the MiG-29 in terms of combat capabilities. But they are more expensive. What for?

                They lose, but not with a bang. Moreover, it would be just the second plane of its kind in the country.
                You can look at the F-35. There, the aircraft are built on one glider, while the B version of the F-1 has a fan, which is worse in terms of dimensions and weight efficiency than lifting engines. And the characteristics do not differ so much.
                Moreover, if we need a ship for a VTOL aircraft, then it does not have such stringent requirements for the length of the deck, the presence of a springboard or catapult, and the presence of an aircraft finisher.
                And the task of AWACS will be partially taken over by helicopters, which are based not only on VTOL carriers. For example - if you take the Atlanteans or the Eagles - they were supposed to be used as a base for helicopters with radar to guide missiles, which were also AWACS helicopters (Ka-25ts, in the future Ka-31).
              3. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 9 February 2021 13: 40
                +3
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                As a result, you will come to the following. In order to effectively use VTOL aircraft, you will need a very expensive alteration of a civilian vessel, which must be done in advance. But the problem is that with such a modification, the operation of this ship as a civilian will no longer be profitable, and it does not matter to the warship, as to China backwards.

                The story of "Halzan" comes to mind. When "cheap helicopter carrier based on a civilian ro-ro"after fulfilling all the requirements of the Navy, it turned into a ship that has nothing to do with the prototype. smile
              4. SovAr238A
                SovAr238A 9 February 2021 16: 37
                +6
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Doesn't the example of the British mean anything? They created a normal aircraft carrier for the F-35. One problem is that the MiG-29 could be placed on this ship without any problems (yes, minor changes to the project, under a separate landing deck and aerofinishers).
                That the light carrier of VTOL aircraft, that the light carrier of the MiG-29 - there will be no difference in price for a ship, and a huge difference for aircraft. Not in favor of VTOL aircraft


                It seems to me that most people looking at the characteristics of the MiG-29K have a delusion.
                Those are the characteristics of the MiG-29K, in terms of takeoff weight of the aircraft, fuel. the mass of the combat load, etc. who walk on the Internet and who take it for granted - in fact, they are data for the MiG-29K project, which was developed for the then ejection TAVKR project ...
                The MiG-29K modification based on the MiG-29M does not differ much from the previous one in characteristics.
                Accordingly, when taking off from a springboard - takeoff weight is only 18 tons.
                More springboard does not allow for the MiG-29K.
                And not 24 tons, with which some people like to operate.
                Provided that the empty weight is 14 tons, we see the share of fuel and weapons no more than 4 tons.
                Therefore, believe in the Wikipedia tales that
                "Combat load: 4500 kg (for the version for India -" products 9-41 and 9-47 "- 5500 kg [13])"
                - absolutely impossible to believe. At least for ship-based.

                The same F-35B, having an empty weight of the same 14 tons, using a shortened take-off when ship-based, has a take-off weight of 22 tons.
                Accordingly, the amount of fuel and weapons can take more. Fly further and longer. And even faster. For it will have enough fuel for both maneuvers and high flight speeds. The MiG-29K will not have enough fuel to level the playing field.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  9 February 2021 16: 58
                  +1
                  Therefore, believe in the Wikipedia tales that
                  "Combat load: 4500 kg (for the version for India -" products 9-41 and 9-47 "- 5500 kg [13])"
                  - absolutely impossible to believe. At least for ship-based.


                  You old hocus pocus "flight with a mass greater than the maximum take-off" to tell?
                  Let’s tell you.
                  We raise one MiG with an UPAZ and PTB unit, as much as it can lift.

                  Behind him are a pair of shock weapons and a minimum of fuel. Then we refuel them in the air, return the "tanker" to the ship.

                  It's okay if you know how.
                  1. SovAr238A
                    SovAr238A 9 February 2021 17: 34
                    +2
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Therefore, believe in the Wikipedia tales that
                    "Combat load: 4500 kg (for the version for India -" products 9-41 and 9-47 "- 5500 kg [13])"
                    - absolutely impossible to believe. At least for ship-based.


                    You old hocus pocus "flight with a mass greater than the maximum take-off" to tell?
                    Let’s tell you.
                    We raise one MiG with an UPAZ and PTB unit, as much as it can lift.

                    Behind him are a pair of shock weapons and a minimum of fuel. Then we refuel them in the air, return the "tanker" to the ship.

                    It's okay if you know how.


                    Was there an OPAZ for Migov in the late 90s?
                    let's not abstractly dream about what was not ...
                    Well, what appeared 10 years ago cannot be considered that it was always ...

                    Later.
                    Once again, the mass of fuel that the Ship MiG-29K with the UPAZ will take on is no more than 4000 kg.
                    Accordingly, he can give no more than 2000 kg, the edge is 2500 kg.
                    To take off "empty", you need to raise two full ones before.
                    spend a minimum (in the ideal case of visibility and weather) 15 minutes to refuel it and then put it into battle ...
                    Those. what one F-35B does is, by definition, we must do three of us.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      9 February 2021 19: 59
                      +1
                      Accordingly, he can give no more than 2000 kg, the edge is 2500 kg.


                      Well, that's enough, the aircraft being fueled will "choose" this mass with weapons, and the norms.
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2021 17: 59
                  +1
                  Quote: SovAr238A
                  It seems to me that most people looking at the characteristics of the MiG-29K have a delusion.
                  Those are the characteristics of the MiG-29K, in terms of takeoff weight of the aircraft, fuel. the mass of the combat load, etc. who surf the Internet and who take it for granted - in fact, they are data for the MiG-29K project

                  This is a MiG-29M, the same age as the Yak-141
                3. Lozovik
                  Lozovik 9 February 2021 20: 30
                  +2
                  Quote: SovAr238A
                  The MiG-29K modification based on the MiG-29M does not differ much from the previous one in characteristics.
                  Accordingly, when taking off from a springboard - takeoff weight is only 18 tons.
                  More springboard does not allow for the MiG-29K.
                  And not 24 tons, with which some people like to operate.
                  Provided that the empty weight is 14 tons, we see the share of fuel and weapons no more than 4 tons.

                  Rave. By car 9-31: take-off weight from 1 and 2 positions 17700 kg, from 3 positions 22400 kg, curb empty weight 13270 kg.
                  1. SovAr238A
                    SovAr238A 10 February 2021 09: 27
                    0
                    Quote: Lozovik
                    Quote: SovAr238A
                    The MiG-29K modification based on the MiG-29M does not differ much from the previous one in characteristics.
                    Accordingly, when taking off from a springboard - takeoff weight is only 18 tons.
                    More springboard does not allow for the MiG-29K.
                    And not 24 tons, with which some people like to operate.
                    Provided that the empty weight is 14 tons, we see the share of fuel and weapons no more than 4 tons.

                    Rave. By car 9-31: take-off weight from 1 and 2 positions 17700 kg, from 3 positions 22400 kg, curb empty weight 13270 kg.


                    Again.
                    Writing data from Wikipedia is one thing.
                    And when you read the data from 20 years ago about the tests of the springboard - it's different.

                    So.
                    The maximum take-off weight of the MiG-29K aircraft using the springboard at Kuznetsov is limited to 18 tons. This is the maximum bar given by the testers. in practice, not in theory.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 February 2021 10: 19
                      0
                      Quote: SovAr238A
                      And when you read the data from 20 years ago about the tests of the springboard - it's different.

                      I am not at all sure about the applicability of this information to the MiG-29K / KUB. In the 90s, a slightly different plane was tested, after all. And yes, I would ask her to confirm with a link to something. As far as I know, restrictions even on the Su-33 operate only from the first two positions, and not from the far. At the same time, the testers took off almost at full takeoff, even from the first two.
                    2. Lozovik
                      Lozovik 14 February 2021 10: 48
                      -1
                      Quote: SovAr238A
                      Again.
                      Writing data from Wikipedia is one thing.
                      And when you read the data from 20 years ago about the tests of the springboard - it's different.

                      So.
                      The maximum take-off weight of the MiG-29K aircraft using the springboard at Kuznetsov is limited to 18 tons. This is the maximum bar given by the testers. in practice, not in theory.

                      My data from the VrRLE aircraft 9-31, yours, obviously, out of my head. As well as the speed of the MiG-25P with missiles.
        2. Scharnhorst
          Scharnhorst 9 February 2021 14: 36
          +2
          The Japanese, in a militaristic frenzy, tried to plant verticals on their largest at that time, destroyer-helicopter carriers of the "Sirane" class. Three heavy anti-submarine helicopters on board a 5,5-kt destroyer can be understood and applied, what to do with a troika of VTOL aircraft in shock or air defense versions on the same carrier? And in your opinion, which "trough" with a deck in terms of displacement is considered suitable?
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 9 February 2021 14: 57
            0
            Quote: Scharnhorst
            The Japanese, in a militaristic frenzy, tried to plant verticals on their largest at that time helicopter-carrying destroyers of the "Shiran" type

            Yes? Hear it for the first time. But he is a waste of waste.
            Quote: Scharnhorst
            Three heavy anti-submarine helicopters on board a 5,5-kt destroyer can be understood and applied, what to do with a troika of VTOL aircraft in shock or air defense versions on the same carrier?
            Three is overkill, a couple would have entered and a helicopter, maybe an average one, but four such "destroyers" and already two links of supersonic aircraft with four helicopters, for example, AWACS. How do you like this alignment?
            And 5,5 kt is not enough, but 10 tons of a container ship with the analogue "Arapakho" is just right, and there is no need to suffer with destroyers, their task is to guard.
        3. EvilLion
          EvilLion 11 February 2021 12: 55
          0
          You can't put VTOL aircraft anywhere, the nozzle will melt everything.
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 11 February 2021 15: 30
            +1
            Quote: EvilLion
            You cannot plant a VTOL aircraft anywhere, the nozzle will melt everything

            The nozzle is not a cutter, everything will not melt:

            https://warhead.su/2020/03/06/verhom-na-konteynerovoze-samaya-neobychnaya-posadka
            They just put a car on ordinary containers.
      2. Avior
        Avior 9 February 2021 10: 20
        +5
        ... If we go along the path of creating aircraft carriers, then design them for the "chilled" versions of standard vehicles.

        And what does Kuznetsov's trip to Syria confirm?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2021 10: 52
          +3
          Quote: Avior
          And what does Kuznetsov's trip to Syria confirm?

          And what is wrong with you?
          1. Avior
            Avior 9 February 2021 10: 59
            +5
            In addition to the fact that an attempt at a real combat use even in polygon conditions failed, nothing like that. They used the ship as transport. Like an Atlantic conveyor belt. But he was in a real combat situation, and Kuznetsov was in training conditions, without an enemy.
            hi
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2021 11: 04
              +2
              Quote: Avior
              In addition to the fact that an attempt at a real combat use even in polygon conditions failed, nothing like that

              Did she fail? Specifically, for the MiG-29K we have one plane crashing into the sea. During the cruise of a non-ready ship (did not complete the training programs after repairs) and when using aircraft that did not complete state tests. I would not call it an aircraft failure.
              Hindus, by the way, are exploiting, and it's okay.
              1. Avior
                Avior 9 February 2021 11: 19
                +4
                How many times did the Indians use it in combat conditions?
                And about Kuznetsov, the ship lost two combat aircraft. We discussed the ship, not the plane?
                With the complete absence of enemy opposition.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2021 11: 24
                  +5
                  Quote: Avior
                  How many times did the Indians use it in combat conditions?

                  Not at all. But in conditions close to combat - quite, they drive their pilots well.
                  Quote: Avior
                  And about Kuznetsov, the ship lost two combat aircraft. We discussed the ship, not the plane?

                  We are discussing the concept
                  Quote: Ka-52
                  If we are going to go along the path of creating aircraft carriers, then design them for "chilled" versions of standard vehicles. Without any mischief with VTOL aircraft.

                  And the concept is both a ship and an airplane. The fact that we, for some kind of goblin, pushed a non-ready ship into Mediterranean, does not negate the fact that Vikramaditya was successfully exploited.
                  1. Avior
                    Avior 9 February 2021 12: 44
                    +4
                    The concept of a springboard aircraft carrier + horizontal take-off and landing aircraft.

                    The more complex the Ship, the more time it will be in repair or maintenance, that is, in a sky-ready state.
                    And note that you yourself chose the time of the hike. What if they had to, like the British in the Falklands, react to events beyond their control?
                    It's the same with carrier-based aircraft. It's one thing to make a planned sortie to strike at a target, and another thing to react to a sudden threat, for example, an air attack.
                    But so far unconfirmed even the first possibilities
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2021 18: 00
                      0
                      Quote: Avior
                      The concept of a springboard aircraft carrier + horizontal take-off and landing aircraft.

                      or a springboard aircraft carrier + VTOL. Where is the difference? :)))
                      1. Avior
                        Avior 10 February 2021 08: 56
                        +1
                        In the stability of takeoff and landing of aircraft
                2. 911sx
                  911sx 9 February 2021 21: 16
                  +1
                  And how much could you lose?
              2. EvilLion
                EvilLion 9 February 2021 11: 40
                +2
                The question is not about the MiG-29K as an aircraft, but about the state of our fleet, namely the organizational one.
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 9 February 2021 11: 39
          -3
          That seamen shouldn't be given planes, and that ships are worth considering.
      3. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 13 February 2021 07: 17
        0
        "If we are going to go along the path of creating aircraft carriers, then design them for" chilled "versions of standard vehicles. Without any pampering with VTOL aircraft." is just a matter of price. Aircraft carrying ship with VTOL aircraft is available even to Thailand and Indonesia. Even Russia and Great Britain cannot afford a real aircraft carrier.
    2. timokhin-aa
      9 February 2021 16: 55
      +1
      Have you tried reading what you comment on?
      By the time the first pair of Yak-41 regiments reached combat readiness, half of their carriers in age would have already exceeded 50% of the assigned service life, and as of current Soviet conditions, the minimum "Kiev" would have already been inadvertent with the word "absolutely".
      And why would they be needed then?
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 9 February 2021 17: 09
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Have you tried reading what you comment on?

        So in your comment, as in the article, there is a bit too much "would".
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        By the time the first pair of Yak-41 regiments reached combat readiness, half of their carriers in age would have already exceeded 50% of the assigned service life
        However, I would add, if there would be a Union, fresher carriers would be added for sure.
        Well, and about the "Arapakho" system, take a look at your leisure, a very curious mobilization project, including for "Harriers". So, suddenly what analogies come to mind about the carriers.
        1. timokhin-aa
          9 February 2021 22: 57
          0
          However, I would add, if there would be a Union, fresher carriers would be added for sure.


          The decision that the TAVKry will no longer be built was taken back in the USSR.
          So it wouldn't be added, it's a historical fact.

          Well, about the "Arapakho" system, take a look at your leisure,


          1. What prompted you to think that I do not know about "Arapakho"?
          2. What makes you think that you know something about "Arapakho", considering that everything written about this project in Russian is crap?

          a very interesting mobilization project, including for the "Harriers".


          No, it's not like that.
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 10 February 2021 05: 23
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            The decision that the TAVKry will no longer be built was taken back in the USSR.
            So it wouldn't be added, it's a historical fact.
            In the light of the appearance of the aircraft carrier, this is a normal solution, but the UDC would have to be built, but there the Yak-141 is very appropriate.

            Quote: timokhin-aa
            What prompted you to think that I do not know about "Arapakho"?
            Assumption, glad that it was not confirmed

            Quote: timokhin-aa
            What makes you think that you know something about "Arapakho", considering that everything written about this project in Russian is crap?
            Excuse me, what's the mess? That this is a real and partially tested project? Or the fact that he was supposed to serve VTOL aircraft? Maybe he did not allow very quickly and very inexpensively to convert ships into carrier ships?

            Quote: timokhin-aa
            No, it's not like that.


            Exactly:
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            .... You can make a hangar for helicopters (aircraft) from container modules ...
            As the number of Harriers increases, the number of Marines on board decreases. Therefore, it is planned to include merchant ships equipped with the Arapakho system in the landing formations to enhance air support for the landing. .... According to the foreign press, a container system is currently being created to combat air targets. It includes a flight deck with a special springboard, aircraft with vertical or short take-off.
            And in general, I cited this system as an example of a very quick deployment of VTOL aircraft on any suitable vessels, which is impossible even with the MiG-29 with anything else like that.
            The fact that "Arapakho" was not finalized is not the reason for its lousy, but the same reason as for the lack of construction of the Soviet UDC, and for the abandonment of the Yak-141, and for a lot of things, namely the destruction of the Soviet Union. [
            1. timokhin-aa
              10 February 2021 10: 31
              -1
              Excuse me, what's the mess? That this is a real and partially tested project? Or the fact that he was supposed to serve VTOL aircraft? Maybe he did not allow very quickly and very inexpensively to convert ships into carrier ships?


              I specifically write - everything that is in Russian is crap, the Arapaho were not intended for Harriers. Harriers could not be based on these ships.
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 10 February 2021 11: 47
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                I specifically write - everything that is in Russian is crap, the Arapaho were not intended for Harriers. Harriers could not be based on these ships.


                "Outfitting each of these convoys with six to eith aircraft (either helicopters or vertical takeoff and landing planes) capable of conducting ASW operations. "Even if each aircraft is only carrying one torpedo, that's one more out there than we would [otherwise] have," says Mr. Mulquin. "
                https://www.csmonitor.com/1981/0106/010636.html
                1. timokhin-aa
                  10 February 2021 14: 25
                  -2
                  This opinion is from 1981, in reality there were such conversions and the Britons even used one such ship in the Mediterranean.
                  In the final version, ARAPAKHO turned out to be purely helicopter-based, and the aircraft projects were under the SCADA code, a completely different scheme.
                  1. Vladimir_2U
                    Vladimir_2U 10 February 2021 16: 20
                    -1
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    projects under the code SCADA

                    Thank you, just not looking at all.

                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    In the final version, ARAPAKHO turned out to be purely helicopter
                    They simply did not develop it for obvious reasons, it was not necessary.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      10 February 2021 17: 41
                      -3
                      Not searched, yes. You need to know the places.

                      ARAPAHO by Britons made and applied in 1984.
                      1. Vladimir_2U
                        Vladimir_2U 11 February 2021 04: 15
                        +1
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        ARAPAHO Britons made and applied in 1984

                        What? You hardly know the question, and your words about the crappy article in the "ZVO" seem to be crappy themselves, in the light of this:
                        The article is searched in Google by request
                        "project Arapaho navy tests", I will give a link in a separate comment because it is long. PDF is being downloaded.
                        Well, the phrase from the article, I personally typed, was not too lazy; "While presents testings has been confined helicopters, there considerable USMC interests in expanded evaluations with the V / STOLS Harrier now operations with four Marines squadrons" leaves no doubt about the possibility of finalizing the Arapaho for VTOL aircraft.
                        So, against the background of my research, and there were also docks from the hearings in Congress first came, this is yours:
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Not searched, yes. Places you need to know
                        even in an ordinary dispute sink a negative argument, not to mention the Internet dispute.
                      2. Vladimir_2U
                        Vladimir_2U 11 February 2021 04: 16
                        0
                        https://books.google.ru/books?id=vpjJTApow0oC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=project+Arapaho+navy+tests&source=bl&ots=lICJNYQmm_&sig=ACfU3U3iOr9LwlTSdovqu8UtzHNh5KOTMQ&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwji48aRzODuAhUjyYUKHT7eCbEQ6AEwBHoECBAQAg#v=onepage&q=project%20Arapaho%20navy%20tests&f=false
                        Promised link. Good luck, I look forward to your articles.
                      3. timokhin-aa
                        11 February 2021 12: 17
                        0
                        I will write an article
  • bayard
    bayard 9 February 2021 22: 46
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    By the time the first pair of Yak-41 regiments reached combat readiness, half of their carriers in age would have already exceeded 50% of the assigned service life

    What's the problem here? The service life of the carrier-based aircraft is less than that of their land-based counterparts, so that another 20 - 25 years could have served well, the aircraft (Yak-41) would hardly have lasted longer. Moreover, AWACS helicopters were already preparing to enter service, and this would seriously expand the combat capabilities of the air wing of such ships.
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    and according to the current Soviet conditions, the minimum "Kiev" would have been inadvertent from the word "absolutely".

    As far as I know, at the time of the collapse of the Union, "Kiev" was completing a major overhaul with full restoration of combat readiness. The question of the quality and duration of their further service depended on the conditions of their base ... This was a sore and unresolved question at that time.
    If we talk about today's time, then a carrier-based fighter of the F-35В level would not be superfluous in our fleet, taking into account the construction of new UDCs, but it is in our case that the development of such a fighter will not pay off in a small expected series. But in the USSR in the late 80s - early 90s, the Yak-41 would have brought our aircraft-carrying cruisers to the level of almost full-fledged light / medium aircraft carriers and would have provided much greater stability for the fleet.
    And the abandonment of the Yak-39 was really a mistake - for about 10 years it would have provided fighter cover for the fleet in the far zone, before the serial Yak-41 arrived.
    But for some reason, whenever our country began to build an ocean-going fleet, some kind of catastrophe immediately happened to it.
  • Pivot
    Pivot 9 February 2021 07: 08
    -1
    An article for the Faculty of Philosophy. Look at the British Sea Harriers still in service and no one says that they will lose the battle of the MiG 29 or Su 27 in advance.
    1. Ka-52
      Ka-52 9 February 2021 09: 02
      +7
      Look at the English Sea Harriers still in service

      Harier was taken out of service by dummies in the last decade.
      1. Avior
        Avior 9 February 2021 10: 47
        +4
        Removed from service in 2016
        For the 1967 plane, it’s time to go.
        But Harrier 2 is still in service as a deck.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2021 11: 06
          +1
          Quote: Avior
          But Harrier 2 is still in service as a deck.

          In England?
          1. Avior
            Avior 9 February 2021 11: 22
            +3
            We are talking about an airplane, not England, it seems ...
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2021 11: 36
              +1
              Quote: Avior
              We are talking about an airplane, not England, it seems ...

              Yes? Sorry I missed this moment
              1. Ka-52
                Ka-52 9 February 2021 11: 51
                +3
                Yes? Sorry I missed this moment

                he does not stand anywhere. The Brits took off and the Indians did too. The Indians are the last to exploit it.
                1. Pivot
                  Pivot 9 February 2021 16: 25
                  +1
                  The Italian Navy and the US ILC are still in service
                  1. LastPS
                    LastPS 10 February 2021 00: 39
                    0
                    The ILC has special requirements that the hariers meet - this is an attack aircraft for everyone, so it is clear that it will lose to any fighter and not even a particularly new one.
                    1. Pivot
                      Pivot 10 February 2021 06: 45
                      0
                      I originally wrote that it is not necessary for such an aircraft to win from anyone, there are many tasks that it will perform, an example of the Harrier that is still in service.
            2. Ka-52
              Ka-52 9 February 2021 11: 52
              +4
              We are talking about an airplane, not England, it seems ...

              it was about the plane and it was in England.
              Look at the English Sea Harriers still in service

              this is how the phrase that spawned the discussion thread sounded from the beginning
              1. Pivot
                Pivot 9 February 2021 16: 23
                -2
                In how you turn my words bravo.
            3. Pivot
              Pivot 9 February 2021 16: 27
              -3
              Yes, yes it is about the plane. Su27 aka Soviet or Russian and who has it in service 10e
          2. Hippo
            Hippo 9 February 2021 15: 14
            0
            In Spain.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiEgKDWN0oM
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 9 February 2021 09: 10
      -1
      Why talk about what is obvious to everyone?
    3. donavi49
      donavi49 9 February 2021 09: 20
      +8
      Well, Harrier has radar and AIM-120 missiles. The Yak-38 has no radar and SD missiles, only IR.
      1. maximghost
        maximghost 9 February 2021 12: 48
        +1
        The key question is which harrier? This is a harrier 2+ who went to the troops in the 90s.
        1. Pivot
          Pivot 9 February 2021 16: 24
          -1
          Iiii, what design differences do they have?
          1. timokhin-aa
            9 February 2021 16: 59
            0
            It's easier to say that there is the same.
    4. timokhin-aa
      9 February 2021 16: 56
      -1
      I say they will lose. Into the rout.
      1. Pivot
        Pivot 9 February 2021 17: 23
        0
        Well, I'm talking about the same thing. These planes were not supposed to be the main workhorses of the AUG.
  • mark1
    mark1 9 February 2021 07: 17
    +7
    Sometimes it seems that a collective has gathered under the pseudonym A. Timokhin and each writes to the best of his talents and abilities (very, by the way, of different levels). Sometimes it's not even bad at all, sometimes into any gate, as if an adult and a child
    1. timokhin-aa
      9 February 2021 17: 00
      0
      Sometimes it seems


      It seems to you.

      Sometimes it's not even bad at all, sometimes into any gate, as if an adult and a child


      This is just the effect of the fact that reality does not coincide with your ideas.
      1. mark1
        mark1 9 February 2021 17: 33
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        mismatch of reality with your ideas.

        The discrepancy between my ideas and your reality is normal. hi
        1. timokhin-aa
          9 February 2021 19: 52
          -1
          Not with mine) With "generally".
          1. mark1
            mark1 9 February 2021 19: 59
            +1
            To the orderlies - all there!
            1. timokhin-aa
              9 February 2021 20: 43
              -1
              But this is no longer for me, no.
              1. mark1
                mark1 9 February 2021 20: 45
                +1
                Alexander, can we finish the discussion? drinks
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Avior
    Avior 9 February 2021 09: 01
    +3
    The author's dislike for VTOL aircraft is known and he consistently does not put it into practice :)))
    In general, it is VTOL aircraft that should become the main aircraft of all aircraft carrying ships up to Ulyanovsk, so there would be an abundance of new carriers and these would be real warships.
    But the Migovites and representatives of Sukhoi convinced them what kind of fast-taking off planes they had, that VTOL aircraft were not needed, they would take off without catapults. Actually, this is one of the reasons why there was no money to bring the Yak-141 up - there are deck-based aircraft, what else is needed?
    The result of Kuznetsov's campaign in greenhouse conditions is known. The Chinese do not reinvent the wheel, the Varyag has become a training ship for them and they stubbornly go to the catapult aircraft carrier. What happens, we'll see, but so far in the world of catapults one country makes, and a long time ago, for many decades, and no one else. In the USSR, this program could not be brought to the state of the plane taking off from the catapult and to the creation of a workable catapult for these purposes. The only created steam catapult was intended for the purpose of testing the aerofoil and was unsuitable for takeoff.
    A catapult is a steam catapult, an electromagnetic catapult is not a primitive device, as it seems to some, it is more complicated than a lump of technologies in the field of precision mechanics and heat engineering, if it’s about steam, and no less complex technologies in the field of electrical engineering and electronics, if it’s an electromagnetic one. And we are talking about the production of only a few piece copies - the price will simply be unmeasured.
    Therefore, the desire to have a catapult aircraft carrier now looks more like a search engine than a real plan.
    Unless to buy from the Chinese, if they sell.
    As for the development of VTOL aircraft, the duration of the development was explained by the fact that Yakovlev's design bureau did not have at that time a sufficiently powerful engine at its disposal. There would be an analogue of the Pegasus, there would be a single-engine analogue of the Harrier, as originally planned. But due to the lack of an engine, it was necessary to build a difficult-to-control thrust-engine system, which significantly complicated the work.
    Now there is such an engine or it will soon be.
    Avionics can be used from developments on modern versions of the Su and Miga.
    There is no need for a long development of a new VTOL aircraft. Especially taking into account the fact that the competence in the aircraft industry has been preserved at least partially. And the possibility of selling VTOL aircraft to the external market is clearly there, the same Turks would buy now without hesitation.
    The decision to develop the SVP was made. But the real thing is not moving, unfortunately. But possible carriers for it have already begun to build: ((
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 9 February 2021 09: 04
      +7
      There will be no VTOL aircraft in Russia in the next 100 years, enough raving.
      1. 2534M
        2534M 9 February 2021 13: 43
        +2
        Quote: EvilLion
        There will be no VTOL aircraft in Russia in the next 100 years, enough raving.

        unfortunately, it's not nonsense that they want to cut on this topic
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 10 February 2021 08: 28
          0
          They can want, and OCD can even be conducted, but no one will give money for military vehicles.
    2. 2534M
      2534M 9 February 2021 12: 25
      +1
      Quote: Avior
      In general, it is VTOL aircraft that should become the main aircraft of all aircraft carriers up to Ulyanovsk

      DO NOT SHOOT SHOOT, IT HURTS
      Quote: Avior
      Now there is such an engine or it will soon be.

      fool
      this is nothing more than a SCAM of a group of persons to "dissolve" the state for loot
      Quote: Avior
      There is no need for a long development of a new VTOL aircraft.

      it's simple delirium wassat
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 9 February 2021 13: 51
      +4
      Quote: Avior
      In general, it is VTOL aircraft that should become the main aircraft of all aircraft carrying ships up to Ulyanovsk, so there would be an abundance of new carriers and these would be real warships.
      But the Migovites and representatives of Sukhoi convinced them what kind of fast-taking off planes they had, that VTOL aircraft were not needed, they would take off without catapults. Actually, this is one of the reasons why there was no money to bring the Yak-141 up - there are deck-based aircraft, what else is needed?

      In fact, originally on the same 11435 there was a catapult and there were classic aircraft.
      But the representatives of Yakovlev convinced the Ministry of Defense that their fast-taking off planes are much better than the classics - and the planned 11435 air group was re-equipped completely on SKVVP (thanks to Ustinov). At the same time, they killed the catapult and all the work on it (and here thanks to Amelko).
      But for normal operation, the SKKVP had to mount a springboard on the ship - for a short takeoff without a springboard limited the takeoff weight and was dangerous. And this springboard killed the SKVVP - because it suddenly appeared. that classic cars of the 4th generation, with a springboard, can take off from the deck without a catapult.
      SKVVP - you are your own enemy. smile
      Quote: Avior
      Now there is such an engine or it will soon be.

      Somewhere I have already heard this ... oh yes, M-90, M-71 and I-185. smile
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 9 February 2021 14: 49
      +3
      Quote: Avior
      In the USSR, this program could not be brought to the state of the plane taking off from the catapult and to the creation of a workable catapult for these purposes. The only created steam catapult was intended for the purpose of testing the aerofoil and was unsuitable for takeoff.

      The problems with the catapult were not technical, but administrative - the "combat" catapult on NITKA was killed by "boots" and Amelko.
      After the Nitka’s repeated visits by various commissions of the Ministry of Defense, with the participation of N. N. Amelko, the catapult intended for flight tests of aircraft and training pilots to ejection take-off was excluded from the equipment of this complex and only the technological (called the booster device) required for testing, calibration and verification of aerofinishers. Work on the creation of catapult take-off aircraft, begun in 1972, was curtailed.
      © A.B. Morin
    5. timokhin-aa
      9 February 2021 17: 00
      0
      In general, it is VTOL aircraft that should become the main aircraft of all aircraft carrying ships up to Ulyanovsk, so there would be an abundance of new carriers and these would be real warships.


      This is absolutely not the case in reality. Where did you get this?
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 9 February 2021 09: 03
    +12
    What nonsense? The first landing of the Su-27K on the deck of the then "Tbilisi" Victor Pugachev made EMNIP back in 1989. Behind him and the MiG-29K sat down. And in the early 90s, the Navy received a batch of Su-27K aka Su-33, which it continues to torment to this day. That is, the issue with vertikaks was completely closed, and already in the 90s no Yak-41 was needed even under the most favorable scenarios for the USSR. They would just start building some planned nuclear-powered Ulyanovsk. The mythical Yak-39 in this regard is not much better, since the benefits from throwing out to the wind 100 rubles and 10 rubles are the same. It's just that the loss in the second case is less.

    Reasoning about the residual life of the carriers is, of course, interesting, but it is unlikely that decommissioning these ships to wear out would be more expensive than trying to squeeze something else out of the Yak-38 and build a hundred Yak-39s. Although why a hundred, all was built, according to the same wiki 231 Yak-38 of them Yak-38U 34 units and Yak-38M, which, according to the author, "already something could" 52 units. Moreover, the 52 Yak-38 is very far from the 52 Su-35. And even the 52 MiG-23 is not close.

    Obviously, the Yak-39 would have been built no more, that is, the cost would have been a horse, the finished product would have been low, and the same wiki writes about the design empty weight of 12550 kg. Despite the fact that the Yak-38M pulled at 7500 - the weight of a full-fledged, without any discounts, fighter, like the F-16 or Mirage-2000. In this case, I believe the wiki, since an attempt to shove a radar from the MiG-38 into the Yak-29, which the author seems to think of as an event at the level of installing a new radio tape recorder and seats in the old "nine", would require a corresponding increase in the car, which would entail new engines, which means more fuel, etc. in a spiral. And in the end, we just come to those same tons and a completely new machine, which belongs to the Yak-38 no more than the Tu-22M to the Tu-22 and is hardly much simpler than the Yak-41. This is only from the author in words "add a radar and a new wing" and it should work out about the same, but much better. This does not work in the aircraft industry.

    That is, if for some reason we decided to build aircraft carriers, then it was worth abandoning VTOL toys and moving on to damaging the promising ground vehicles at that time. Yak-39 and Yak-41 in this process do not even pull on a safety net.
    1. Avior
      Avior 9 February 2021 09: 34
      +2
      Initially, according to the plan, yaks were the main carrier-based aircraft on aircraft carrier ships under construction, and horizontal take-off aircraft were additional ones. And there would still be really combat-ready ships.
      But the competition between KB led to the fact that Yakovletsev was pushed out. And Kuznetsov remained in fact a training ship, like the Varyag among the Chinese.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 9 February 2021 11: 44
        +4
        Was the Yak-38M really combat-ready? You can simply attach a machine gun to the Yak-152 and say that it is combat-ready, since it shoots.
      2. 2534M
        2534M 9 February 2021 12: 28
        0
        Quote: Avior
        Initially, according to the plan, yaks were the main carrier-based aircraft on aircraft carrier ships under construction, and horizontal take-off aircraft were additional ones.

        LIES
        1. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 13 February 2021 07: 24
          0
          Don't know how to chi? In all sources, this is exactly what it is written - the main aircraft were supposed to be Yak-41, MiG-29k and Su-27k - a means of amplification, since the springboard takeoff greatly limited their take-off weight.
      3. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 9 February 2021 14: 45
        +4
        Quote: Avior
        Initially, according to the plan, yaks were the main carrier-based aircraft on aircraft carrier ships under construction, and horizontal take-off aircraft were additional ones.

        Initially, the main carrier-based aircraft of the 11435 were classic machines - the design bureau and the navy planned them. Vertical racks were just one option.
        The bureau proposed to consider the MiG-11435K fighter and the Su-29K attack aircraft as the main types of catapult takeoff aircraft for the aircraft carrier pr. 25 (the dimensions of the Su-27K fighter required a 35% reduction in their number). According to the technical proposal, the flight deck area of ​​the aircraft carrier pr. 11435 exceeded that of the aircraft carrier pr. 1143-11434 by 1,6 times, and the hangar - by 1,3 times. The presence on the aircraft carrier of one catapult, in the event of its damage in combat conditions, practically deprived the aircraft carrier of the ability to use the main power of its aircraft. With a total number of LACs up to 42 machines, the ship provided for the basing of 18-28 aircraft (depending on the type) and 14 Ka-252 helicopters. The technical proposal considered the basing of 18 Su-27K fighters or 28 - MiG-29K (Su-25K) or 16 VTOL Yak-41 and 12 MiG-29K (Su-25K).

        Then the Navy approved a mixed air group of Su-27K and vertical.
        In November 1979, project 11435, after consideration and discussion by S.G. Gorshkov, was approved for approval by the Navy and SMEs. At the same time, the Commander-in-Chief proposed to work out options for the composition of the aircraft's aircraft armament for further design with an increase in the total number of LACs to 52 vehicles without changing the main dimensions of the aircraft carrier. Of the options presented by the NPKB, he approved for the development of a technical design the composition of the TAKR air group of 14 Su-27K aircraft, 16 VTOL Yak-41 and 22 Ka-252 helicopters (RLD, PL and PS).

        And then Ustinov came:
        In early 1980, the Minister of Defense signed a directive prepared by the General Staff, which set the Navy, Air Force, SMEs and MAP tasks to reduce the displacement of TAKR pr. 11435 and reorient its air group, mainly to aircraft of vertical and short take-off and landing (NE / UVP) . To ensure the takeoff of short-run aircraft, it was proposed to provide a springboard instead of catapults on the ship.

        And only after that SCVVP became the main aircraft 11435 for several years.
        Source: Morin A.B. Project 11435 heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov".
        Quote: Avior
        But the competition between KB led to the fact that Yakovletsev was pushed out.

        It is not competition there that is to blame, but the administrative monopoly of the Yakovlev Design Bureau, which, with the support of Ustinov and Amelko, rested on its laurels. Why try, if at any moment Ustinov can throw rivals off the deck with a stroke of the pen.
        But at 11435, the Yakovlevites, having thrown out the Su and MiG, made a fatal mistake - they demanded to install a springboard. And suddenly it turned out that the classic aircraft of the new generation can also take off on a springboard. And the monopolist could not bear such a blow.
      4. Scharnhorst
        Scharnhorst 9 February 2021 15: 07
        +1

        Avior (Sergey)
        But the competition between KB led to the fact that Yakovletsev was pushed out. And Kuznetsov remained in fact a training ship, like the Varyag among the Chinese.

        Are you dissatisfied with the competition or its results? The dialectic is such that the results of competition have already been tested and confirmed by time. And the conclusion is formulated incorrectly. Currently, neither we, nor India, nor China do not have vertical aircraft (but they could afford it), but the concept of a catapultless aircraft carrier with horizontal take-off and landing aircraft in three countries is still alive and there are prospects for development.
      5. SovAr238A
        SovAr238A 9 February 2021 16: 56
        +3
        Quote: Avior
        Initially, according to the plan, yaks were the main carrier-based aircraft on aircraft carrier ships under construction, and horizontal take-off aircraft were additional ones. And there would still be really combat-ready ships.
        But the competition between KB led to the fact that Yakovletsev was pushed out. And Kuznetsov remained in fact a training ship, like the Varyag among the Chinese.


        It's a little more complicated ...
        Projects 1143 - Redesigned many times.
        Since the beginning of the 70s, all these projects have been developed and reworked and canceled and launched anew.
        And everything revolved around this or that version of the project.
        At first they were only catapular.
        And the first versions of the Su-27K and MiG-29K were created for them.
        This was the first "bunch" - just for the ejection start.
        But since there was an awareness that the development of a catapult would be a normal period of 15-20 years and not earlier, the project was significantly reduced in size and the Yak-141 was chosen as the carrier.
        They also realized, then, that it is very expensive and completely useless for at least some kind of opposition to the US AUG. And they hacked him down completely deliberately, like a useless bundle. Both this ship and this plane are useless as a complex as a whole, and each in particular.

        As a result, an interim decision was made to increase the displacement in the new version of project 1143 and mount the springboard. This made it possible to use the version of the Su-33 (Su-27K) and the updated MiG-29K, but with a threefold decrease in the mass of the combat load and a halving of the combat radius.

        Which again turned out - not very ...
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 9 February 2021 19: 53
          0
          Quote: SovAr238A
          But since there was an awareness that the development of a catapult would be a normal period of 15-20 years and not earlier, the project was significantly reduced in size and the Yak-141 was chosen as the carrier.
          They also realized, then, that it is very expensive and completely useless for at least some kind of opposition to the US AUG. And they hacked him down completely deliberately, like a useless bundle. Both this ship and this plane are useless as a complex as a whole, and each in particular.
          As a result, an interim decision was made to increase the displacement in the new version of Project 1143 and mount the springboard.

          Maureen wrote that the reduction in displacement, equipping the air group exclusively with SCVVP and the installation of a springboard were adopted under one directive in 1980.
          In early 1980, the Minister of Defense signed the directive prepared by the General Staff, which set the Navy, Air Force, SMEs and MAP tasks to reduce the displacement of TAKR pr. 11435 and reorient its air group, mainly to aircraft of vertical and short take-off and landing (NE / UVP) . To ensure the takeoff of short-run aircraft, it was proposed to provide a springboard instead of catapults on the ship. This was followed by instructions to ensure the take-off of VTOL Yak-41 with a short take-off.

          The fleet continued to fight for the catapult at 11435 - but to no avail. And in the middle of 1981
          The issue of a catapult for this ship was removed. Moreover, the General Staff raised the question of the cessation of all work on the creation and development of catapults.

          Instead of a catapult, 11435 received a universal springboard, which provides takeoff of the SKVVP and Su-27K.
        2. Lozovik
          Lozovik 9 February 2021 20: 20
          0
          Quote: SovAr238A
          This made it possible to use the version of the Su-33 (Su-27K) and the updated MiG-29K, but with a threefold decrease in the mass of the combat load and a halving of the combat radius.

          Why three times? Do the voices in your head say so?
    2. d4rkmesa
      d4rkmesa 9 February 2021 10: 08
      0
      Maybe it’s a low technological level that didn’t allow the implementation of a normal SWVP? In this sense, the Americans are very stubborn, even a seemingly absurd technological solution will be drawn at the expense of technology. In the USSR and the Russian Federation at the beginning of the 90s, there were no such opportunities. Now at least you can use CAD for design at the same level, almost.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 9 February 2021 11: 42
        0
        An absurd solution can be pulled out, but the cost will be impractically expensive.
    3. 2534M
      2534M 9 February 2021 12: 27
      -1
      Quote: EvilLion
      an attempt to shove a radar from a MiG-38 into the Yak-29

      she did not get up, but here is the analogue of "Spear" - it could well have appeared earlier
      + was a completely effective and technically feasible option in a short time -
      WITHOUT radar, but with guidance from the AWACS and UR VV R-73 helicopters with a helmet-mounted TSU system
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 9 February 2021 13: 25
        +1
        Duc and the "spear" will not rise, the nose is clearly not empty, which means a new nose of a larger size and mass is being designed.
        1. 2534M
          2534M 9 February 2021 13: 42
          -1
          Quote: EvilLion
          Duc and the "spear" will not rise, the nose is clearly not empty, which means a new nose of a larger size and mass is being designed.

          well, so it was on the Yak-39
          on the other hand, a really working option would be:
          TsU from Ka-25RTs (to Ka-31)
          main missile launcher - R-73 (the R-60 had too weak warhead) with helmet-mounted control unit
          + small radar for the "near zone" (additional reconnaissance and aiming) from D up to 10 km
          in principle, it could be made on the basis of the Orion Su-24 mm channel
          1. Lozovik
            Lozovik 9 February 2021 20: 16
            +1
            Quote: 2534M
            TsU from Ka-25RTs (to Ka-31)

            Ka-25Ts is capable of detecting exclusively naval targets.

            Quote: 2534M
            main missile launcher - R-73 (the R-60 had too weak warhead) with helmet-mounted control unit

            And what, in fact, will it give?
        2. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 13 February 2021 07: 28
          0
          "the nose is clearly not empty" - in the nose there is a stupid "Delta", which it was high time to throw it into the container version, or better overboard.
      2. mmaxx
        mmaxx 10 February 2021 18: 09
        0
        The locator weighs something. And balancing VTOL aircraft during takeoff / landing is the most difficult thing. And here everything is proposed to unbalance the radar in the very nose. With such dimensions, it is possible that the aircraft would have to be greatly altered.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2021 09: 07
    +5
    I agree with almost the entire article, with the exception of this moment
    he could not have won the "junkyard" with "Phantom" or later with "Hornet".

    Maybe he could. Maneuverability there is noticeably better than that of the Yak-38. I quote Berne, "Yak-141: Supersonic vertical":
    "We also did aerobatics - Vladimir Yakimov distinguished himself here. Although the wing load is too large, but the thrust-to-weight ratio is excellent. I reached an angle of attack of 25 °, and lateral controllability was still maintained. It was possible to turn the turns well.
    It is often said that the Harrier's maneuver is better because it uses a variable thrust vector. But it must be borne in mind that the horizontal component decreases and braking occurs. And in battle he lost speed, consider that you were shot down. I think that such aerobatics with a change in the thrust vector for one attack: hit-miss. And on the Yak-141 at low speeds, with the afterburner turned on, I can very energetically "twist" turns. "
    But in any case, the Yak-141 is our big mistake, like, in fact, the whole direction of VTOL aircraft
    1. Shopping Mall
      Shopping Mall 9 February 2021 10: 44
      -2
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      I agree with almost the entire article, with the exception of this moment
      he could not have won the "junkyard" with "Phantom" or later with "Hornet".

      Maybe he could. Maneuverability there is noticeably better than that of the Yak-38. I quote Berne, "Yak-141: Supersonic vertical":
      "We also did aerobatics - z ...


      Or maybe the problem is that we are all going to "turn bends", while everyone else is counting on air combat at medium and long range.

      It is still unrealistic to "twist the missile", therefore stealth technologies are of primary importance, which reduce the possibility of capturing radar and IR seeker missiles, electronic warfare, anti-missile V-V, and, in the future, laser defensive systems.

      The same Yak-141 with good avionics in terms of combat qualities (not aerobatics) would be almost in no way inferior to the MiG-29. Moreover, his engine is covered with tail booms - less visibility from the IR seeker. One main engine is cheaper to build and operate. As in the case of the F-35, a versatile vehicle with vertical and only horizontal takeoff could be created on its basis. And it would be taken on the market, unlike the same MiG-29.

      Stealth technology without bringing it to the point of absurdity, engine modernization (+ thrust, resource, flat nozzle), new avionics and electronic warfare. And three modifications - VTOL aircraft for landing ships and, possibly, the simplest aircraft carriers based on transports, a version for Kuznetsov and a standard version. In the latter two, instead of vertical start engines, add. tank.

      Dozens of countries would buy such an aircraft in various modifications.
      1. Shopping Mall
        Shopping Mall 9 February 2021 10: 55
        0


        Perhaps this is how he could become ...
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2021 11: 21
        +5
        Quote: AVM
        Or maybe the problem is that we are all going to "turn bends", while everyone else is counting on air combat at medium and long range.

        Uh-huh. But for some reason, these same "all" in every conflict stubbornly climb into close combat ... In the conditions of complete air supremacy, in the conditions of an external control center - nooo, they still approach at a pistol-shot distance ("Sidewinder" range)
        Quote: AVM
        "To twist the rocket" is still unrealistic

        How real.
        Quote: AVM
        therefore, stealth technologies are of primary importance, reducing the possibility of capturing the radar and IR seeker of the missile

        Yeah. That's why the Americans, as the main fighter of air superiority, are slapping the F-15EX with might and main. Already so inconspicuous :))))))))
        Quote: AVM
        The same Yak-141 with good avionics in terms of combat qualities (not aerobatics) would be almost as good as the MiG-29

        Well yes. Almost nothing. Neither in speed (1800 versus 2500 km / h km / h), nor in the flight ceiling (15 m versus 000 m), nor in practical flight range (18 km versus 000 km without PTB, and with PTB - up to 1400 km ), nor in terms of maximum combat load (2000 kg versus 3200 kg).
        Well, literally, almost nothing laughing
        Quote: AVM
        As in the case of the F-35, a versatile machine with vertical and only horizontal take-off could be created on its basis. And it would be taken on the market, unlike the same MiG-29.

        Someone could take who needs a VTOL aircraft. But who?
        Japan? Spain? You understand that no. India? Maybe ... But she bought a MiG-29. Thailand? Well, 8-12 pieces, yes, they would. Who else?:))))
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 9 February 2021 11: 53
          +2
          I didn’t lift the MiG-29 for 4500 kg, 3000 was declared, in fact 6 missiles, I don’t even know how to get these kgs with 6 suspensions at all. This is the MiG-29M and its modern variations are, according to statements, capable of this. Well, the Yak-141 would be good if I could fit with a ton normally. For vertical take-off, this is generally the limit, which is actually the F-35B with 2 bombs of 454 kg each, and a pair of missiles for self-defense, against 2x905 kg for the horizontal versions.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 9 February 2021 13: 46
            +2
            2x905 + 2xAIM-120 - this is only in the internal compartments in a stealth version.
            F-35B with 2 bombs of 454 kg

            F-35V does NOT take off vertically. And it additionally takes the same 2 AIM-120 into the internal compartments.
            And in addition, you can hang weapons under the wings, so that the maximum is much more than 1000 kg.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2021 17: 26
            +1
            Quote: EvilLion
            I didn’t lift the MiG-29 for 4500 kg, 3000 was declared, in fact 6 missiles, I don’t even know how to get these kgs with 6 suspensions at all. This is the MiG-29M

            Quite right. Because if the Yak-141 ever went into production, its analogue would be the MiG-29M, and not the first series of the MiG-29
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 10 February 2021 08: 38
              +1
              The problem with the carrying capacity of the MiG-29 is not in thrust, it is still more on takeoff than in any transport aircraft or bombers, but in the structural strength. It can be strengthened by increasing the resource along the way, but at the same time the weight will also increase, which for a vertical is a much more serious problem, leading not only to a decrease in flight performance, but to the technical impossibility of taking off vertically, or with a short take-off run in general, which deprives the very idea of ​​such an aircraft. -or sense.
        3. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 9 February 2021 12: 01
          +1
          "Aha. That's what the Americans as the main fighter of the conquest
          air superiority spanks the F-15EX. Already so inconspicuous :)))))))) "
          ----
          This is false information and you know it.
          The new modification of the F-15 has nothing to do with gaining air supremacy.
          It is a heavy flying rocket platform with 28 explosive rockets.
          The F-15 cannot maneuver with such a load of rockets on an external sling.
          It was created to conduct a massive rocket attack on enemy aircraft
          by external target designation. Without moving forward and without conducting air battles.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 9 February 2021 13: 49
            -1
            It’s not funny for yourself?
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2021 17: 25
            0
            Quote: voyaka uh
            This is false information and you know it.

            This is true information taken directly from the F-15EX manufacturer's website. There is a link to the material, which indicates that the F-15EX is intended to replace the F-15C / D, that is, to replace the air supremacy fighter.
            Boeing website https://www.boeing.com/defense/f-15ex/
            gives a link to this material DAF awards contract for first lot of F-15EX fighter aircraft
            which says
            The F-15EX will replace the oldest F-15C / Ds in the service's inventory.
            1. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik 9 February 2021 17: 51
              +1
              Yesterday I just went to this site and news. They clearly describe the role that is assigned to the F-15EX.

              UNRIVALED WEAPONS TRANSPORT Unrivaled weapons certification and payload allow the transport of advanced weapons that cannot be carried in internal compartments, such as hypersonic weapons.

              From the news:
              “The F-15EX's digital backbone, open mission systems, and generous payload capacity fit well with our vision for future net-enabled warfare,”Said Dr. Will Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. “Continually upgrading systems, and how they share data across the Joint Force, is critical for defeating advanced threats. F-15EX is designed to evolve from day one. ”

              “The digital basis of the F-15EX, open mission systems and high lifting capacity fit well with our vision future network war”Said Dr. Will Roper, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Purchasing, Technology and Logistics. “Keeping systems up to date and how they communicate between the Combined Forces is critical to countering advanced threats. The F-15EX is designed to evolve from day one. ”


              Ps Who is from Russia, does this news normally open for everyone? I only have a VPN.
              https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2272575/daf-awards-contract-for-first-lot-of-f-15ex-fighter-aircraft/
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 February 2021 09: 39
                +1
                Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                Yesterday I just went to this site and news. They clearly describe the role that is assigned to the F-15EX.

                This is not a role, it is an opportunity.
            2. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 9 February 2021 19: 42
              +3
              This is the replacement of the old people being written off with new improved copies, "missile trucks", in order to support the number of combat squadrons.
              To gain air supremacy, a completely new aircraft is being built: the NGAD.
              AD = Air Dominance.
              It will replace the F-22. And, of course, there will be stealth too. yes
              The Air Force built the new fighter under its Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, which aims to build a jet that would supplement, and perhaps even replace, the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion 10 February 2021 08: 39
                0
                Do you admit that the F-35 is unsuitable for air superiority?
                1. voyaka uh
                  voyaka uh 10 February 2021 11: 24
                  0
                  Sure. The F-35 cannot operate as an interceptor or fighter for air superiority due to its low speed characteristics. It is an analogue of the F-16, but with significantly higher capabilities than the F-16.
                  In group air combat, however, the F-35 is capable of successfully fighting a group of any 4th generation fighters due to radio stealth.
                  1. EvilLion
                    EvilLion 11 February 2021 08: 22
                    0
                    Then why all this advertising campaign for the F-35, as an aircraft that will replace everyone from the A-10 to the F-15? It turns out that they lied. The F-16 of the early versions is a relatively fast aircraft, not faster than the top ones, like the F-15 and Su-27, but not slower than its counterparts, and the F-35, both in weight, thrust, and functionality, is most of all like a "superhornet" on the new tech. level.
                    1. voyaka uh
                      voyaka uh 11 February 2021 10: 07
                      +2
                      The F-15 has never been on the F-35 replacement list.
                      There were F-16, Harrier and F-18. And A-10.
                      With the F-16 and Harrier, the replacement took place. From F-18 - partially, on
                      aircraft carriers will be one F-35 squadron and two F-18 squadrons
                      (including Growler).
                      A-10 - failed, too different tasks.
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 February 2021 09: 43
                +1
                Quote: voyaka uh
                To gain air supremacy, a completely new aircraft is being built: the NGAD.
                AD = Air Dominance.

                Not. Because before Ngada it was like before China on all fours through Paris, but it may be necessary to ensure air supremacy tomorrow. And that is why the F-15S / D are being replaced by EX. And in combat squadrons, no one will retrain fighter pilots for bombers.
                Quote: voyaka uh
                It will replace the F-22.

                That's it. And, since the F-22 is still serving and serving, but the available quantity is obviously insufficient to ensure air supremacy, EX
        4. mmaxx
          mmaxx 10 February 2021 18: 13
          0
          Thailand is tightly tied to the United States. Wouldn't give him anything to buy.
      3. EvilLion
        EvilLion 9 February 2021 11: 48
        +2
        Learn the physics of a rocket flight, not read about 100500g. Even in ranged combat, maneuvering is essential.

        Aerobatics usually stems from the thrust-to-weight ratio, but the Yak-141 has none.
      4. Intruder
        Intruder 9 February 2021 14: 40
        -1
        It is still unrealistic to "twist the missile", therefore stealth technologies are of primary importance, which reduce the possibility of capturing radar and IR seeker missiles, electronic warfare, anti-missile V-V, and, in the future, laser defensive systems.
        but why twist it, because the overloads are not comparable for maneuvering with the pilot on board, but as a shock carrier, high-precision weapons (short and medium range) with the ability to take off and land on light ships without a catapult and a deck, it’s the most ..., plus, and where it is expensive to build GDP and on land and it is technically impractical, or temporary bases with sites in the zone of local conflict, all sorts of jungle / forests and mountains ...
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 9 February 2021 11: 45
      0
      "Phantom" to twist for the plane of the 80s no problem.
    3. Intruder
      Intruder 9 February 2021 14: 31
      -1
      I think that such aerobatics with a change in the thrust vector for one attack: hit-miss. And on the Yak-141 at low speeds, with the afterburner turned on, I can very energetically "twist" turns. "
      an excellent phrase, he would have a new engine with OVT and avionics, according to the last word in our troubled time, it would have come out quite successful, sea-VTOL with shock functionality, and now there are no light aircraft carriers with helicopter carriers, no air carriers, sadness great ... angry
    4. timokhin-aa
      9 February 2021 17: 03
      +1
      Maybe he could. Maneuverability there is noticeably better than that of the Yak-38. I quote Berne, "Yak-141: Supersonic vertical":


      Super Hornet flies almost on equal terms with the Su-30 with UVT
      Nothing would work
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2021 17: 28
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Super Hornet flies almost on equal terms with the Su-30 with UVT

        Where does this data come from?
        1. timokhin-aa
          9 February 2021 19: 54
          0
          Recently, the video was of Malaysian air battles.
          The Americans easily held their position for the attack.
          I am not suggesting that he is BETTER, no.
          Just close opportunities in a junkyard.
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 9 February 2021 19: 59
            -1

            Do you mean this video?
            There's only an F / A-18D Hornet.
            1. timokhin-aa
              9 February 2021 20: 43
              +1
              Yeah. Means wrong. Nevertheless, the aircraft is very maneuverable.
              1. OgnennyiKotik
                OgnennyiKotik 9 February 2021 20: 56
                +2
                Ok, thanks for the info.
                From the nuances of what he says on the video.
                Spent 3 dogfights with Su-30MKM on video. Only cannons were used. The F / A-18D won the ones that were on the video, but the pilot said that he had lost to the Su-30MKM more than once before. Hornet spent all battles with 2 PTBs, this is their mandatory rule.
                There is also a video of 1 dogfight from the MiG-29. The rules are the same, the results are the same. Of the minuses of the moment, I noted a small amount of fuel, it was only enough for 1 battle and the fact that the engines of the moment smoke a lot.
                In general, he rated our aircraft very highly, especially the Su-30, it is more difficult to fight only with the F-22.
          2. Lozovik
            Lozovik 9 February 2021 20: 43
            0
            Anything other than YouTube videos or quotes from forums? Comparisons of generalized maneuverability characteristics for H = 1000-5000m, for example?
            1. timokhin-aa
              9 February 2021 20: 47
              -1
              Are they generally available in the public domain? In my opinion, apart from comparing the F-15 and the Su-27, nothing like that got to the Internet, and there was only a graph.
              1. Lozovik
                Lozovik 9 February 2021 20: 56
                +1
                The graphs give the most complete picture of the characteristics of maneuverability, without them there is no point in comparison.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  9 February 2021 21: 20
                  0
                  This is clear. The question is that they are not there, but there are results of real training battles, with video. This is not enough, but it is at least something.
                  It is clear that the Su-30 is generally better in terms of maneuverability, otherwise is simply impossible, but the question is that Hornet may well fight against him in maneuverable combat. He's not far behind.
                  1. OgnennyiKotik
                    OgnennyiKotik 9 February 2021 21: 34
                    +1
                    In fairness, Hornet was piloted by an instructor pilot. Su and Mig are combat pilots in Malaysia. There is a video of Hornet (piloted by his student) fighting against F-15 and F-22. Against the F-22 says there is no chance at all, the F-15 depends on the pilot and the situation.
                  2. Lozovik
                    Lozovik 14 February 2021 11: 01
                    0
                    If the video was from the SVR-30M, then yes, at least something. And so, no height, no speed, no angles of attack ... What tasks did the player have? In what position is the U-B-VR switch?

                    I'm more interested in why the Yak-41 is worse than the Phantom?
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      14 February 2021 12: 47
                      0
                      There is no data, but there are results.

                      Phantom

                      Maximum speed: 1,280 kn (1,470 mph, 2,370 km / h) at 40,000 ft (12,000 m)
                      Maximum speed: Mach 2.23
                      Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,000 m)
                      Rate of climb: 41,300 ft / min (210 m / s)
                      Lift-to-drag: 8.58
                      Wing loading: 78 lb / sq ft (380 kg / m2)
                      Thrust / weight: 0.86 at loaded weight, 0.58 at MTOW

                      According to Yak, you will probably find the achieved and design indicators yourself, more precisely than on the Internet.
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 February 2021 13: 22
                  0
                  Quote: Lozovik
                  The graphs give the most complete picture of the maneuverability characteristics

                  not really. Those graphs of the Su-27 versus F0-15 are calculated erroneously, since they only take into account the wing area + mass + thrust. And in the Su-27, the fuselage is involved in the formation of the lift, or as it is correctly called, that is, its real characteristics will be better than in the graphs
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    11 February 2021 14: 51
                    -1
                    Any aircraft has a fuselage. In the same f-35, for example, he participates well.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 February 2021 15: 01
                      0
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      Any aircraft has a fuselage. In the same f-35, for example, he participates well.

                      Yes. But on the Su-27 the fuselage is specially adapted for this, but on other aircraft it is not. There is such a concept of "aerodynamic quality", and the calculation of the Su-27 / F-15 schedules does not fully take it into account.
                      1. Lozovik
                        Lozovik 14 February 2021 10: 45
                        +1
                        In almost all more or less modern fighters, the corps creates a significant part of the lift at high angles of attack.
                  2. Lozovik
                    Lozovik 14 February 2021 10: 42
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Those schedules Su-27 vs F0-15

                    I didn't quite understand why you and comrade Timokhin switched from the Su-30 vs F / A-18 to the Su-27 vs F-15. So what are those "graphs"?

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    are calculated erroneously, since they only take into account the wing area + mass + thrust.

                    This is impossible, since the calculations also require the coefficients Cy and Cx.

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    And in the Su-27, the fuselage is involved in the formation of the lift, or as it is correctly called, that is, its real characteristics will be better than in the graphs

                    The graphs in the airplane flight manual, maintenance, practical aerodynamics, and the manual for combat use were drawn up based on the results of flight tests and correspond to real ones.
          3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 February 2021 13: 21
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Recently, the video was of Malaysian air battles.

            It is clear, but I would not make far-reaching conclusions here. Pilot qualifications are very important.
            1. timokhin-aa
              11 February 2021 14: 51
              0
              The Malaysians fly well, specifically the Su-30 crews shook off the F-22. I don’t know just the same or not, which are in the video.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 February 2021 15: 03
                +1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                The Malaysians fly well, specifically the Su-30 crews flicked the F-22 off the tail.

                Well done, what to say! But still a comment from above
                Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                In fairness, Hornet was piloted by an instructor pilot. Su and Mig are combat pilots in Malaysia. There is a video of Hornet (piloted by his student) fighting against F-15 and F-22. Against the F-22 says there is no chance at all, the F-15 depends on the pilot and the situation.

                I don't argue with you, don't get it wrong. This is a discussion, not a dispute hi
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 10 February 2021 08: 45
        +1
        The Su-30 is two-seater, and its engines are rather weak compared to the American ones and the AL-41F from the Su-35. But in general "Superhornet" is still a slightly different plane, a large wing, low max. speed, but excellent takeoff and landing characteristics and horizontal maneuverability. Maybe, as an interceptor, he is not very much against the background of faster machines, but his task is rather to stand up for himself in shock missions.
  • Dmitry Zverev
    Dmitry Zverev 9 February 2021 09: 46
    -1
    Maybe in modern realities it is necessary to design new aircraft carriers for strike and reconnaissance naval UAVs? Than to teach pilots from scratch to sit on the deck.
    1. Intruder
      Intruder 9 February 2021 14: 35
      +1
      new aircraft carriers for attack and reconnaissance UAVs? Than to teach pilots from scratch to sit on the deck.
      it is necessary to do both ... in a complex, where it is necessary - to use UAVs, massively, where the possibility of combat losses is high from air defense and other ... "evil and fast", and in other cases - the use of optional: manned vehicles with VTOL, with the application of point .., with a low probability of meeting with air defense of a potential enemy and his allies! repeat
  • ares1988
    ares1988 9 February 2021 10: 21
    +3
    Is there any evidence that the Americans funded the Yak-141 program and received some technology as a result?
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 9 February 2021 11: 52
      +2
      The Americans officially bought the technology from Yakovlev's bureau for one
      million dollars.
      After the project was finally stopped in Russia.
      90-degree nozzle rotation principle helped design
      F-35. Nasal add. jet engines Americans replaced
      on a fan driven by the main engine.
      1. ares1988
        ares1988 9 February 2021 12: 35
        0
        And that's it, just take our word for it?
      2. Avior
        Avior 9 February 2021 12: 55
        +4
        Yes, this is the version widespread on the RuNet.
        Not confirmed by anything only.
        The Americans themselves refute it.
        Rotation of the nozzle was developed by Rolls-Royce a long time ago, and he did it for the F-35.
        It was about buying some blueprints, but it doesn't follow that the technology was used
    2. agond
      agond 9 February 2021 12: 01
      -3
      Yak-38 and its continuation Yak-41, these are stillborn aircraft, all had three engines, although at the very beginning it was clear that a more or less normal VTOL aircraft is possible with only one engine, at least for today this is so if the country needs a vertical takeoff, then it is necessary to build the aircraft according to the scheme, the only engine in front, its, the rotary nozzle in the middle (in the center of gravity), the cockpit is closer to the tail, behind the rotary nozzle the aircraft fuselage is slightly raised so as not to interfere with the release of gases in horizontal flight.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 9 February 2021 13: 49
        0
        And in my opinion, the F-35V has the best layout. Swivel nozzle and lift fan.
        1. timokhin-aa
          9 February 2021 17: 04
          -1
          There are better ideas than this one.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 9 February 2021 18: 12
            +1
            Examples for a supersonic fighter?
            1. timokhin-aa
              9 February 2021 19: 55
              -1
              Add. afterburner, add. nozzles, lifting on one engine.
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 9 February 2021 20: 34
                +2
                So it rises on one engine. (When necessary, to its shaft
                just attach a fan).
                Making an afterburner in front is a bad idea.
                What is important, the fan solves the problem of drawing hot gases into the air intakes (and with the f. Chamber it will become even worse).
                1. timokhin-aa
                  9 February 2021 20: 45
                  -2
                  The problem of gases is solved by the location of the air intakes in the right place, which in any case should be done if the plane is needed unobtrusively, and additional. air intakes on the principle of the same MiG-20, for example.
                  1. 3danimal
                    3danimal 9 February 2021 21: 02
                    +2
                    placing the air intakes in the right place

                    On the roof? Do you propose to block the horizontal air intakes during take-off / landing? How does this fit with the mitigation measures - need clean S-shaped air intakes?
                    In addition, the fan is more efficient.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      9 February 2021 21: 22
                      -1
                      How does this fit in with mitigation measures - need clean S-shaped air intakes?


                      It is quite consistent, the damper inside the fuselage. The fan is more efficient in terms of efficiency, it gives more thrust and is more stable, but in terms of the weight return of the aircraft, it will lose miserably.
                      1. 3danimal
                        3danimal 9 February 2021 21: 58
                        +2
                        The fan is more efficient in terms of efficiency, it gives more traction and is more stable

                        It turns out that with a shorter takeoff, you consume less fuel and take on a larger combat load.
                        And the afterburner on the front nozzles doesn't really simplify the design request
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        9 February 2021 22: 59
                        0
                        It turns out that with a shorter takeoff, you consume less fuel and take on a larger combat load.


                        No, I spend less fuel until the transition to horizontal flight, and it is not known how much, because no one built such aircraft.

                        But the fact that the maximum takeoff weight is of course, and it is undesirable to burden it with additional heavy structures is a fact.
                  2. mmaxx
                    mmaxx 10 February 2021 18: 18
                    -1
                    Air intake from above is elementary.
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal 11 February 2021 00: 09
                      +1
                      The fan gives you more thrust and you end up taking more combat load on a short takeoff.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 9 February 2021 11: 51
    +4
    Vertical yaks were ahead of their time.
    Rotation of the main nozzle by 90 degrees and additional
    the "lift" in the bow was a correct and revolutionary idea.
    The lack of software at that time that allows automating
    vertical takeoff / landing.
    In manual mode, the accident rate is high.
    1. maximghost
      maximghost 9 February 2021 14: 14
      0
      In fact, on the Yak-38, vertical takeoff was quite automated, despite the absence of a computer.
      By the middle of operation (approximately by the appearance of the yak-38m) and reliability reached an acceptable level.
    2. Nestor Vlakhovski
      Nestor Vlakhovski 9 February 2021 17: 42
      +2
      The lift engines in the bow caused more problems, at low altitude their exhaust gases entered the air intake of the main engine, which significantly reduced thrust.
      In this regard, the fan drive is much safer, although it makes the design of the aircraft more complicated.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 9 February 2021 12: 24
    0
    Interesting look. But -
    And it remains only to regret that the political leadership of the USSR did not show sufficient political will,.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 9 February 2021 12: 26
    -1
    Quote: voyaka uh
    The Americans officially bought the technology from Yakovlev's bureau for one
    million dollars.


    They just bought it, the F-35 is a bit like the Yak-43.
    1. Avior
      Avior 9 February 2021 12: 47
      +6
      Not at all like
      Completely different aircraft.
      Moreover, there was no Yak-43.
      The left silhouette picture on top of the Internet wanders unless, from nowhere, it came from
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 9 February 2021 12: 28
    0
    Quote: EvilLion
    Even in ranged combat, maneuvering is essential.

    Can you clarify at what stage it is needed?
    The example of the F-14 says that the plane is a platform for weapons, and unnecessary requirements can only worsen it.
    1. Nestor Vlakhovski
      Nestor Vlakhovski 9 February 2021 17: 29
      +2
      The example of the F-14 speaks only of a complete failure of the variable sweep wing concept.
      1. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 13 February 2021 07: 40
        0
        Such a good "failure". As a long-range interceptor and heavy attack aircraft, the F-14 was not bad at all.
        1. Nestor Vlakhovski
          Nestor Vlakhovski 14 February 2021 00: 32
          0
          This aircraft, which was quite good in air combat, had difficulties with maintenance and a low resource of both the airframe and engines. Exorbitant payment for high, but unclaimed flight performance.
          Because of this, it was quickly written off and replaced with a much simpler supernet.
          1. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 14 February 2021 04: 41
            0
            32 years in service - any plane would be flattering just as "quickly enough" to leave the stage. And we can only talk about the simplicity of the "superbest" in quotation marks. We are now so smart, and we know that the KIS is not the best solution, but even now the Tu-160 was again launched into production, and at 70 it was normal, especially for an aircraft whose main purpose was Tu-16 and Tu-22 ...
            1. Nestor Vlakhovski
              Nestor Vlakhovski 15 February 2021 01: 40
              0
              32 years in service - any aircraft would be flattering just as "quickly enough" to leave the stage.
              All his contemporaries (F-15, F-16, F-18) are still in production and will serve for a very long time.
              The F-18 is very simple to maintain, because it is purchased by some countries even for the ground air force.
              Resuming the production of Tu-160 is not a sweat of a good life, you look at the flour with the Su-57 and Il-112, then it will become clear that there is no talk of serious development of a new bomber.
              The "resumption of production" itself raises no less questions. For the new Tu-160 was assembled from Soviet-made parts.
  • BMP-2
    BMP-2 9 February 2021 12: 34
    +1
    Considering that the best is the enemy of the good, and the worst is the enemy of the good, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend, it turns out that the best is the friend of the worst and the good is not on the way with these friends!)
  • iouris
    iouris 9 February 2021 13: 59
    +3
    There is nothing to discuss. It is known that the Yak-38 at a high outside temperature could not rise at all. Radiuch action something 90 km. The Kh-23MR rocket is ridiculous. WWII level. It's amazing how it was adopted in the USSR.
    1. timokhin-aa
      9 February 2021 17: 05
      -1
      It is known that the Yak-38 at a high outside temperature could not rise at all.


      This was decided back in 1980.
      1. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 13 February 2021 07: 53
        0
        "It was decided back in 1980" - if memory does not fail - with oxygen? Of course, oxygen tanks are the right place on VTOL aircraft ..
        1. timokhin-aa
          13 February 2021 13: 04
          0
          The result is important - the planes flew. There are oxygen cylinders on combat aircraft in almost all, for various purposes, for your information.
          1. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 13 February 2021 16: 19
            0
            Yes, it’s not the problem that all planes have them, all other planes have a sufficient range, but on the Yak-38 every kilogram was counted, and only extra oxygen cylinders were not enough there. And as far as I remember, it was not possible to completely solve the problem - at a high outside temperature and high humidity, the thrust at the start dropped sharply.
            1. timokhin-aa
              13 February 2021 20: 41
              -1
              I fell, which is why they later upgraded to "M"
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 9 February 2021 14: 55
    0
    This vehicle would never have been able to conduct a maneuverable battle with the Phantoms, as the base attack aircraft Yak-38 could not.

    The MiG-17 could successfully maneuver the battle with the Phantoms, but the Yak-38 not?
    An aircraft that can be maneuvered like a helicopter is incapable of maneuvering combat with such a heavy machine as the Phantom?
    For long-range aerial combat, the Phantom will have complete superiority, for interception too, but combat maneuvers?
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 13 February 2021 07: 54
      0
      The MiG-17 could, but the Yak-38 could not. Quite obvious. MiG-17 and MiG-21 outplayed the maneuverability, and the Yak-38 iron, which are few, besides with a microscopic radius - "Phantom" and outplayed the MiG-21 in its ability to conduct a long maneuvering battle, and the Yak-38 for long maneuvering in general not able to.
  • Hippo
    Hippo 9 February 2021 15: 01
    +1
    "So, the MiG-29K is enough for today."
    As Shtyrlitz said: "It was with this question that we had to start."
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 9 February 2021 15: 19
    -1
    Quote: iouris
    There is nothing to discuss. It is known that the Yak-38 at a high outside temperature could not rise at all. Radiuch action something 90 km. The Kh-23MR rocket is ridiculous. WWII level. It's amazing how it was adopted in the USSR.

    And who of the rest of the Soviet aircraft in general could rise vertically without an aerodrome at all outside temperatures?
    The radius can hit 90 km, but it could take off and land even closer to the target (like a helicopter), and for other planes it is necessary to hit the aerodrome.
    1. iouris
      iouris 9 February 2021 20: 50
      +2
      What combat missions can an almost unarmed aircraft perform, which can only take off and land? The main combat aircraft should be easy to fly, but here everything is too complicated and too dangerous. If this is a lesson, then a lesson must be learned.
    2. mmaxx
      mmaxx 10 February 2021 18: 22
      +2
      For these 90 km, a column of dust from the takeoff of the Yak-38 was visible. And sitting down among the dust was a problem. And engine wear from this damn dust. Ordinary pilots of the Yak-38 were simply sent away.
  • hostel
    hostel 9 February 2021 15: 51
    +1
    Vertical aircraft is squalor from aviation. The end of the article is correct. MIG-29k is quite sufficient, and for the future there is a MIG-35.
  • ironic
    ironic 9 February 2021 16: 07
    0
    The fact that the F-35B is a technological copy of the Yak-141 is of course speculation. The research results of the Yakovlev Design Bureau were most likely used, but the rotary nozzle and the engine were developed in the USA back in the 60s.
    1. timokhin-aa
      9 February 2021 17: 06
      -1
      I didn't write that copy. I have not even written about the alleged borrowing of technology.

      I wrote about scientific and technical data. Well, and some design solutions to study cleanly.
      1. ironic
        ironic 9 February 2021 17: 12
        0
        The very fact of transferring certain technical data developed in the 141st project was not even officially hidden by both design bureaus. But if you look closely at the design of both engines, and not only the rotary nozzle, as well as the design of the fuselages and wings, it is easy to understand that if it was with help, it was cosmetic.
  • The eye of the crying
    The eye of the crying 9 February 2021 17: 10
    0
    this program was quickly financed by the Americans.


    Again these tales ...
    1. agond
      agond 9 February 2021 18: 13
      +1
      Minuses instructed minuses for criticizing the Yak-38 and Yak-41, but they have no argumentation, in this case it cannot be at all, I repeat, during vertical takeoff or landing, three engines increase the probability of an accident three times compared to a single-engine aircraft, it is an axiom who disagrees with it or is far from aviation or is cunning.
    2. timokhin-aa
      9 February 2021 19: 56
      -1
      It is a fact. They paid for the information, and the OKB used this money to complete post-Soviet prototypes.
  • Nestor Vlakhovski
    Nestor Vlakhovski 9 February 2021 17: 58
    -3
    "If I knew the buy-in, I would live in Sochi."
    In general, the concept of light and cheap aircraft carriers with "vertical aircraft" in the conditions of a scoop was much more robust than the shooting of classic aircraft carriers with horizontal landing aircraft.
    But they could not bring to mind anything, a strategy for the long-term development of the armed forces was simply absent, from which the navy for objective reasons.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 9 February 2021 18: 22
    +3
    Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
    The example of the F-14 speaks only of a complete failure of the variable sweep wing concept.

    The idea of ​​a platform with a powerful radar and armament in the person of the F-14 fully justified itself. But variable geometry is a tribute to fashion, like a dead-end branch in the development of aerodynamics. That does not detract from the quality of the F-14.
  • Devil13
    Devil13 9 February 2021 18: 57
    -4
    the mig-29k does not even pull on the F-18SH. there is a su-33. It is proven that it can take off. Replace it with su-30SM with an engine from 35 ,, su-34, and voila. Because 29, that 33 take off with an incomplete ammo, literally with 2-4 missiles and half a tank. It's not even funny.
    And yes, well, not a country in the third world to think about aircraft carriers. Only about palaces and pensions, where are there.
    1. Lozovik
      Lozovik 9 February 2021 19: 49
      +2
      Quote: Devil13
      Because 29, that 33 take off with an incomplete ammo, literally with 2-4 missiles and half a tank

      During flight tests of the Su-27K, a maximum take-off weight of 31000 kg and a maximum landing weight of 25000 kg were obtained.
    2. timokhin-aa
      9 February 2021 19: 57
      +2
      And yes, well, not a country in the third world to think about aircraft carriers. Only about palaces and pensions, where are there.


      Are you stamped somewhere or what?
  • marat2016
    marat2016 9 February 2021 20: 16
    0
    Yak-141 could find a customer: 1. Export: India, Argentina, Brazil at least. Perhaps the PRC. Less likely Spain and Italy with France. 2. In the presence of a series of the Russian Navy, they could take a little.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 9 February 2021 20: 44
    0
    Quote: yehat2
    To understand what potential the USSR had, it is worth remembering the Yak-40, which Yakovlev made, and in a short time.

    the Yak-40 project was created in cooperation between the Beriev and Antonov design bureaus (An-Be-20), but due to the loading of these, it was transferred to Yakovlev, who grabbed hold of it, as in the traditional theme he was losing ground over and over again. Antonov was not very interested in this aircraft, considering that 3 engines in this dimension are redundant.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 9 February 2021 20: 47
    0
    Quote: agond
    three engines increase the probability of an accident three times compared to a single-engine aircraft, this is an axiom, who disagrees with it or is far from aviation or is disingenuous

    8 engines 8 times (B-52),
    1. timokhin-aa
      9 February 2021 21: 24
      +1
      And 10 engines (B-36) tenfold! laughing
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 9 February 2021 21: 23
    +1
    I showed the articles to a person who was involved in the topic of aircraft-carrying cruisers.
    He is famous in aviation, but he asked not to be named.
    Here is his commentary, albeit with some cuts that are not entirely relevant to the topic;
    "I read it and smiled. I largely agree with the first part. But the second is sheer fabrications. Baku was built for the Yak-41", on which gas outlets for the PD and PMD were provided in the flight deck. The basing of these machines on the first three steamers was not considered - the afterburner exhaust would have burned it down once or twice. There was never any question of any modification of these three steamers for the Yak-41.
    With the Yak-41 itself, things were delayed because of the PMD - it did not work for the Soyuz. ....
    The basing of the Yak-41 was considered on the "Tbilisi", but for vertical take-off only from one position with the gas shafts, and so - only the WRC. The Yakovlevites insisted that their apparatus could perform an FQP directly from a technical position across the deck. And they decided to demonstrate this in September 1990 at "Baku". They were in a hurry, they did not want to do any preliminary testing and checks, for which they paid ...
    I am sure that the fateful role in the fate of the Yak-41 was played by M.P. Simonov, who and the MiG-29K successfully survived from the deck.
    At that time, the yaks had to focus on carrier-based AWACS aircraft, they had two projects and they would be out of competition. But they didn't want to.
    I will say briefly about the Yak-39 - the article contains nonsense about it, the author clearly fantasizes, not understanding the essence of creating an aviation complex. And no one seriously dealt with it. So, painted, figured and dumped. This car did not appear in business letters. "
    1. timokhin-aa
      10 February 2021 10: 10
      0
      Under the Yak-41 they built Baku ", on which gas outlets for PD and PMD were provided in the flight deck.


      There were no gas outlets, and the heat-resistant coating could be replaced if necessary.

      The Yakovlevites insisted that their apparatus could perform an FQP directly from a technical position across the deck. And they decided it


      This was an "emergency" option, as the technical positions did not have a heat-resistant coating. So in the end, they never did even with one aircraft.

      They were in a hurry, they did not want to do any preliminary testing and checks, for which they paid ...


      So what happened? The Yak's accident on deck was during landing due to the high landing speed. The landing gear struts through the tanks.

      Something is obscuring your expert ...
  • A_Lex
    A_Lex 9 February 2021 22: 23
    0
    But investing in "perspective" must be deliberate. Progress does not exist for its own sake, but for the sake of increasing combat effectiveness. Moreover, in the case of such an organizational and complex system as "aircraft-ship" - to increase the efficiency of the entire system. And within a reasonable time frame.


    This whole story with the TAVKR and VTOL aircraft was untenable for one reason.
    You can build an aircraft carrier that is functionally similar to an American aircraft carrier. But it is difficult to build a VTOL aircraft that is functionally similar to an American carrier-based fighter. A fighter is more complex than an aircraft carrier's runway. Instead of taking a simple path, the USSR went through a rather difficult path, threw a lot of time, effort and resources into it and, as a result, did not achieve the necessary functionality.
    Choosing a difficult and risky path is a mistake, especially when the adversary has an advantage in resources and overall scientific and technological potential.
  • Taoist
    Taoist 9 February 2021 23: 06
    +3
    I'm embarrassed to ask, on the basis of what did the author draw his profound conclusions?
    The Yak 39 was really ready - but there was no meaning in it from the word at all. Just for the reason that nothing more serious than "sapphire" could fit in there - and this single-channel station was already considered unsuccessful and outdated. And in fact, the presence of such a radar did not give any serious advantages (except that interception at night was a little easier) - and the weight of the station stole an already small payload. By the way, there was no particular need to change the wing (this is fiction) - while maintaining the propulsion system, the wing of a larger aspect ratio only worsened the vehicle's carrying capacity in vertical modes and worsened the placement of the vehicle in the ship's hangar. An increase in the number of suspension assemblies also did not make sense with the available combat load. The cannon, yes, was installed, but it was GSH 23L in the ventral gondola ... There is simply nowhere to put the HP-30 on the Yak. And most importantly, there is no need.
    Additional reconnaissance of goals? How may I ask? A radar that doesn't work on the ground at all ...? With a range of 30 km? Modernization for X25? How? ... 520kg of launch weight ... Where should the container with the guidance system be hung? Or purely by locators? so why drag your own radar for this? which already gobbled up that same payload weight ...
    The 38th was originally created as actually "experimental" - there was practically no backlog for modernization - it was possible to modernize the engines a bit - Emka appeared .. which was already a little bit like a combat vehicle ... But it was a dead end initially - that's why the 39th itself and hacked to death at the stage of "pictures".
    Was the 41st mistake? Here I disagree with the author for the second time. The lag in its development rested on the engines ... as soon as the issue was resolved, the car was brought very quickly ... (and in this the experience of the 38th helped extremely) - if it were not for the well-known events already in the 90s, the regiments would be rearmed ... our regiment was already preparing to change materiel. And we received on the decks of TAKRs quite full-fledged complexes for providing both air defense and strike missions. The fact that the 41st was inferior in the WB Phantom, let it remain on the conscience of the author ... On subsonics, the phantom and the 38th would not twist ... Well, with Hornets ... the question would definitely not be one-sided ... According to the possibilities of leading BVB 41 is quite comparable to the MiG-29, in any case, the pilots frankly compared them ...

    so this article can only be regarded as "the author's fantasy on a given topic"
    1. timokhin-aa
      10 February 2021 10: 30
      -2
      The Yak 39 was really ready - but there was no meaning in it from the word at all. Just for the reason that nothing more serious than "sapphire" could fit in there - and this single-channel station was already considered unsuccessful and outdated. And in fact, the presence of such a radar did not give any serious advantages (except that interception at night was slightly simplified)


      It just made interception easier at night, what a trifle.
      In reality, the difference would be the same as between Harrier and Sea Harrier in the Falklands. That is, it is fundamental.

      By the way, there was no particular need to change the wing (this is fiction)


      The model had a different wing.

      The cannon, yes, was installed, but it was GSh 23L in the ventral gondola ...


      And what does not suit you in this? The Americans still have 20 mm.

      Modernization for X25? Why? ... 520kg starting weight ...


      This is not the starting weight, but the weight in the shipping container, you are probably mistaken because of the age. the launch weight was almost the same as that of the Kh-23, the control container could be hung under one wing, the missile under the other, as well as the Kh-23 and Delta-NG. There is no difference in terms of masses and loads. The question is in the aircraft avionics and that's it.

      Or purely by locators?


      For example, yes. And what is wrong?

      the engines were given a bit to modernize - Emka appeared .. which was already a little bit like a combat vehicle ... But it was a dead end from the very beginning - that's why the 39th itself was hacked to death at the stage of "pictures".


      They hacked him down because the Yakovlevites since the 70s wanted to cover this topic in favor of a supersonic aircraft.
      In the end, if the R-28V-300 did not have enough thrust, the R30V would be developed much faster than the engine. for the 41st.

      if not for the well-known events already in the 90s, the regiments would be rearmed ...


      Yeah, somewhere around 1995-1996. What I am writing about. The grandmothers would be whipped into the plane, for which there are really two carriers left. Despite the fact that the 39th boo was commissioned much earlier. In reality, even under the USSR, I would have begun to fly, until the 90s.

      And yes, the Yak-39 was not planned for "Sapphire".

      On subsonic, the phantom and 38th would not twist ...


      In 311 okshap we tried to twist the carousel with the Americans on the Yak-38. Whatever it was, the amer just scoffed, somehow he managed to get in the tail once, he immediately pulled away.
      Phantom, yes.

      so this article can only be regarded as "the author's fantasy on a given topic"


      A fantasy turned out to be the Yak-41, which REALLY did not get into aviation.
    2. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 13 February 2021 16: 31
      0
      "By the way, there was no particular need to change the wing (this is a fiction) - while maintaining the propulsion system, the larger wing only worsened the vehicle's carrying capacity in vertical modes and worsened the placement of the vehicle in the ship's hangar."
      - in in! So everyone thought. Well, why the heck is a vertical wing? The fact that the VTOL aircraft was fundamentally incapable of fighting, somehow did not reach anyone. What was needed was not a VTOL aircraft, but an SKVP - a short take-off and landing aircraft like the Harrier and the F-35V, and such an aircraft needed a new wing like air. Well, maneuverability would have added a little. And the lifts could have been altered, and the British were tormented like a hangar on the Invincibles, but they did not give up the Harriers. And the main thing is that the British did not make a secret from the Invincible, and the tests of the Kestrel on the Arc Royal were known, and the plans to equip the Harrier with a new wing were known, and the springboard on Farnborough was shown - nobody noticed it here.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 13 February 2021 20: 42
        0
        Well, why didn’t it reach ... that is why it didn’t make sense to modernize the 38th ... and the 39th version was abandoned ... after all, it’s not only in the wing, but the general layout did not allow something serious to be done. And completely re-arranging the car is no longer an upgrade, but a new aircraft - which, in fact, was done in version 41. By the way, the impossibility of operating the 41st from the ships of the old project is also somewhat exaggerated ... For the takeoff of the WRC, even gas outlets are not needed ...
        1. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 14 February 2021 04: 45
          0
          Even visually, you can see how small the Yak-41 has a wing.
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 14 February 2021 17: 52
            0
            This is an optical illusion ... or rather, there is no such thing as a "small wing" - there is a "specific load" - among other things, the 41st is already an "integral layout" - ie. there, the fuselage is already involved in the creation of lift ... The wings of the 38th and the 41st are quite sufficient in area, compare them, for example, with the wing MiG 21 and MiG 29 ...
    3. Lozovik
      Lozovik 15 February 2021 22: 13
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      The Yak 39 was really ready - but there was no meaning in it from the word at all. Just for the reason that nothing more serious than "sapphire" could fit in there - and this single-channel station was already considered unsuccessful and outdated.

      What kind of sapphire? There is a big difference between RP-22S and N019.

      Quote: Taoist
      And in fact, the presence of such a radar did not give any serious advantages (except that interception at night was slightly simplified)

      And what was on board the Yak-38? ASP-PFD. Accompanying shooting at a maneuvering target cannot be conducted, we do not know how to give target designation to the heads, at night and in the SMU we cannot attack the VC. Opportunities for the destruction of air targets are near-zero.

      Quote: Taoist
      In terms of its capabilities, the 41st BVB is quite comparable to the MiG-29, in any case, the pilots frankly compared them ...

      The mass is greater, the wing and sagging is less, the visibility is worse, there is no OPRNK.
  • d1975
    d1975 9 February 2021 23: 09
    +1
    Everything is more or less clear, but it is not necessary to send ships on a needle of mind, but is building new ones? If someone is eating stars, then it is necessary! We have to go our own way, and we keep catching up all the time, and we need a doctrine. We do not know how to take care and do not appreciate what is, but the fact that Humpback stupidly filled up everything that can be done on R&D, how is it? For the army and the navy, one should not be sorry, but competently solve and discuss problems.
  • Pamir
    Pamir 10 February 2021 00: 18
    +1
    Everything is probably correct, but it would not hurt to bring the YAK41 series up to six or eight units, YAK39 two or three units, build a barge with a deck, and test the whole twin at sea, and then draw conclusions, you need, you don't need to. The theory is good as with on the one hand, and on the other hand, but it would not be superfluous to conduct full-scale tests. It happened that the generally accepted unpromising at first glance received a start in life and recognition. But without testing the nature-product, it is somehow not very good to guess.
    On the new project of VTOL aircraft, questions immediately arise-
    1) At what strength of wind is possible for landing and take-off, the maximum speed of the carrier of the wing, at what intensity of the impact of the wave for the carrier, and precipitation on the vertical air-cross, for our northern seas it is vitally important.
    2) Leverage range is also an important component.
    3) Possible, fuel-combat load of crosses per unit, in conjunction with the possible range of use of new air-to-surface missiles. Should be at least three times superior in comparison with the samples of the USSR.
    4) The problematic component in the need to consider the possibility of conducting vertical-air crossings of maneuverable air combat and air-to-air missiles, without covering fighters.
  • Comrade Kim
    Comrade Kim 10 February 2021 00: 19
    +2
    Quote: yehat2
    I specifically cite examples of only machines that were actively put into operation, and how many cool prototypes there were!

    That's right!
    If then they thought only about "titmouse", they would still walk in bast shoes on the ground.
    PS Many would like to put a noose around his neck for this filthy "Gorbachev" by the verdict of the people's court, and they make plays about him, and the Moscow, perverted public throws their caps up.
  • clerk
    clerk 10 February 2021 13: 16
    +1
    If by example, after the start of the construction of the "Kuzi", it generally made sense to curtail all work on new VTOL aircraft and operate what is there until it is completely worn out. Then send TAKRs for repair and alteration like "Baku" for India. But as for the claims to the current Ministry of Defense, it is desirable to see not ordinary vague hints, but concrete facts
    1. timokhin-aa
      10 February 2021 14: 28
      0
      then it is desirable to see not ordinary vague hints, but concrete facts


      Practice shows that even if you poke your nose into specific facts, you do not see them point-blank.
      1. clerk
        clerk 10 February 2021 15: 03
        0
        So what about the specific facts regarding the claims to the Ministry of Defense - will or will everything be limited to your duty officer blah blah blah and drape from the conversation in essence?
        1. timokhin-aa
          10 February 2021 15: 09
          +1
          A specific claim is the admission to the combat strength of the "Thundering" and "Tsydenzhapov" with limited combat capability in one case and incapable of combat in another radar.
          1. clerk
            clerk 10 February 2021 15: 20
            0
            This claim is justified, but explain - how does this relate to the topic of the topic (within the meaning)?
            1. timokhin-aa
              10 February 2021 17: 40
              -1
              But as for the claims to the current Ministry of Defense, it is advisable to see not ordinary vague hints, but concrete facts


              What was this and for what reason?
              1. clerk
                clerk 10 February 2021 17: 54
                0
                It seemed to me that we have already passed the stage of sorting out the relationship in the style of "myself", or do you want to return? Can we still specifically discuss how much the claim for non-ready corvettes is similar to the situation with VTOL aircraft?
                1. timokhin-aa
                  10 February 2021 17: 58
                  0
                  I have no complaints about today's Ministry of Defense in terms of VTOL aircraft. The Ministry of Defense, represented by the scientific structures of the Air Force and the Navy, sabotages this sawmill as best it can. so far successful, all research has been reduced to several powerpoint presentations and a demonstration of the Yak-41 engine at the Army-2020.
                  The problem, however, is that not everything is solved in the Ministry of Defense, this particular topic is ruling from another place altogether.
                  1. clerk
                    clerk 10 February 2021 18: 14
                    0
                    According to the text, it seemed to me that you want to talk about the advisability of replacing the MiG-29, if Russia masters the construction of a new AV to replace Kuzi
  • Technical engineer
    Technical engineer 10 February 2021 13: 21
    +1
    Explain to me why an aircraft with avionics, including radar and armament, IS SIMILAR to that of the MiG-29, plus excellent acceleration characteristics could not fight the Phantom and Hornet? But this is exactly what the Yak-141 had onboard complex and the armament was identical to that of the MiG-29. Based on the author's opinion, we can say why the Su-27 was created, so many years, so much money, more than 10 lost during the testing of machines. That would develop the MiG-23. Well, there would have been a MiG-23MLLL and he could have organized a MiG-23mld to repel an F-15 attack in any way, and he could have fired the P-27 in the direction of the foe. ...
    1. mmaxx
      mmaxx 10 February 2021 18: 43
      0
      All the time, I don't understand the love for the MiG-23. The same iron. He didn't fly nifiga. Comparing with the Su-27 is simply pointless. It is enough to see both in the sky once.
      And 200 kg of cast iron in the tail haunts me ...
    2. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 13 February 2021 16: 38
      0
      By the time the Yak-41 reached the series, the Phantoms in the adversary fleet would have been gone for a long time. And the Hornet is not bad in terms of maneuverability, and in terms of radar and missiles, it’s not as abruptly as the MiG-29 and Yak-41 was, and even better in range than the Yak-41 ..
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 10 February 2021 14: 19
    -1
    Quote: iouris
    What combat missions can an almost unarmed aircraft perform, which can only take off and land? The main combat aircraft should be easy to fly, but here everything is too complicated and too dangerous. If this is a lesson, then a lesson must be learned.

    1. How easy it was to fly the Yak-38 in comparison with their peers Mig-23/27 and Su-11/15, only pilots can estimate. But Yak always had a chance of an emergency landing after such damage after which none of the other aircraft could do it.
    2. The Yak-38 has a takeoff weight of 10 tons and the combat load corresponded to this weight. In the weight category of the MiG-29 and even more so the Su-27, the aircraft turns out to be like the Yak-41.
    3. The tactical superiority of vertical takeoff / landing and maneuverability like a helicopter is such that the main lesson from history is that they liquidated with their own hands the most promising direction in the development of Soviet aviation in which they had great superiority.
  • Eug
    Eug 10 February 2021 19: 44
    0
    What serious modification of the Yak-36M can we talk about if they were not going to change the power plant? It was she who limited the capabilities of the VTOL aircraft. And the Yak, at least 41, at least 141, at least 43 (there was one), was distinguished primarily by the R-79B engine with a thrust of up to 19 tons. And the opportunities have skyrocketed.
    1. timokhin-aa
      11 February 2021 12: 19
      -1
      The project of the new engine was. And it would have been easier than put on the Yak-41.
      1. Eug
        Eug 11 February 2021 19: 55
        0
        I read that I was considering a modification of the AL-21, but in the end I refused. If we are not talking about that, can you give more details? The R-79 engine was also going to be installed on the C-37 - there was such a project of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, single-engine and with PGO, i.e. he was not bad.
        1. timokhin-aa
          11 February 2021 20: 31
          -2
          There was an intermediate between the Р28В-300 and Р79В-300 engine project - Р30В-300, with extensive borrowing of solutions from Р28. It would have been done faster.
          1. Eug
            Eug 12 February 2021 21: 10
            0
            Thanks, I didn't know. Surprised.
  • fomin
    fomin 10 February 2021 20: 37
    +1
    It is regrettable that "stupid" Americans will not read the opus of a respected author who authoritatively drove "an aspen stake into the Yak-38 and Yak-141" because these Americans who do not read such articles continue to develop this direction (having 11 nuclear "full-fledged" aircraft carriers) first These stupid Americans (as well as the British, etc.) purchase Harrier aircraft for the Marine Corps and build the Wasp UDC for them, then they go mad they make one of three modifications of the 5th generation aircraft, namely the F-35B aircraft with a short takeoff and vertical landing, and completely unbound from their ignorance (meaning I do not read articles by detailed Russian authors) they are building a new generation of UDC "America" ​​for these "verticals", troubadours, destroyed and continue to destroy the most powerful ships of our fleet and promising VTOL aircraft, aircraft for war in the face of massive attacks on airfield infrastructure In the structure, as well as aircraft for light aircraft carriers, UDC, and civilian large-tonnage ships mobilized in case of war, the Americans (and other countries), without looking at the Russians, continue to develop this direction, having made the correct conclusions from the experience of the combat use of Soviet TAKRs.
    1. mmaxx
      mmaxx 11 February 2021 03: 34
      +1
      Read your comment. And transfer it to our situation or in the days of the USSR. The modern UDC is a large ship and is intended for the landing of the Marine Corps. And the Marines want their own planes. And the use of VTOL aircraft is partly justified here. They should act shortly. Directly in the landing area or a little further. For their own purposes. That is, it is an analogue of German dive bombers. Plus some air defense in the landing zone or above the assault force. It's unpleasant when some stray enemy hits the ground with an Osprey with a bunch of green berets.
      We did not have and do not have such tasks. It would never occur to anyone to use UDC as light aircraft carriers. A pair of Burks with 60 Tamaghawks is enough. And the Americans have enough aircraft carriers to deliver some strikes in the very depths. Will someone send UDC for a landing without cover? It's only here that we can talk about UDC separately , separate aircraft carriers, etc.
      The price of VTOL aircraft in our conditions does not justify either their existence or the existence of ships under them.
      When there was a question about covering our compound with aviation, we worked out something. When they realized that it was possible, with all the same, to have ordinary planes over the sea, they began to tie up with this dead-end branch. This can be seen from what was built and designed.
    2. timokhin-aa
      11 February 2021 20: 32
      -1
      I do not even want to comment on this detachment from reality, I will have to knock too much on the buttons.
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 12 February 2021 14: 33
    0
    This program helped some people a lot.


    And what other than the concept?
    The lifting principle is different - the fan type.
  • Ilya Aksyonov
    Ilya Aksyonov 12 February 2021 14: 49
    0
    Airplanes of the future will have the ability to take off and land vertically using a screen effect. And they will fly in a cloud of plasma, so that streamlined aerodynamic forms will be unnecessary to them. Such aircraft will have a wide range of movement, from near space, to flights at the level of house roofs.
    Hanging on the spot and turning will be their hallmark in the storming of any objects, together with acceleration to hypersonic speeds in the plasma cloud from the spot.
    Interestingly, in horizontal flight they will be able to change altitude almost vertically, without a gentle descent and ascent.
    This will allow a new wing design, which will have a completely different flight control concept. So, in particular, on it front and back there will be nozzles of the detonation engine, plasma generator, which will allow you to rise and fall vertically, without shifting horizontally.


    1. Ilya Aksyonov
      Ilya Aksyonov 12 February 2021 14: 54
      0
      In the wing there are detonation engines that are located horizontally, and not, like in the nozzle of a standard engine in a circle, these detonation engines will create traction for the lifting force of the wing of the aircraft. The ekranoplanes have the same system, only there are separate engines in front of the ekranoplan.
      This is how the circuit diagram of the wing of such an airplane looks like, see the diagram -
  • squid
    squid 12 February 2021 15: 44
    +2
    Hosspadi, what's all the fuss about. After all, it is clear, even from the article, that verticals, in principle, as a class, were absolutely unnecessary. Were they even helpful? Perhaps, somewhere under some conditions, it would be better than nothing. Was the creation of a series of ships of 40+ thousand tons justified and the costs of developing separate vertical units for them? Of course not! Absolutely any alternative would be an order of magnitude better - an ordinary aircraft carrier for the usual MIG-23/29, even without catapults and in the same displacement, apl, rcr - whatever! And it does not matter at all whether it is a Yak-36/38/39/41/141/999 - the creation of such aircraft for the Soviet or Russian fleet is sabotage. And then and now. No, and we did not have any tasks for them. They are useless for a war with nato fleets. Even under the incredible conditions described by the author in the previous article, when we would be very lucky, and the enemy's fleet would passively watch our actions. To cover large amphibious operations - what and where are these operations supposed to be carried out? The admiral from the last article said absolutely correctly - "very bad aircraft carriers with very bad airplanes". Unsuitable for a war with America, for a war with Japan, for a war with anyone. Only fit to drown.
  • Sckepsis
    Sckepsis 12 February 2021 16: 52
    +1
    I totally disagree with the author. The Yak-38 was a test vehicle and nothing more. The fighting efficiency of the fleet was practically not added. While the 41st is a really fighting machine. And what if the carriers were 20 years old by the time it appeared? Is 20 years a sentence to the ship? How many "Nimitz" floats there? Or the same Peter?
  • tank64rus
    tank64rus 12 February 2021 17: 10
    -1
    Boeing paid $ 90 million in the 650s, having bought and then destroyed the Saratov aircraft plant. This plant was prepared for the production of the Yak-141, and it produced the Yak-42 and Yak-39. Already three times they started criminal cases but there is no sense.
    1. agond
      agond 13 February 2021 10: 16
      0
      A three-engine VTOL aircraft is bad, a single-engine VTOL aircraft is good, in fact, that's why Harier still flies, and let's say an F-35V with a lifting fan, the same is not purely single-engine, it is rather a 1.5 engine
      1. timokhin-aa
        13 February 2021 13: 05
        -1
        What is the fundamental difference? For lightning, this fan was simply laid horizontally and that's it.
        1. agond
          agond 13 February 2021 13: 23
          -1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          What is the fundamental difference?

          The difference is in the need to use a highly loaded drive, this is a "clutch" and an angular high-speed single-flow gearbox (that is, it is not planetary) and therefore less reliable, which generally reduces the reliability of the entire vertical take-off system, so the F-35B is called "one and a half engine"
          1. timokhin-aa
            13 February 2021 14: 30
            0
            This is a purely engineering difference, a difference in the execution of the "fan drive" solution. But the idea is the same - part of the thrust on takeoff is provided by a fan driven by the GTE shaft.
            1. Dmitry V.
              Dmitry V. 15 February 2021 14: 16
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              This is a purely engineering difference, the difference in the execution of the "fan drive" solution


              Difference in "hot" PD and "cold" fan:
              The hot jet of gases from the PD negatively affected the elements of the aircraft, the runway and did not allow the payload to be suspended under the fuselage.

              This is a very significant drawback of PD.
        2. Dmitry V.
          Dmitry V. 15 February 2021 10: 45
          0
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          What is the fundamental difference? For lightning, this fan was simply laid horizontally and that's it.


          The difference is that 2 lift motors are useless ballast for level VTOL flight.
          For the Yak-38, these are 2 engines of 410 kg for a total of 820 kg (the R-27V-300 turbojet engine weighed 1522 kg, and each RD-36-35F lifting engine - 411 kg each. In total, 2344 kg accumulated - 410 kg more than weighed "Pegasus" VTOL Harier).
          Rolls-Royce LiftSystem - fan and power train, just like lift motors, added LiftSystem components have their own weight (shafts, gearbox, lift fan itself and flap system - lift fan thrust vector control, plus injector system roll control when hovering), but the advantage of using the LiftSystem is that its large lifting thrust increases the F35B's maximum payload and the f135-pw-600's thrust, once lifting operations are completed, can be realized in level flight.
          LiftSystem is simpler, cheaper and more reliable than lifting motors.
          1. timokhin-aa
            15 February 2021 11: 54
            -1
            It's not about that, but about what is fundamental that Harrier and Lightning have the same idea - to screw the fan to the GTE shaft.
            It's just that with a fan at the inlet to the compressor, you can never go supersonic, so it was laid horizontally at the lightning and removed from the air flow going into the engine.
            1. Dmitry V.
              Dmitry V. 15 February 2021 13: 51
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Just with a fan at the inlet to the compressor, never go supersonic

              So I understand, dear Alexander, speaking in engineering terms, you want to say that: the cold part of the turbine in the F35 is designed according to the optimal parameters for supersonic flow, and if it was optimized for subsonic mode, then it will not go to the NW? It is obvious.
              But why is the conclusion that. hover mode not to be implemented on a remote control with a cold part of the compressor for SZ?
              This is not an obvious conclusion - I suppose, rather erroneous, although I did not have to design remote control systems for sound and SZ.
              Who said that it is impossible to implement the hover mode and UVVP on a remote control flow optimized for NW?
              And the F35B scheme with a lift fan fit perfectly into the layout and was relatively easily rearranged according to the vacated volumes for the F35C F35A - without a radical change in the airframe for the F35A F35C model - we put an additional tank or additional equipment and the alignment is preserved. This decision gave huge cost savings in production, which is now visible in the series.
              Total: one version of the airframe with minimal changes, one version of the power plant with modifications:
              F135-PW-100 for F-35A.
              F135-PW-400 for F-35C
              F135-PW-600 for F-35B
              High compatibility for airframe and remote control, versatility.
              As a former aircraft designer, I find the solution original and successful, sharpened for a mass production, although not ideal in terms of combat parameters for a classic attack aircraft and many times cheaper than developing a separate VTOL aircraft and a separate attack aircraft.

              .

              For me, as someone related to aircraft design, the decision to create the F35B and, on its basis, the F35C F35A is a model of competent design.
              For VTOL aircraft parameters F35B - beyond praise!

              We have a similar solution for the T-58VD (it was created on the basis of the first experimental Su-15, between the air channels, in a row, at an angle of 10 ° to the vertical, three lifting engines RD-36-35 with a thrust of 2540 kgf were installed - as a result, an experimental UVP fighter (Sukhoi Design Bureau).
              On the MiG-23PD (Inside the fighter fuselage behind the cockpit it was planned to install vertically two additional lifting engines RD36-35 with thrust of 2350 kgf each)
              In 1966-1967. on an experimental aircraft E-7PD

              That is not to say that this is the know-how of the Americans, but their implementation turned out to be successful.
      2. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 13 February 2021 16: 46
        0
        The "Harrier" also has a fan, only it is coaxial with the engine (more precisely, an integral part of the engine), and the thrust from it goes to the front rotary nozzles (without any afterburner, as some have suggested here). The Americans considered that a horizontal fan is more profitable for a supersonic SCVVP.
        1. agond
          agond 13 February 2021 18: 53
          -1
          The Harier engine does not have a transmission, a clutch, a power take-off shaft and a gearbox, so the VTOL scheme is simpler than that of the F-35B, it would be possible to make the Harier engine even easier if we abandon the fan with a low pressure circuit, but then the rotary nozzle of the lifting propulsion engine had to be exactly in the center of gravity., and this could be achieved by installing the engine in front, and the cockpit behind, as was done in single-engine piston aircraft
          1. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 14 February 2021 05: 20
            0
            Quote: agond
            The Harier engine has no transmission, clutch, PTO and gearbox.

            Nevertheless, the Yankees thought it would be easier. In addition, the Harrier was designed from scratch and was subsonic, and the F-35V was a variant of a conventional aircraft, and it was difficult to attach a huge air intake and swivel nozzles in the front to it.
            Quote: agond
            dispense with a fan with a low pressure circuit

            Single-circuit turbojet engine is a stone age. The creators of the Pegasus and Harrier understood this, and the creators of the Yak-38 understood this, but they had no choice.
            Quote: agond
            but then the rotary nozzle of the lifting propulsion engine should have been exactly in the center of gravity., and this ...

            And this is the Yak-36 without the letter M. That is still crap.
        2. timokhin-aa
          15 February 2021 11: 55
          -1
          with the Harrier scheme, supersonic is not realizable at all.
  • All the details
    All the details 13 February 2021 19: 44
    -1
    Why article. And so it is clear that there is not enough money, and if they are scrapped, then they are sawn, the staff dies - old age, the newest technologies "borrow", as before, is more difficult. Made MiG-29 reinforced, K-ship and flies. Why are Yaki - verticals? By the way, the F-35 is also expensive and raw.
    1. agond
      agond 14 February 2021 10: 44
      -1
      quote = Sergey Sfyedu] Nevertheless, the Yankees thought it would be easier. [/ quote]
      Harrer has a low-pressure fan (serves only for lifting) it is simpler and therefore more reliable than the F-35B lift fan, but the latter has a higher efficiency, which is why it was chosen, but in general I suspect that the story with the F-35B lift fan is unfinished , it is very likely that the developers will try to put a fan of the Harier type, that is, with a horizontal rotation shaft, especially since two or three such fans can be installed on one shaft, but of a smaller diameter than what is now on the F-35B
      1. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 14 February 2021 12: 08
        -1
        Quote: agond
        At Harrer, the fan of the low pressure circuit serves only for lifting

        Of course not. This is a normal double-circuit turbojet engine fan.

        Quote: agond
        but in general, I suspect that the story with the F-35B lifting fan is not finished, it is very likely that the developers will try to put a fan like Harier

        Incredible. Before building the F-35V, the Yankees carefully studied all the schemes, consulted both with the creators of the "Harrier" and with the Yakovlev Design Bureau, and came to the conclusion that the Yak-38/41 scheme was the most advantageous in terms of weight return, only the hot exhaust The turbojet engine negates all the advantages, which is why they stopped at the fan. The Harrier's swivel jets and huge air intake are not a gift either. Is the F-35V cardan shaft complicated and expensive? But it is mastered and works.
        1. agond
          agond 14 February 2021 12: 37
          -1
          Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
          and came to the conclusion that the Yak-38/41 scheme is the most advantageous in terms of weight return,

          The Yaks had only one clear plus, this is compactness, two small lifting turbojet engines along the axis of the aircraft practically did not increase the fuselage cross-section, everything else was disadvantages, and the Yankees wanted to get a universal aircraft with a vertical takeoff option, instead of a lifting fan of one type, they could supply another type or even put in their place an electric, a high-power generator and power a laser from it.
  • t7310
    t7310 14 February 2021 19: 56
    -1
    excess weight in the belly, which only for takeoff and landing makes them almost chickens, but how do you like this scheme? sits on the tail / takes off, brainwashing with engines in the middle that do not work during the flight never understood
    1. Baron pardus
      Baron pardus 14 March 2021 23: 19
      0
      Cool TV series. And the planes landing vertically on the tail were tested by both the Americans and the Germans. For some reason, this option did not receive development. An interesting version was washed down by the Americans, there was such an F-8 Crusader fighter. So, instead of a variable sweep of the wing, the angle of the entire wing changed there during takeoff and landing. Much simpler, cheaper and less space. Crusader is also known for knocking himself down. In the dive, he caught up with his own burst from the cannon and crashed into his own shells. But the plane is beautiful. I saw him on the Interpid Aircraft Carrier in New York - a handsome man.
      1. t7310
        t7310 26 July 2021 16: 33
        0
        Well, the F-8 Crusader is not about vertical take-off, but take-off from the tail solves the disadvantages of helicopters in speed and conventional verticals yak 38 yak 41 si harier in the range of maneuverability and again in speed
        1. Baron pardus
          Baron pardus 26 July 2021 17: 21
          0
          Read carefully, I wrote that on the F-8 it was not the sweep of the wing that changed, but the angle of the entire wing. By the way, in terms of maneuverability, it was not inferior to either Mig17, Mig19 or Mig21. 4 Sidewinder +4 20mm cannons - enough for a light fighter of its time. MiG-21 up to 80x more than four missiles Air The air did not lift
  • Baron pardus
    Baron pardus 14 March 2021 23: 16
    0
    I will express my opinion - two "lifting" engines - dead weight during flight and combat. Well, yes, the Yak141 has a supersonic afterburner. But, as we can see, "afterburner supersonic" plays a secondary role. The speeds of modern fighters of generations 4 ++ and 5. with afterburner, if they exceed the speed of F4E (2400 km / h), then not much. The Yak 141 circuit does not work very well on the F-35. With the THEN development of the engines, it was necessary to make the equivalent of the Harrier. If we compare the performance characteristics of the Harrier and the Yak 38, then they are not in favor of the latter, with the exception of the speed with the afterburner. Ammunition load is less, the radius of action is less. Less maneuverability, side sliding and other maneuvers that a harrier can do, Neither 38 nor 141 can. Harrier has proven his ability in several conflicts. Both as a fighter and as an attack aircraft. Even our Marine Corps, which is very critical of the adopted types of weapons, especially foreign ones, scored what the American airlines were offering and bought a license for the Harr