Austria plans to buy stolen Yaks from Italy to replace Swedish Saab 105s

Austria is considering a joint purchase of M-346 jet trainers with Italy, Austrian Defense Minister Claudia Tanner said. The Italian-made aircraft will replace the Saab 105s that Austria retired in 2020. Earlier in July, the commander of the Austrian Air Force said a decision on whether to buy the new trainer was expected soon.

The Saab 105 aircraft were retired after 50 years of service, creating problems in the training capabilities of the Austrian Air Force. To solve this problem, Austria joined the International Flight Training School, which uses the M-346.

According to official reports, the defense minister has launched a legal review of the potential partnership and instructed the military to begin talks with Italy. She also mentioned that such a partnership was first proposed by Italy.

Tanner stressed that a final decision on the aircraft type has not yet been made, as the L-39NG and T-7 are also being considered. The acquisition of the M-346 would have some advantages, such as the existing familiarity of Austrian pilots with the type and joint training.

Reports have also mentioned that Austria is looking for an aircraft that could be used not only for training, but also for aerial reconnaissance and as a light attack aircraft, complementing the Eurofighter. In fact, Austria is reportedly looking specifically at the M-346FA variant, an armed version that also comes equipped with a radar.

An Italian Air Force M-346A Master taxis to the runway.

Not the first joint deal

In the past, Austria has also cooperated with other countries on military procurement. For example, in 2021, Austria and Italy agreed on an intergovernmental deal to acquire the AW169M helicopter to replace the Alouette III.

It is reported that one of the reasons for concluding the deal was the interest of the Federal Ministry of Defence in a partner who would be ready to fully cooperate with the Austrian Armed Forces in all areas of operation of military aircraft and helicopters in order to be able to use the purchased aircraft cost-effectively throughout their entire life cycle.

In December 2022, the Austrian Ministry of Defence accepted delivery of the first AW169M helicopter and later exercised options for a further 18 helicopters, bringing the total number of AW169M light utility helicopters to 36. This is also the first export deal of this type.

The AW169M is planned to perform a wide range of missions to support the needs of Austria's defence and the population, such as troop transport, combat operations, disaster and emergency response, firefighting, mountain rescue and medical evacuation.

Similarly, during the Farnborough Airshow in July 2024, Austria and the Netherlands signed an agreement to jointly purchase nine Embraer C-390 transport aircraft. Specifically, the Netherlands will receive five aircraft, while Austria will receive four others. Austria will use these aircraft to replace its older C-130Ks, which were purchased second-hand from the Royal Air Force.

Deliveries will be made alternately between the two countries starting in 2027. The aircraft will have a similar configuration, although the Austrian ones will not have the ability to refuel from other aircraft, and their aerial refueling capabilities will be limited to the receiver only.

Archive photo of the Italian M-346A Master aircraft.

The M-346 Master was developed by the Yakovlev Design Bureau in collaboration with the Italian company Aermacchi. The Italian company's participation consisted of financing the project, and all the work was carried out by the Yakovlev Design Bureau. Aermacchi subsequently withdrew from the project at the final stage of development and, based on the stolen design and technical documentation for the Yak-130 airframe, created its own aircraft, the M-346; the Yakovlev Design Bureau completed the creation of the Yak-130 without a partner.

The aircraft, which many consider to be the most advanced jet trainer currently available on the market, brings many new technologies to improve the training of future 4th and 5th generation fighter pilots, including a state-of-the-art ground-based training system and Live Virtual and Constructive (LVC) technologies.

The aircraft is designed for advanced pilot training and is capable of reaching speeds of up to 1 km/h at an altitude of 060 meters. The M-11 is powered by two Honeywell F000-GA-346 turbofan engines with a thrust of 124 kg each. The aircraft's equipment includes three color displays in the cockpit, an Alenia Difesa avionics suite, and Martin Baker / SICAMB Mk. 200 ejection seats.

The Yak-130/M-346 Advanced Jet Trainer has revolutionized the world of training. In fact, it is not just a training aircraft, as in the past, but a fully integrated training system that includes both the aircraft and an advanced ground training system that complements the aircraft's capabilities and makes training more effective.

The GBTS, the fundamental part of the training system, is one of the most comprehensive ever created and consists of the Computer Based Training and the simulator network, which also includes the Simulation Based Training, Partial Task Trainer, Full Mission Simulator. Other ground devices are the Real Time Monitoring Station and the Mission Planning and Debriefing Station.

GBTS allows pilots to learn formation flying, basic maneuvers, advanced combat tactics, both day and night, without ever leaving the ground. This reduces the number of flight hours required to complete training for future fighter pilots on the latest generation of aircraft, reducing costs and increasing efficiency and readiness. fleet to perform operational tasks.

While cost reduction is important, the Yak-130/M-346 ITS is unique because it enables the creation of a Live Virtual Constructive environment, an integrated training environment where the real and virtual worlds merge into a single operational scenario in which pilots in simulators can interact with pilots flying real aircraft.

Thus, future Eurofighter and F-35 pilots will be able to simultaneously perform real flights (live), simulators (virtual) and simultaneously add different types of computer-generated threats (constructive).

The M-346 LFFA prototype lands after its maiden flight at Venegono Airport.

The M-346 has an integrated onboard Embedded Tactical Training System (ETTS) that enables the simulation of sensors, weapon, combat environment so that pilots can interact in real time with the tactical virtual landscape. The ETTS system includes advanced simulators of radar sights, data links, target designations and all types of sensors used on modern fighter aircraft.

In addition to the training version, Leonardo developed a combat version of the aircraft, called the M-346 FA (Fighter Attack), also known as the Lightweight Fighter Family (LFFA). The most noticeable differences from the standard AJT configuration are the two pylons missiles air-to-air wingtip pods, increasing the total number of hardpoints to seven, new antennas and a Defensive Assistance Subsystem (DASS).

The M-346FA variant is designed to retain all the dual-role capabilities of the AJT version already in service with the Italian, Israeli, Polish and Singaporean air forces, while also incorporating some new features such as a tactical datalink, a Grifo-346 multi-mode radar, new hardened radios and identification friend or foe system, and a more robust airframe.

The aircraft is proposed to be used for internal defense/air policing, interception of slow-moving aircraft and UAVs, direct aviation Support (CAS), Counter Insurgency (COIN), Forward Air Control - Amphibious Assault (FAC-A), Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR), Interdiction, Battlefield Air Interdiction (BAI), Tactical Air Support of Maritime Operations (TASMO) and Tactical Reconnaissance, can carry over 2 kg of weapons.

At the 2024 Farnborough International Airshow, Leonardo announced the launch of a comprehensive capability enhancement package for the M-346. This quality upgrade comes after the M-346 fleet surpassed 100 flight hours and ten years of service.

Both the M-346 AJT (Advanced Jet Trainer) and M-346 LFFA (Light Fighter Family of Aircraft) variants will benefit from these enhancements for a wide range of applications, while leaving significant upgrade margins for future developments. A Leonardo spokesman said: “M-346 T Block 20 and M-346 F Block 20 are the designations for the new standard of both aircraft.”

The standard M-346 Block 20 cockpit will be completely updated, including two large area displays (LADs), one for each operator station, replacing the existing six multi-function displays (MFDs), as well as a low-profile head-up display (HUD). These will be combined with a new digital video recorder and data recorder, as well as a new augmented reality helmet-mounted display (HMD).

The M-346 Block 20 will also receive a new navigation system, weapons control system, flight management system, IFF transponder, and identification friend or foe system. Specifically, for the M-346 F variant, further critical capability improvements include an AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar with fire control capability, integration of new weapons for both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions in addition to an integrated missile data link.

A Leonardo spokeswoman said the new Block 20 standard will not be limited to the platform itself, but rather the entire system, including the ground-based training system.

Interestingly, the company also added that the work will be carried out through the widespread implementation of AI-based digitalization.

Comments

[Reklastik]

And what do the "stolen" Yaks have to do with it? Each participating company legally received a set of documentation for the basic version of the aircraft when leaving the Yak-130 development project.

[Genak]

Of course it's like - we'll go to yours first and then everyone will eat their own. After finishing the work on the glider, the partners leave the project so as not to share the development of electronics;)

[Reklastik]

What should she share? Put foreign electronics on a Russian combat training aircraft?

[Dutchman Michel]

partners leave the project to avoid sharing electronics development

And the engine too

[ramzay21]

The Italian company's participation consisted of financing the project, and all the work was carried out by the Yakovlev Design Bureau. Subsequently, Aermacchi withdrew from the project at the final stage of development and, based on the stolen design and technical documentation for the Yak-130 airframe, created its own aircraft, the M-346.

They cheated me again!

[Sumotori_380]

They led me by the nose!!!!!!!!

[parma]

Wait, wait... In fact, the Italians paid Yak to develop the airframe, after the work was completed, both parties received the right to use the developments, where is the theft?)) Well, when the Chinese turned on the copying machine and began producing the Su-27/J-11, there was no theft, but here there is?)

[Stas157]

Quote: parma

In fact, the Italians paid Yak to develop the glider.

It was very little money by today's standards.

[paul3390]

In the "holy 90s" - this was a lot of money. If it weren't for them, we wouldn't have the Yak-130, or maybe even the Yakovlev Design Bureau itself. The pasta makers simply snatched it up in the confusion, but all questions about why this happened - in my opinion, are better addressed to our leaders of those times... Many of whom are still in power.

[Bad_gr]

In general, there are all sorts of incomprehensible things about the Yakovlev Design Bureau. They sold the rotating nozzle that is now installed on the F-35 to the Americans, and even with the system for balancing the aircraft during hovering (there was such information). According to their documentation, the Chinese are producing a clone of the Yak-130 (Hongdu L-15) (although the engines on them have an afterburner and the aircraft began to reach supersonic speeds). And there is some murky history with the production of the Yak-152.

[MCmaximus]

If they hadn't sold it, they would have sold their building and liquidated themselves. But they lived to see it bought by Irkut. And now, look at that, KB.

[wladimirjankov]

So they agreed to these conditions themselves.

[parma]

And? Did the Chinese pay enough for the Su-27? Or, say, India for the Su-30 and T-90? Or Korea for the S-350? Maybe the Czechs and Poles paid enough at the time for the BMP-1 and T-72, the same ones that are now in the Ukrainian Armed Forces? The Italians paid for the development of the airframe, and received an airframe. An airframe, not an airplane! They installed the avionics and engine themselves, and modified the airframe themselves…

[alexmach]

Did the Chinese pay enough for the Su-27?

It looks like they didn't pay anything at all, did they?

Or let's say India for Su-30 and T-90?

Definitely yes.

Or Korea for the S-350?

Also most likely yes.

Maybe the Czechs and Poles paid enough at the time for the BMP-1 and T-72, the same ones that are now in the Ukrainian Armed Forces?

And here, most likely yes.

[parma]

I can't give you exact numbers now, but as far as I remember, China bought a license for 200 aircraft at a rate of about $60 million per aircraft (which, by the way, was a pretty reasonable price for those times, but they wouldn't have sold them the F16/15 or other modern aircraft, especially with a license), India bought Su-30s at a rate of $30-35 per aircraft (which is not much, but for us it was a very necessary contract that saved the design bureau). The Indians took T90s for $3 million per aircraft (which is also a pretty good price). There's just one problem - China also wanted a naval Su-33, but ours refused. Then the Chinese bought prototypes from Kyiv and, taking into account the available documents for the Su-27, made their own carrier-based version. And after the license expired, they continued churning out aircraft.
It’s hard to say how much of a market price tag it was for the Korean C350, since only part of the complex is ours.
As for Czechoslovakia and Poland - they received a license as allies in the Eastern Bloc... it's like talking about Dutch F-16s, except that NATO survived the Cold War and the US didn't flush relations with its recent allies down the toilet...

[alexmach]

China bought a license for 200 aircraft at a cost of around $60 million per plane (which, by the way, was a very reasonable market price at that time).

Oh, really? I didn't know that. It turns out they actually bought it and didn't just copy it.

Well, even after the license expired, they continued to make cars.

Well, that's clear. I repeat, you were surprised that it turns out there was a license at all.

I also completely agree with the other assessments, including the Czechs and Poles.

[dimon642]

The Italians, compared to the Yakovlev Design Bureau, have been producing light jet aircraft for a long time. The Yak130 was developed on the basis of an Italian aircraft.

[Pioneer1984]

Don't write nonsense. The Leonardo company, which was a participant in the project from the Italian side, never designed airplanes.

[dimon642]

Due to disagreements with the Italian partner, the joint development was terminated at the final stage; each of the companies received documentation for the basic version of the future aircraft (airframe), after which they released their own versions of the aircraft: Aermacchi built the M-346 trainer, and the Yakovlev Design Bureau built the Yak-130 combat trainer. L'Alenia Aermacchi retained the rights to distribute and market the aircraft worldwide, with the exception of the CIS (including Russia).

[dimon642]

Type Leonardo company and read about its activities. Turbo patriotic nonsense can have problems.

[Pioneer1984]

What should I type? In the aviation field, Leonardo was involved with helicopters, this is a well-known fact.

[SovAr238A]

Leonardo appeared after 2000.
It emerged as a result of the merger of the entire Italian military-industrial complex into one conglomerate.
Agusta was in charge of the helicopters.
Since 52.
Made the first in Europe and the third in the world combat helicopter. In the early 80s.
Made Merlin together with the English

[Pioneer1984]

Leonardo (formerly Finmeccanica) is one of the largest machine-building holdings in Italy. The holding's structural divisions carry out orders in the fields of defense, energy, helicopter manufacturing, telecommunications and transport.

[SovAr238A]

What came before Leonardo?

Are names like Agusta, Alenia, Selenia, Melara unknown to you at all?
It's like you're a know-it-all, but your knowledge only starts in 2023...

[Pioneer1984]

Do you ride an armored train?

[SovAr238A]

No, it's you who have a 50mm plate in your forehead...

[Pioneer1984]

Leonardo is a group of companies that includes:

Leonardo SpA (Italy);
Leonardo UK Ltd (Great Britain);
PZL-Świdnik [English] (Poland);
AgustaWestland (Italy);
Philadelphia Co. (USA);
Kopter Group AG (Switzerland);
DRS Technologies is an American subsidiary that provides products, services and integrated support to the military, intelligence and defense industries;
MBDA (25%)—a joint venture with BAE Systems and Airbus Group (37,5% each) for the production of missile systems;
Telespazio (67%) and Thales Alenia Space (33%), two joint ventures created with Thales within the Space Alliance to provide satellite services and to manufacture satellites and orbital infrastructures;
ATR is a joint venture with Airbus Group for the production of short-haul aircraft;
Leonardo Global Solutions SpA (Italy);
NHIndustries SAS (France);
Orizzonte Sistemi Navali SpA (Italy);
Elettronica SpA (Italy, 31,33%);
Hensoldt AG (Germany, 25,1%);
Avio SpA (Italy, 29,63%).

[SovAr238A]

What are you talking about?
Leonardo's company did not exist in those years.
Find out when Leonardo appeared in the Italian military-industrial complex, and from the merger of which companies it eventually emerged.

There was Aermakki with a huge history.
Here is an airplane 339 produced in the 70s.
Was 326
Was 311
There was 211 with Sia-Marchetti.

[Pioneer1984]

Did you know that Leonardo (formerly Finmeccanica) is one of the largest engineering holdings in Italy. The holding's structural divisions carry out orders in the fields of defense, energy, helicopter construction, telecommunications and transport? And that Aeromacchi is one of the divisions of this concern? Alenia Aermacchi is an Italian aerospace company. It was a division of Leonardo-Finmeccanica, also operating in the aerospace industry. On December 31, 2015, it merged with Leonardo-Finmeccanica.

[SovAr238A]

Again.
The European military industry began to collapse by the early 2000s.
Therefore, processes began in Europe to unite disparate military companies into concerns.
They were never branches.
They were always independent companies that were later merged.
25 years ago there was no BAE systems.
There was no Leonardo.
There was no Thales.
There was no Nexter.
There was no Lockheed Martin
There was no Northrop Grumman.
There was no Saffron.
There was no ThyssenKrupp.

Did not have..
They haven't formed yet.
There were other names and other companies.

Can you understand this?

[Pioneer1984]

Who are the Italians? The Leonardo company, which was a participant in the project from the Italian side?

[Mikhail Nasharashev]

I agree. Just something to write about. They financed it. Why stolen?

[Ig sura]

One place to finance nothing intellectually without creating another just stupidly transfer money and then calculate the profit they refused to release it was not they who simply stupidly had it besides don't forget for this plane we had to develop our own engine it didn't materialize and the Italians simply cut money during this time because an airplane without an engine is a pile of metal besides don't forget also electronics had to be developed so the Italians stole and during this time they cut money until the Yakovlev Design Bureau found a developer of electronics and an engine not an equivalent exchange essentially deception and theft you when you come to a car dealership give money and want a car but essentially you only have to hand over the documentation and you are not entitled to more this is what your license looks like but you receive both documents and products so the Italians stole essentially

[Mikhail Nasharashev]

I can't agree. You need to read the agreement, what and how was written in it. We don't know this. Theft is when they took something without the owner's consent. Was this true?

[2al]

Well, there is also Hongdu L-15 and again developments of Yakovlev Design Bureau. In fact, Yakovlev Design Bureau was able to sell the Yak-130 project to foreigners twice. At the same time, Hongdu L-15 is also significantly cheaper than Yak-130.

[Reklastik]

Well, there is also Hongdu L-15 and again developments of the Yakovlev Design Bureau.

- I didn't know that. Thanks for the information.

[alexmach]

Yeah... the fact that they were able to sell twice is certainly good. But the fact that both "brothers" are more advanced than the Yak and sell better is very, very disappointing.

[vadimtt]

Marketing, after-sales service, avionics. What is Yakovlev's strength in, who was tossed and beaten like a child?
So there's nothing offensive about it.

[alexmach]

Marketing, after-sales service, avionics

It would be half the trouble if only that were the case. There are also engines, radars, in general everything turns out to be better, that's why it's a shame.

[Mikhail3]

Are there any excerpts from the contract to confirm this version? Well, that everything is legal?

[Reklastik]

Are there any excerpts from the contract?

- You see, such documents are usually marked "confidential", so, as a rule, for us, who have nothing to do with such contracts and works, there is no such information. However, you can look for more accessible sources, for example, I remember that in the early 2000s they wrote about this in the official Russian press, something like "Military Parade" or something like that. In addition, this is not a version, these are not detective investigations.

[Mikhail3]

Quote: Reklastik

you see, such documents are usually marked "confidential"

I understand, that's why I asked) The thing is that journalistic writings are not a source at all. Well, not at all. You never know who, for what pennies and on whose orders irresponsibly lied.
Because someone specifically made two hundred bucks on this, and the whole situation as a whole is stupid and shameful. They decided to play at capitalism, but they should be sitting in the sandbox and pouring dog-pooped sand on their stupid heads from a shovel. So they called over a journalist with a gentle kick, telling him - write that everything is legal, we are not what we are, but skilled managers and cool businessmen.
And to repeat after journalists is also, to put it mildly, irresponsible. Of course, there is always hope... but hope is only our earthly compass. But in general, they fooled the silly suckers and left laughing. Alas...

[Reklastik]

Journalistic writings are not a source at all.

- Journalists are different, there are empty ones, and there are those who take their profession seriously. I wouldn't consider all of them as writing for 200 bucks. Besides, you can make as many hypotheses as you like, and all of this will be empty fantasies if you can neither confirm nor deny them. Therefore, your question about "excerpts from the contract" in light of what you said about journalists... Well, who will give you a guarantee, and will you be completely convinced that this is not a sham? Even if they give you these excerpts? And what will they give you in light of your ignorance of the development history of the Yak-130? New reasons for mistrust?

[Mikhail3]

Quote: Reklastik

journalists are different,

That is, not a source. And you can neither confirm nor deny your unsubstantiated assumption that everything was "legal". But here we see that what happened is in blatant contradiction with simple logic, which is what I wrote about.
I don't need any guarantees, I just look at what happened and see huge leaps in logic - our famous design bureau, which was still in full force at that time, could not have disrupted the design. The only logical construction on this basis is that the stupid thieves screwed up their part - instead of a normal contract, a stupid rip-off was concluded, thanks to which the design bureau was completely humiliated and the working materials were stolen with impunity.
In order to refute an absolutely clear logical line, you introduce the wild assumption that “everything was legal” (on the basis of what law can you screw up like that?!), in support of this nonsense, inserting the chatter of some journalists I don’t remember.
Enough already) How much more can you disgrace yourself...

[Reklastik]

Well, you are the only one who is embarrassing yourself here. You could have scoured the Internet space accessible to everyone. And found, for example, this: https://rg.ru/2020/04/25/iak-130-pochemu-letaiushchaia-parta-stala-malenkim-uzhasom-nato.html. This is the first thing I found right now. You have problems not even with formal logic, but with common sense. You are not able to search, find, compare and draw conclusions yourself. You demand evidence from others. You do not accept anything from journalism as sources. It seems that you live on your own fantasies and conspiracy theories. Well, good luck! And this ... Really - why are you embarrassing yourself?

our renowned design bureau, which was then still in full force, could not disrupt the design

- What is your assumption based on that it could not disrupt the design? On the fact that you decided so yourself?

The only logical construction on this basis is that the stupid thieves screwed up their part - instead of a normal contract, a stupid rip-off was concluded, thanks to which the design bureau was completely brought down and the working materials were stolen with impunity.

- where are the options that speak for or against your wild assumption? Why don't you provide them? I don't see any "logic" in your reasoning.

[Mikhail3]

Scour the internet to find what? Journalistic chatter? Which we've found out can't prove anything? Page 404 helps a lot)) Oh my god...
On what basis did I assume that the design bureau could not have disrupted the design? On the basis of previous and subsequent works of the design bureau) Which have material confirmation, as opposed to someone's chatter.
Ugh, Christmas tree...

[Reklastik]

Scour the internet to find what? Journalistic chatter? Which we've found to be inconsequential?

- You figured it out for yourself. Not me.

[Mikhail3]

I already understood. You are a wizard. A person who does not recognize objective reality and believes that if he REALLY wants, then reality will shift. It will not shift. Planck's constant in our part of the Universe is too high. Sorry)

[Reklastik]

No, the bar has shifted. In your magical reality

[Glagol1]

Not exactly. The Italians took the documentation to pay off the debt in the joint venture. But questions remained about the offset value. The debt was $50 million, and the documentation was valued at $75-80 million. And this is a greatly understated price, a production aircraft cost $10 million at the time. The difference remained unpaid. Yakovlev could have fought for these $25-30 million in arbitration, but for some reason he did not. So we can say this: partially stolen Yaks.

[Reklastik]

Yakovlev could have fought for these 25-30 million in arbitration, but for some reason he did not do so.

- This raises questions, of course. But "Yakovlev" didn't do this. It's unlikely that it was just like that.

[Glagol1]

Reklastik, you are right. At that time, it was quite a lot of money. I can assume that something happened somewhere else. We were friends with Italy back then, and the Kremlin, first of all, did not want to quarrel in arbitration.

[Reklastik]

The Kremlin, first of all, did not want to quarrel in arbitration

- Well, in the military field and politics, it’s clear who writes the rules.

[Mikhail3]

Quote: Glagol1

The Italians took the documentation to pay off the debt to the joint venture.

The contract was terminated on the initiative of the Italians, right? What kind of debt could there be under the joint venture in such a scenario? It doesn't work at all. This could only work if our side specifically failed to fulfill some of its obligations. Was that so? Did ours disrupt the design?
Because if not, then if the Italians want to leave, here's God, here's the threshold, and a pole across your back, not money, documentation or anything else. To break a contract, you need really good reasons, desire is not enough here, instead of compensation, some partner usually files a lawsuit, and also cuts a lot from the money that's leaving.

[Glagol1]

Mikhail3, you are right in spirit. But according to the letter of the contract, which I have not seen, there may be a clause on the right of a participant to withdraw with the settlement of accounts. Such norms apply. When signing the joint venture, the Italians could have pushed through such a clause. Maybe there was a plan from the very beginning...

[Mikhail3]

Yes, it can be. And I wrote about this from the very beginning. About stupid, low-quality, unselfish thieves who are only good for sweeping the yard, not signing contracts. When one party gives money in a contract, and the other - work, to include such a clause in the contract is either sabotage or extreme stupidity, because this clause is an invitation to robbery. Which was done by smart businessmen on a pathetic sucker. That's what we were talking about.

[Ramadan]

"And what do the "stolen" Yaks have to do with it? Each participating company legally received the documentation set for the basic version of the aircraft when leaving the Yak-130 development project." - this is called clickbait. This is when the title differs from the content, for the sake of more reading of the article.

[Reklastik]

This is when the title differs from the content, for the sake of more reading of the article.

- in any case, it is not true and therefore not nice.

[alexmach]

This is called clickbait. It is when the title differs from the content, so that more people read the article.

And what is typical, it worked.
For example, I came here only to discuss who stole what from whom :)

[puteovii]

As I understand it, some people are still ashamed of the "borrowing" of the airframe in the case of B 29 - Tu 4, B1 Lancer - Tu 160, Spaceshutle - Buran, Concord - Tu 144, Eurofighter - Mish 1.44.

[Nexcom]

Of the things you listed, only the Tu-4 is the result of reverse engineering. That's right - reverse engineering and not blind copying.

[puteovii]

They simply recognized the Tu 4. Otherwise, we are all idiots. The rules and laws of thermodynamics simply do not allow us to make another glider. They were there, they sailed.

[Huron]

Don't judge by yourself. Or are all the boilers ripped off the samovar?

[Monster_Fat]

My God, what are you arguing about here? It's obvious that the article is written in line with the now obligatory trend of belittling everything "Western" and exalting everything "ours", even if this "ours" is not quite "ours" and even if it is not "ours" at all... (sorry, it was a pun)....

[Anatoly_P]

When Belenko stole the MiG-25 to Japan, the Americans copied it completely, but they were never able to make the same one! And what does the F-35 look like and what developments was it based on, can you tell me?

[puteovii]

The MiG-25 disappointed the Americans. They were afraid of it like a scarecrow. But in reality it was a dud.
What does the F 35 look like?

[Luminman]

When Belenko stole a MiG-25 to Japan, the Americans copied it completely, but were never able to make the same one!

They were convinced that this was possible and, for sure, it somehow influenced the course of their engineering thought. This would be if suddenly we got our hands on a prohibited for export F-22, we wouldn't have been able to copy it either, but we would have probably taken some interesting solutions from it and applied them here. And why would they copy it? They have pretty good machines themselves...

[alexmach]

They were convinced that this was possible and, for sure, it somehow influenced the course of their engineering thought.

Well, yes. Having had the A-60 since the 12s, they didn't even suspect that this was possible.

[dimon642]

Why did they need it? There was and is the F15, SR 71. Moreover, the F15 was a real aircraft with great potential.

[alexmach]

The Americans copied it completely, but they still couldn't make the same one!

Haha. Why would they make the same if they have
1. had their own "archangels" and what is characteristic is no worse
2. There was no enemy against whom such an aircraft would really be needed.

[Nexcom]

And no one hid the fact that the Tu-4 was a reverse-engineered B-29. It was also impossible to simply copy it because, for example, the B-29's duralumin thickness was 1/16 inch, and the Soviet industry did not produce rolled duralumin of such thickness - either thinner or thicker - we have a metric system, not an inch one. It is impossible to make a fuselage from thinner material, the strength will suffer, from thicker material - the weight will increase, more powerful engines will be needed to haul a heavier aircraft, fuel efficiency will deteriorate and the range will decrease. Therefore, Soviet engineers and designers had to solve a difficult problem and partially redesign the aircraft using the technologies and materials that were available at that time. And this was not such a trivial task to redo a lot in a short time and launch it into production. Many Soviet components (aileron drives, for example) had to be adapted to the "American" wing design. But outwardly, yes, it certainly remained like the B-29.

[dmitryaves]

Is it just me, or are you confusing thermodynamics with aerodynamics? Or are they the same thing to you? And there is also hydrodynamics! My God! How can you not get confused?!

[dauria]

Add aerohydrodynamics. There is such a thing. And there will be a complete set. Until the gas behaves like a liquid (that is, it is not compressed). And these are the subsonic speeds of the aircraft.

[Woroshilow]

As always, you confuse hot with sweet. In the case of the B-29, as has already been written, it was reverse engineering. For all the other aircraft you listed, we had neither a working prototype nor technical documentation for them, so these are entirely our developments, or rather those of a once great country that has sunk into oblivion, unfortunately.

[karabas-barabas]

Quote from Woroshilow

For all the other aircraft you listed, we had neither a working prototype nor technical documentation for them, so these are entirely our developments, or rather the developments of a once great country that, unfortunately, has sunk into oblivion.

It is true that everything was created from scratch in the USSR for these aircraft. But the aircraft concept itself, the shape and size of the airframe were nevertheless copied in the shortest possible time. For example, the Tu-160 with the B1A. That is, these are not completely Soviet developments, but rather copies of what intelligence saw on their own element base. And they acted in this way on many aircraft models.

[Woroshilow]

Well, of course, in your opinion the AK-47 is the German StG 44 (Sturmgewehr 44), right? Well, what are you looking at, the buttstock is there, the barrel is there, the pistol grip is the same, the forend is almost the same, that's what a plagiarist Kalashnikov is, for sure! He copied everything from the Germans.

[karabas-barabas]

Well, yes, the mirror image resemblance from the B1A is pure coincidence. No one claims that the AK-47 was copied from the Stg 44, they just look at the 25-year-old Kalashnikov and the experienced, world-famous gunsmith Hugo Schmeisser with his entire team, who were in the USSR during the creation of the AK-47. Most likely, Schmeisser helped bring the AK to a suitable model for serial production. There is nothing shameful in the fact that the USSR and other countries copied each other, or tried to copy advanced weapons, this was especially true for the USSR, which for obvious reasons, since the tsarist times, then the revolution, collectivization, World War II, lagged behind in all disciplines for the creation of modern weapons at that time, and people like Schmeisser were simply a huge help.

[Polyssenator]

It's obvious that they were swimming.

[Reklastik]

I would really like to see "blind copying" of at least the same Tu-4. How is that?

[Nexcom]

This is apparently with closed eyes.

Absolute copying is impossible. An airplane is not a tablespoon, you can't copy it exactly - the limitations are imposed by the technologies and materials that the country that is going to reproduce the product has... An airplane is a complex engineering object. Therefore, in any case, there will be differences from the original in terms of characteristics.

[Reklastik]

I think you'll have to figure out what and how to do it in any case when doing reverse engineering. Figuring out what and how it's made and works is the same as doing it yourself. The word "copying" itself is inapplicable here.

[Nexcom]

That's right. Reverse engineering is not copying. It is a whole study of an engineering object, starting with materials science research and ending with strength research. At the same time, it is more expedient to use a number of mechanisms of your own production after adaptation - this is also a whole study and hard work of redesign. And if you take into account that there were no 3D scanners then, it was hellish work on manually measuring all the parts and creating technical documentation for them for future production....
And yet, everything had to be disassembled down to the smallest detail... And not to break anything during disassembly. The Soviet engineers had a hellish job back then.

[Woroshilow]

Soviet engineers had a hellish job back then.

The times and people were completely different then, not like the current tribe. Inspiration, thirst for knowledge, literally burning with their work.

[novel66]

Considering also that the B-29 is in the inch system, and the Tu-4 was redesigned to millimeters

[Nexcom]

You are absolutely right - converting from inches to the metric system was a real pain in the ass.
I wrote about this above.

[dauria]

Also consider that even such a simple thing as rolled duralumin sheets differed in thickness. And also the difference in strength standards. By the way, that is why our glider turned out a little heavier. Every time we had to overstate a little. And this is only the glider.
And since we're talking about copying...our Li-2 is a licensed copy of Douglas...

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Considering also that the B-29 is in the inch system, and the Tu-4 was redesigned to millimeters

Later versions. The first is an exact copy, except for the engines and weapons.
Do not confuse with Li-2.

[Glagol1]

Stalin ordered to copy 100% - then they strictly followed. But in the end there were still differences:
1. We used our own engine, ASH-73TK
2. The radio equipment was also different.
3. Camera. We used ours, albeit a simpler one.
4. And materials. The Americans had everything in inches, and we had it in mm. When choosing serial alloys, we had to settle on thicker ones. As a result, the Tu-4 turned out to be almost a ton heavier. Nevertheless, the machine was a success and 1200 of them were made!
At that time, the B-29 was so far ahead of everything around that copying it was justified. Our aircraft industry made a leap in development - the USSR had never built such aircraft before. In fairness, we should say that the USSR twice, in 1944 and 1945, tried to officially purchase the B-29, but the Americans refused.

[Reklastik]

Yes, I know the history of the Tu-4. But it was not and could not have been blind copying.

[Flying]

Eurofighter - Mish 1.44.

Learn the story

[puteovii]

Eorofighter prototype. Eurofighter itself. And the moment is 1.44.

[Flying]

This is a MODEL, the project was called TKF-90. The project is thoughtless (just look at the layout of the fins), it didn't go beyond the model, Messerschmidt's descendants were no worse at window dressing than he was.
What exactly do you think was copied? Is the F-15 also a copy of the MiG-25 by that logic?

[Reklastik]

Messerschmidt was no worse at deception than he was.

- Who did Willie deceive or mislead and when?

[Flying]

With their disastrous planes. Bf.110, Me 209, Me 210, HA300, etc.

[Reklastik]

These are questions for the Ministry of Aviation, not for Messerschmitt. So are you talking about the Bf or the Me?

[Flying]

So the fault for the low performance of the products does not lie with the designer?

So are you talking about Bf or Me?

Bayerische Flugzeugwerke not connected with Messerschmitt?

[Reklastik]

So the fault for the low performance of the products does not lie with the designer?

- It's funny to blame a designer who worked during wartime for the fact that his aircraft, due to the presence of new technical solutions, did not show the required characteristics. War is a time for tried and tested solutions, but you can't get far with them. Or should each Messerschmitt aircraft have been a priori successful right away? Then you'll blame Klimov for his VK-107A not showing itself. Or Yakovlev, whose aircraft spat oil throughout the war and did not gain speed and altitude.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Boy, do you even have any idea how old the "duck" aerodynamic design is?

[BIGLESHIY]

The boy doesn't realize, the boy is swimming. And he's swimming, apparently, in an ice hole.

[Reklastik]

The boy doesn't realize, the boy is swimming. And he's swimming, apparently, in an ice hole.

- Why are you so angry?

[ramzay21]

As I understand it, some people are still ashamed of the "borrowing" of the airframe in the case of B 29 - Tu 4, B1 Lancer - Tu 160, Spaceshutle - Buran, Concord - Tu 144, Eurofighter - Mish 1.44.

From this list only Tu-4 was copied but such copying with reproduction of everything also needs to be done. The Chinese also copy our engine from Su-27 but for 20 years they still haven't copied it.
And the fact that Concorde is similar to Tu-144 and Tu-160 is similar to B-1 is due to aerodynamics, it would be strange if Tu-144 was similar to Tu-114, it would not be able to fly supersonic.

[Evgeny_4]

Don't write nonsense, what we copied. Study the designs of Tu 160, Tu 144, Buran. They are similar in appearance, but have a completely different design compared to B1, Concorde, Shuttle.
Yes, most likely. Ours spied on the concept and direction of development. But nothing more.
We did everything else ourselves - Tu 144, Tu 160, Buran.

[Pioneer1984]

How did it happen that the "copied" Tu-144 took off before Concorde?

[Glagol1]

Work on the Tu-160 began in 1967. There was a Resolution of the USSR Council of Ministers. So it couldn't have been a copy. The Lancer only flew in 1974. It wasn't a copy, it was a response.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: puteovii

B1 Lancer -Tu 160

The Tu-160 is superior to the B-1 in almost all respects, and the external resemblance is only if you don’t look closely, the aerodynamics are significantly different (see photo)
.

Quote: puteovii

Spaceshutle - Buran

The designers suggested a different shape for the plane, but the high command insisted on a shape similar to the American one. Are you aware that the Americans completely changed the Shuttle's protective tiles after each flight?, while ours were designed for 8 flights
.

Quote: puteovii

Concord - Tu 144

Tu-144 took off before Concorde. Copy took off before original?

[garri-lin]

Good day.
You said that the heat shield on the space shuttles was completely changed after the flight.
Can you provide a link to a reliable source? It would be interesting to read.
Thanks in advance.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: garri-lin

Can you provide a link to some reliable source?

I took information about Buran from the video film “Why Buran is at VDNKh”.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7K3t63P6HA)

[Strelkin]

The Tu-160 is superior to the B-1 in almost every respect.

One strategic bomber-missile carrier can be assessed against another only by one indicator: combat capabilities, combat effectiveness, — like any two other military aircraft of approximately the same class. And the task of any strategic bomber-missile carrier is one and only: to deliver weapons to its targets — supposedly, in a nuclear missile war. B-1B is capable of solving this task yesterday, today and in the foreseeable future, Tu-160 — categorically not. Because the main thing that needs to be done is to overcome the enemy's air defense. The B-1B can do this, the Tu-160 absolutely cannot.
Therefore, the statement that “the Tu-160 is superior to the B-1 in almost all respects” is, at the very least, frivolous.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Strelkin

Because the main thing that needs to be done is to overcome the enemy's air defense. The B-1B can do this, the Tu-160 absolutely cannot.

Up to 12 missiles of the Kh-101 (or 102) type with a range of up to 5500 km. Why would an aircraft want to get under enemy air defense? It can patrol along the border of an unfriendly state for a long time and fire missiles when necessary.

[Strelkin]

Any transport vehicle can do this (and there are experiments with such a launch).

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Strelkin

Any transport vehicle can do this (and there are experiments with such a launch).

And get away from fighters? (there was a case when a Tu-160 got away from an F-35, its maximum speed is higher)

[Strelkin]

- Well, where to "go"? Just imagine that the Russian strategic ractot needs to attack targets in the central part of the USA? How should it do it? Only instead of the Tu-95MS put the Tu-160?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Strelkin

Just imagine that a Russian strategic missile needs to attack targets in the central US? How would it do that?

The combat radius of the F-35 fighter is 845 kilometers. You have to be a little further away, and you'll get tired of refueling it. With a missile range of 5500 km, you can afford it.

[Strelkin]

They won't be tired of refueling - both 2000 km from the coast and 3000 km away. They have plenty of refuellers. And it will be problematic to approach the US territory "so simply" during the threatened period, because the Americans have 10 AUG:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B3%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BF%D0%B0_%D0%92%D0%9C%D0%A1_%D0%A1%D0%A8%D0%90

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Strelkin

And it will be problematic to approach US territory “so easily” during the threatened period, because the Americans have 10 AUGs:

In my opinion, the main task of strategic bombers is to put pressure on the psyche: it flies along the border, and everyone knows that it has a nuclear bomb, and that at any moment it can drop it. And this is scary. But no one sees a submarine that can completely wipe out a continent, although it can lie practically in territorial waters, in some trough. And there is also such a complex "Skif". From time to time, information about it comes across on the Internet. These are containers with ballistic missiles that can be at a depth of up to several kilometers. When a signal is received, the container floats up, and already at a depth of 50 meters, a missile is launched from it. Where and how many of these containers are sunk is unknown. It only works on reception, so it does not reveal itself. But it is difficult to scare with such a thing - they will say, another cartoon. But you can scare with an airplane flying along the border, because here it is, visible from another airplane.

[Strelkin]

In my opinion, the main task of strategic bombers is to put pressure on the psyche: it flies along the border, and everyone knows that it has a nuclear bomb, and that it can drop it at any moment. And that's scary. ...you can scare people with an airplane flying along the border, because there it is, visible from another airplane.

You can scare the average person, the ignorant, the unsophisticated. You can't scare the enemy's General Staff with these planes, you can only make them laugh...

[Sumotori_380]

It seems that laying on the ground is an abnormal mode for a submarine and not the easiest task

[Bad_gr]

Quote from Sumotori_380

It seems that laying on the ground is an abnormal mode for a submarine and not the easiest task

I was told about one of our nuclear submarines that could carry a concrete slab. At the duty station, it would lower this slab to the bottom using cables, level itself out, and could remain above the slab for months in this position.
I can’t vouch for the veracity of what was said, since I only heard it from submariners once.

[Sumotori_380]

Some deep-sea station like Losharik maybe. But these are individual products and they are not intended for impacts. If this is not a fairy tale at all

[Bad_gr]

Quote from Sumotori_380

Some deep-sea station like Losharik maybe.

What's the point of hanging around in the depths for months on a "losharik"? Only a strategist needs that.

[Sumotori_380]

Do you seriously believe that a potential enemy will not discover a strategist with a crew on board and working mechanisms within a few months?

[Bad_gr]

Quote from Sumotori_380

Do you seriously believe that a potential enemy will not discover a strategist with a crew on board and working mechanisms within a few months?

To find it, you need to know in what part of the ocean, in what trench it is located. By the way, there was information that our nuclear reactors do not turn on circulation pumps at low loads, natural convection is quite enough. And what else is there to make noise in a submarine?

[Sumotori_380]

What signal? Radio communication is impossible at such depths.

[Sumotori_380]

Haven't heard about basing 35s on aircraft carriers?

[puteovii]

They copied the glider as best they could. That's why it's not a 100% COPY. It's just that the glider is difficult to calculate, so they copied it as best they could.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: puteovii

They copied the glider as best they could.

The Tu-144 has a larger fuselage, the wings have a different profile, and the engines are positioned differently. What exactly was copied?

[Strelkin]

Wing of the ogival scheme. Free!.. "They scratched"...

[puteovii]

Wounded for half a year. And where can I see the prototypes' designs?

[MCmaximus]

How did they borrow all of this except the Tu-4? Also write that the AK is a Sturmgewehr for the kit. These planes are even different in size. Wow, what a copy!

[puteovii]

Thermodynamics is the head of everything. And only a few laymen consider aerodynamics separately.

[dmitryaves]

Mom...Oh... Mom...

[Strelkin]

Can you elaborate on this? Where is hypersound here, where is "thermodynamics the king of everything"?

[SovAr238A]

Mr. Ketonov, stop lying.
About "stolen".
You should read the memoirs of the State Designer about how the Yak-130 was created.
Without the Italians, we would have never succeeded.
Aermakki had many decades of experience in the development, production, and debugging of the training system, which did not exist in principle in the Soviet Union.
Their testing bases and standards, and testing equipment, were something unattainable for us.

[Reklastik]

You should read the memoirs of the State Designer about how the Yak-130 was created.

- I want to read, I wonder. What is the name of this memoir book?

[dmitryaves]

Yes, yes, yes! Where would we be without the Italians! We never had anything of our own! As with Pinocchio, we can't stop... Buratino, Yak 130, Tu 144, Tu, God forgive me, 160... Now doubts have arisen about the origin of the Yak3, La 5 FN and Po2... And the MiG 15 - they dared to take it in a pub in England! What people we have! We'll pick up anything that's not nailed down! True, when drunk we can mix up the environments... But this only helps the cause! This is how multi-medium aircraft, or UAVs, are born... Although... What difference does it make to us?!

[abc_alex]

Quote: SovAr238A

Aermakki had many decades of experience in the development, production, and debugging of the training system, which did not exist in principle in the Soviet Union.

Well, of course, "there wasn't". :)
The new fighter accepted into service in the USSR had a UB version, which means "training and combat". And often these versions turned out to be even more interesting than the original. For example, from the Su-27UB they got the Su-30.
And the Yakovlev Design Bureau had experience in creating training aircraft no less than Aeromachi. Let me remind you that Yakovlev started with creating sports "record" aircraft, and his first official training aircraft UTI-26 made its first flight on July 23, 1940. And then the Yakovlev Design Bureau constantly made similar machines: Yak-7UTI, Yak-11, Yak-18, Yak-18t, Yak-30, Yak-50, Yak-52, Yak-54, Yak-55, Yak-130, Yak-152. Among them were absolute hits, for example, the Yak-52.

The involvement of the Italians had no other meaning than financial. The development of a new training aircraft began at an extremely unfortunate time - 1990. In 1993, problems with money had already begun, and the Italians entered the project. In essence, they entered with demands and money. And having received what they needed, they left.
Then they each went their own way: the Italians limited themselves to a purely training aircraft, while Yak decided to develop the theme and, in addition to the training and combat aircraft, make a light attack aircraft and even an unmanned complex.

[Fitter65]

Quote: abc_alex

Let me remind you that Yakovlev started with the creation of sports "record" aircraft, and his first official training aircraft UTI-26 made its first flight on July 23, 1940.

UT-2 is the official first training aircraft designed by A.S. Yakovlev, produced from 1938 to 1948. Although the very first was UT-1, it was not quite a training aircraft, it was an aircraft for improving the qualifications, quality of flight training and flight skills of pilots. Somehow it was not suitable for initial training. And the Yak-7UTI is the same UTI-26. True, only 186 of them were produced. But 7 Yak-597V (export) were produced. It was just an interesting trend. First, the UTI-26 was made on the basis of the I-26, it was sometimes referred to as the I-27. Then, on its basis, the Yak-7 fighter was launched into production, which grew into the most mass-produced Soviet fighter Yak-9 (in various modifications), and on the basis of which the Yak-7V training aircraft was created ...

[abc_alex]

Quote: Fitter65

It was just an interesting trend. First, the I-26 was used to create the UTI-26, which was sometimes referred to as the I-27. Then, based on it, the Yak-7 fighter was launched into production, which evolved into the most mass-produced Soviet fighter, the Yak-9 (in various modifications), and on the basis of which the Yak-7V training aircraft was created.

An interesting trend. It stems from the fact that Yakovlev was an absolute zero as a combat aircraft designer. He got his job with one I-26 fighter project and one Yak-2 (Yak-4) high-speed bomber project behind him. And he would hardly have gotten this job if not for the mess that began in our aviation industry in the second half of the 30s. With a bunch of promises and unfulfilled plans.
However, Yakovlev himself turned out to be no better. His promises regarding the Yak-1 never came true, even though he squeezed the Moscow plant out of Lavochkin's hands. The machines you described appeared by chance; if my memory serves me right, a team led by Sinelshchikov made some kind of intermediate model and it suddenly "shot".

But Yakovlev made training and sports aircraft very successfully. Both before and after the war.

[futurohunter]

abc_alex
My dear, you don't know history. What fighters were there in the Red Army Air Forces during the Great Patriotic War? Precisely the Yakov! If they were so bad, would Stalin have allowed them to be produced?
The Normandie-Niemen squadron chose the Yaks among all the other aircraft!
By the way, during the war they complained about all the planes, and not only Yakovlev, but also Il-2 and Pe-2 and La-5. But the designers worked on them.
And you've probably never seen either the Yak-40 or the Yak-42, let alone our vertical takeoff aircraft (VTOL). By the way, only two countries were able to make VTOL aircraft - the USSR and Great Britain.

[Fitter65]

Quote: futurohunter

You, my dear, don't know history. What fighters were there in the Red Army Air Forces during the Great Patriotic War? It was the Yakov!

Sorry, but reading your comment, I understand that you are the one who doesn't know history well. Let's start with the fact that in 1941 the least number of Yak-1 type aircraft were produced - 1333, compared to 2643 LaGG-3 aircraft and 3100 MiG-3.

Quote: futurohunter

The Normandie-Niemen squadron chose the Yaks among all the other aircraft!

Did they have a choice? Either Hurricanes or Yak-1. Spitfires, which were mainly used in air defense, were not even considered, and we received few of them. La-5? They did not offer for a number of reasons. And considering that the Yak-1 was produced at 3 factories, and Yakovlev aircraft were produced at 5 factories in total. The Omsk plant, which was supposed to start producing Tu-2, was squeezed out for its own aircraft by Comrade Yakovlev, but began making Yak-9Bs when bombers were needed. The Yak-2B is a good replacement for the Tu-9. Therefore, it is not surprising that more Yaks were produced. By and large, only one plant #5 produced the La-21. I think plants #99 with 286 aircraft in 2 years and #381 with 460 aircraft in the same period did not make much difference.

Quote: futurohunter

You've probably never seen either the Yak-40 or the Yak-42,

The conversation here was about combat and training aircraft.

Quote: futurohunter

not to mention our vertical takeoff aircraft (VTOL). By the way, VTOL aircraft were only made in two countries - the USSR and Great Britain

Only the English "Harrier", gradually modernized and improved, flew until 2016. And the American version under the designation AV-8B still flies. And in its original form, the "Harrier" was several orders of magnitude superior to the Yak-38/38M. Which had neither a radar nor built-in weapons, and as a combat unit was closer to 0.

[futurohunter]

Fitter65
I admit: I am not a fan of Yaks. I like La-5 and La-7 better. But you can't go against objective reality - here, on VO, the figures for the production of Yak fighters, all modifications (Yak-1,3,7, 9, 40 and 000) during the Great Patriotic War were given - about 1. You were disingenuous here, indicating only the Yak-9. And the most widespread was the Yak-16 - more than 000 were produced.
It was the Yakovlev fighters that became the workhorses of the Red Army Air Forces fighter aviation during the war and bore the brunt of the fighting. Despite all the shortcomings of the Yaks, it should be noted that Yakovlev did not make superplanes for which there were no engines, like the Polikarpov I-185 fighters, or which required a completely different production culture or were intended for completely different war conditions, like the MiG-3. Yakovlev fighters were manufactured at the factories that were at our disposal and using low-skilled labor. It was the Yaks that were most suitable for the war that was being waged at the front, and they were improved throughout the war, and the Yak-3 even claimed the title of the best fighters of World War II. And the Yak design turned out to be so successful that it became the basis for post-war sports and training aircraft - from the Yak-11 to the Yak-52.
As for the Yakovlev VTOL aircraft, you left the Yak-141 out in the cold. And it didn't go into production for technical reasons, but political ones - because of the collapse of the USSR. The Harrier stood on the production line for so long because there was no alternative.
So you are wrong. You argue ugly, simply hushing up facts that contradict your theses.
Let me emphasize once again - I am not a fan of Yakovlev and his aircraft (although I piloted the Yak-18T and really liked it), but I respect his achievements as one of the most outstanding domestic aircraft designers.

[Fitter65]

Quote: futurohunter

You've been disingenuous here by only mentioning the Yak-1. The most widely produced was the Yak-9 - more than 16 were produced.

I didn't lie, but indicated how many Yak-1s were produced in 1941, you can add to them a certain number of Yak-7UTIs that were produced in 1941, before the evacuation to Novosibirsk by Plant 301. Again

Quote: futurohunter

But one cannot go against objective reality - here, at VO, figures were given for the production of Yak fighters, all modifications (Yak-1,3,7, 9, 40 and 000) during the Great Patriotic War - about XNUMX.

In addition to the Military History, I also read more serious literature, believe me, so I know how many and what kind of Yak aircraft were produced. But at the beginning of the war, there were the fewest of them, out of the three new aircraft, which I wrote about. And having several factories taken away from Lavochkin and Tupolev, it is not surprising that they were made in such quantity and variety, and the only factory where Lavochkin aircraft were made, I think it would be incorrect to mention the Tbilisi factory where LaGG-3 was made, LaGG was produced there until 1944, and modernized and did not reduce the rate of production. Moreover, there were regiments that had previously fought on Yaks of the 1st and 7th types, in 1943 they were rearmed with LaGG-3. Of course, making almost 40000 aircraft at at least 5 factories against almost 10000 Lavochkin aircraft produced at one factory, this is normal. If Lavochkin had so many factories, how many La aircraft would have been produced?

Quote: futurohunter

Regarding the Yakovlev VTOL aircraft, you passed over the Yak-141 in silence.

Let's start with the fact that he wasn't in the series, and for what reasons is another conversation.

Quote: futurohunter

So you are wrong. You argue ugly, simply hushing up facts that contradict your theses.

Well, I can't talk and praise what was in single copies, we are either talking about serial aircraft or about what didn't "go". A.S. Yakovlev, despite some shortcomings, who doesn't have them, I also respect. Moreover, I began to be interested in aviation, and then "fell ill" with it, after I read his book "The Purpose of Life, Notes of an Aircraft Designer", published in 1969, though in 1978, and I simply didn't return the book to the library.

Quote: futurohunter

Yakovlev fighters were produced in the factories that we had at our disposal and using low-skilled labor.

And Lavochkin's planes were produced in another country, and by other people? The same thing, well, using a different technology. By the way, the Komsomolsk Aircraft Plant could independently, without the approval of the chief designer, introduce changes to the Il-4 design, later coordinating them. Well, this is about production and technology.

Quote: futurohunter

It was the Yaks that were most suitable for the war that was being waged at the front, and they were improved throughout the war, and the Yak-3 even claimed the title of the best fighters of the Second World War.

Again, if we read the pilots' memoirs, the Yaks were not always and not entirely suitable for those conditions. They were ideal for escorting attack aircraft or bombers, as one pilot wrote. For fighting bombers, the Airacobra. By the way, that's why Yakovlev stuck a 9mm cannon in the Yak-37T, the Cobra had that caliber. The Lavochkins were good in almost everything, but escorting attack aircraft on them was like a sickle on Faberge. Again, the Yak-3 was the best in its class, light low-altitude fighters. Yes, A.V. Vorozheikin, on the one hand, said that it was an excellent aircraft, but the fuel supply was only 45 minutes. And do you remember how his opinion changed when, after the war, he commanded a regiment armed with Lavochkin aircraft? This is in
in his memoirs there are... But again, arguing which aircraft is better, the Yak or the LA, is like the series of which is more cross-country, the ZIL-157 or the Ural...

[futurohunter]

I was just arguing with your thesis that Yakovlev made bad planes... I started reading VO only after the SVO started))) And I started taking an interest in aviation more than 40 years ago with the magazines "Wings of the Motherland" and Flieger Revue, and since then I have read a lot of both ours and foreign, and mostly not on the Internet. I never read Yakovlev's book, but I learned quite a lot about his planes.
Regarding LaGG-3, La-5 and La-7. Compared to Yaks, these were more expensive machines, and of a heavier class, for slightly different tasks (fighting bombers and suppressing air defense, intercepting important targets, etc.). Bf-109/FW-190 had similar pairs - a very rough analogy. Likewise, Airacobras are more of a category of heavier fighters. Yakovlev with the Yak-9T/K also tried to get into this category, but not as successfully as the same La-5 (which, by the way, also had plenty of problems). If we take the Americans, by the way, they actually had only heavy fighters, with the exception of the P-40, which was used more on secondary fronts.
Let's get back to Yakovlev. I consider the Yak-27/28 to be his only definite failures, although the pilots spoke quite favorably of the Yak-27R. As for the Yak-36 and Yak-15/17, they were more like technology demonstrators, test machines on which new approaches and solutions were tested. Oh, I forgot the Yak-23 - that was definitely a failure, already outdated at the time of its appearance.
In short, you can discuss Yakovlev for a very long time, but any aircraft designer has his own "skeletons" in the closet, and some, in general, had only one successful aircraft. Things turned out as they did, and Yakovlev's fighters bore the brunt of the war

[Fitter65]

Quote: futurohunter

I was just arguing with your thesis that Yakovoev made bad airplanes...

Where did I say that? That I pointed out that the Yak-9B was a poor replacement for the Tu-2? Which they started producing at the Omsk aircraft plant, but Yakovlev managed to squeeze it out, insisting that the country needed fighters. But that's true, the Yak-9B is not a great bomber, and especially not compared to the Tu-2...

Quote: futurohunter

I forgot about the Yak-23 - that was definitely a failure, already outdated at the time of its appearance.

If memory serves, they tried to produce it for a time as a light single aircraft for Warsaw Pact countries, they even wanted to produce them in Poland, but the Poles wanted to make the MiG-15.

Quote: futurohunter

Things turned out as they did, and Yakovlev fighters bore the brunt of the war

Not only Yakovlev fighters, but all fighters together bore the brunt of the war equally. Some more, some a little less.

[futurohunter]

I appeal to you and to other gentlemen who like to discuss "bad" aircraft designers. The topic is eternal, as is "whose planes/pilots were better during the war", and it seems that there will be no consensus on all these topics.
Only the debaters forget that by the time the planes began to be called Yak, Tu, La, etc., all these Yakovlevs and Lavochkins had long since ceased to be standing behind their drawing boards. They were administrators, officials, many of them, and not only the notorious Yakovlev, had positions not only in their design bureaus, but also in ministries, the aviation industry, etc.
Therefore, they did not design anything, and at most, they gave technical specifications and defended the results of their subordinates' activities to the Customer. And they also had to provide their factories with everything necessary, including salaries for their numerous subordinates.
Although all this does not relieve them of responsibility for their decisions and for what ultimately happened in the series

[abc_alex]

Quote: futurohunter

You, my dear, don’t know history.

Well, actually, esteemed Fitter65 answered in more than detail. I agree.
On my own behalf I can only add that the phrase

Quote: futurohunter

Would Stalin have allowed them to be released?

It shows that you are in captivity of memorial liberal fairy tales about the USSR management system of the 30-40s, where Stalin is presented as some kind of God-emperor without whose personal instructions no one in the country even flushed the toilet. This is such utter nonsense and delirium that it is not even funny anymore.
Firstly, the army in the USSR was not managed by the political leadership, but by the People's Commissariat of Defense, which had its own chief. And it was the leadership of the People's Commissariat of Defense that decided which aircraft would be launched into production and which would not. Nobody asked Stalin. If he was called in, it was in cases of extreme necessity to solve problems that required extraordinary decisions at the level of the Politburo and the entire country. For example, as was the case when the T-34 was launched into production. Then, as an emergency measure, a production cooperation was assembled from many enterprises, and extraordinary measures had to be taken, for example, the People's Commissariat of Defense was ordered to transport cargo necessary for work on this project directly in the compartments and carriages of passenger trains.
Secondly, while we're on the subject, "Stalin allowed" other aircraft, LaGG and MiG. What do you think that means?
Thirdly, Stalin had a fairly adequate opinion about his level of understanding of technical issues, and until he became head of the State Defense Committee in June 1941, technical issues of producing equipment for the army were not coordinated with him at all. For this, there were completely different people heading completely different organizations.

I criticize Yakovlev not for not making the perfect airplane right away. That doesn't happen. I criticize him for bringing the Soviet Air Force to the brink of collapse for the sake of his personal ambitions and convenience. He wanted a plant in Moscow so he wouldn't have to drag his ass around the country. So he took the plant away from Lavochkin. But he didn't think that the plant had just been converted from a furniture factory! And the people there had no experience working with metal at all. The LaGG was made of wood, and the plant was equipped as a woodworking plant. That's why Yakovlev's voluntarism brought two programs to the brink of failure at once: the Yak-1 and the LaGG-3. The story of Lavochkin's wanderings around the country is well known, there's no point in retelling it. And the Yak-1 went into production with a wild creak, even taking into account the fact that Yakovlev personally was allowed to neglect some mandatory Air Force requirements.

[futurohunter]

abc_alex
This fitter of yours is simply juggling numbers to suit his point of view.
I know the history of the domestic aviation industry very well. I joked about Stalin, but on the other hand, he also decided on aviation industry issues. To the questions: why did he allow the MiG-3 and LaGG-3. Firstly, our aviation did not have modern fighters. The I-16, not to mention the Polikarpov biplanes, was hopelessly outdated. Therefore, all possible options were considered, including the incomprehensible Yatsenko, Tomashevich, and even Grigorovich. The MiG-3 at the time of its appearance looked like a super-modern fighter, it just turned out to be too complex for our industry, and the war did not go according to the scenario for which it was made. The LaGG-3 was not initially supposed to be so bad. And it was let down by the lack of a suitable engine. But when such an engine (ASH-82) was adapted, it revealed the full potential that was embedded in it.
Regarding the mess. There is competition in almost any aviation industry. And here, quite natural competition was superimposed on the difficult political situation of the second half of the 30s.
After all, there was a similar situation with attack aircraft. Sukhoi attack aircraft were much better than the Il-2. But roughly the same thing happened as in the story with the I-185. A more mediocre aircraft was produced, but exactly the one that our aviation industry could handle in those conditions.
I used to feel about Yakovlev about the same as you do, i.e. negatively. And I already wrote that I don't like most of his planes. But in my opinion, he did what was possible in the conditions in which he worked, and he did it in the best possible way.
You see, there is a maximum and an optimum of a function. Yakovlev planes were that optimum.

[Fitter65]

Quote: abc_alex

His promises regarding the Yak-1 never came true, even though he took the plant in Moscow from Lavochkin.

It's good that I didn't have time to go to Gorky. Well, as for the mess in the aviation industry... Let's look at France and understand that things were good in the USSR. Regarding the creation of the I-26, it only passed because Yakovlev was Shakhurin's deputy. His plane brought back so many shortcomings from test flights. Some were not eliminated until the end of the Yak-1 production. But on the other hand, we did not have such an aircraft design school as in the West. All these emerging design bureaus, by and large, were yesterday's graduates of institutes. There were only a few designers with experience...

Quote: abc_alex

The machines you described appeared by chance; if my memory serves me right, the team led by Sinelshchikov made some kind of intermediate model and it suddenly "shot".

So the La-5 also, let's say, appeared "in spite of", Lavochkin also practically waved off the fact that they were squeezing his factory away, and was already with one foot in Tbilisi... The history of the creation of the Il-2 is a whole separate story. What S.V. Ilyushin wanted to do at the very beginning appeared in 1944, under the name Il-10...:

Quote: abc_alex

But Yakovlev made training and sports aircraft very successfully. Both before and after the war.

Of course, you can't argue with that, that there is, there is. hi:

[abc_alex]

Quote: Fitter65

Let's look at France and understand that things were good in the USSR.

Well, the French could have trusted the English less blindly, with their promises to cover France from the sea and air. After all, they've known each other for centuries. And then they hammered the military budget for 10 years into the Maginot Line, and when the English, in their usual manner, ditched their ally, they began feverishly to make up for it. :)

Quote: Fitter65

only because Yakovlev was Shakhurin's deputy

Historians have another opinion. The fact is that by the mid-30s, the country's political leadership realized that the "talented Soviet aircraft designers" had been skillfully leading the Air Force in the wrong direction. For example, the concept of a heavy multi-engine bomber itself was a failure. "It suddenly became clear" that such aircraft should fly much higher and much faster (about 3 times). The same thing happened with fighter aircraft. The concept of "horizontal combat", in which Soviet design bureaus worked, was wrong. Spain showed that the main flight characteristics for a fighter are rate of climb, ceiling and speed.
And in this situation, someone was needed who was competent enough as an aircraft designer and at the same time not connected with any of the "large cooperations". Yakovlev, suddenly, found himself in the right place at the right time.

Quote: Fitter65

Lavochkin also practically gave up on the fact that the plant was being taken away from him, and already had one foot in Tbilisi.

As if he was asked. :)
There was such a complete upheaval there at a certain point that it's surprising that Lavochkin wasn't sent somewhere to Komsomolsk to design ships. You probably know that the Air Force adopted the Su-2 (Ivanov), which not only suited the Air Force, but was created with the direct participation of Air Force representatives. But "it just so happened" that the Il-2 went into production and the production sites suddenly received different plans.

[Fitter65]

Quote: abc_alex

You probably know that the Air Force adopted the Su-2 (Ivanov), which not only suited the Air Force, but was created with the direct participation of representatives from the Air Force.

considering the capabilities of this aircraft, and the fact that even after production ended, it was still flying until 1944.

Quote: abc_alex

But "somehow it happened" that the Il-2 went into production

Especially considering that the single-seat version went into production. Moreover, many claim that it was I.V. Stalin himself who gave the order to launch the single-seat version first, and then, apparently, start making the two-seat version... But the war that began messed up all the plans. Although when you read "smart books" and not Wikipedia, it turns out that Stalin had nothing to do with it at all. After all, there was no decree on converting the two-seat version into a single-seat version, just as there was no order for this from the People's Commissariat of Aviation Industry. Again, TsKB-57 was "legalized" practically a day before the first flight, and the order was signed by Deputy People's Commissar of Aviation Industry A.S. Yakovlev. order dated 11.10.1940. And there are so many inconsistencies in this order that it would almost be enough for an entire article. Well, something like that.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Fitter65

considering the capabilities of this aircraft, and the fact that even after production ended, it was still flying until 1944.

Yes, it turned out to be an excellent plane, considering that the military literally carried it in their arms through all stages of acceptance and testing. Sukhoi made it in close cooperation with pilots and the question of its acceptance was absolutely resolved. Yeah, right!

Quote: Fitter65

Stalin has nothing to do with it at all. After all, there was no decree on converting the two-seater version into a single-seater, just as there was no order for this from the People's Commissariat of Aviation Industry. Again, TsKB-57 was "legalized" practically a day before the first flight. Moreover, the order was signed by the Deputy People's Commissar of Aviation Industry A.S. Yakovlev. order from 11.10.1940. And there are so many inconsistencies in this order that it would almost be enough for a whole article. Well, something like that.

Yes, what Yakovlev did to the aviation industry on the eve of the war is worthy of an article. And a death sentence. I don’t know whether God spared us or whether our people start thinking at high speed in a situation of extreme necessity, but the La-5 and Yak-7 were practically an accident. On the other hand, what could you expect from a person who suddenly received practically unlimited power in his hands, jumping from the stool of a laboratory manager into the chair of a de facto minister?
And with the Il-2 I read an opinion that there was a serious skirmish with engines. Something like the interests of the design bureau, which needed to attach the AM-38 to something, the factories that did not want to master the new engine, the design bureau that wanted the M-105, intersected, as a result of which, for "political reasons", it turned out to be necessary to launch the Il-2. The machine at that time flew poorly, and the engine worked poorly, and Ilyushin simply put the question point-blank: can we make a single-seater now or a two-seater sometime later. Well, Yakovlev, who was incredibly far from the real battlefield, made a decision.

[Fitter65]

Quote: abc_alex

And with the Il-2 I read an opinion that there was a serious fight with the engines... The machine at that time flew poorly, and the engine worked poorly, and Ilyushin simply put the question point-blank: can we make a single-seater now or a two-seater sometime later.

Well, as far as the engines go, we had problems almost everywhere. And at Ilyushin, the issue with the DB-3 and DB-3F was starting to hang, and then there was no luck with the BS-2. And as for raising the issue point-blank, he was not in the position to do it point-blank... Well, let's just say it was a behind-the-scenes decision, like let me test it, and then we'll see how it goes. After all, it was not for nothing that in that order the BS-2 (the only copy) had to be tested in both single- and double-seat versions on the same day. And Shakhurin's name was on the order, but there was no signature. But there was a signature, and not of the immediate deputy, but of the deputy for experimental design work A.S. Yakovlev stood, and it turns out he was not even the third person in the NKAP.... And about the engine, let's go back a little, at first Ilyushin installed the AM-35, but firstly, it was high-altitude, secondly, it had low power, he decided to install the AM-38, but roughly speaking, it was still under testing, although it had more power and was low-altitude. But the consumption was higher, because of this, the range was reduced... And considering that some 20 years ago, aircraft designers could be counted on the fingers of one hand, and aircraft engines were practically not produced in the Russian Empire, then there is nothing surprising in this, it was in the USA that there were different engines for every taste and desire, and even then they were able to make their Mustang a worthy, worthy aircraft only with the Merlin.... Well, something like that.

[fiberboard]

Well, such "miracles" were a normal phenomenon at one time. It is enough to remember how the Americans organized a joint company to obtain technology for the production of blades for aircraft engines from titanium alloy. They received it and before the meeting, six months later they left the cooperation. The Indians are especially guilty of such things, trying to obtain technology by any means. And we received technology for creating UDCs from the French after they refused to supply ships. It's simple: the concept of "effective managers" and "interests of Russia" are two incompatible concepts.

[61-th]

So why stolen, if the development was joint??? It never occurred to the Italians to say something like that about the Yak-130!

[Reklastik]

It never occurred to the Italians to say something like that about the Yak-130!

- by the way, yes

[futurohunter]

By the way, of the entire European Union, the Italians are some of the most loyal to us.

[Reklastik]

Of all the EU, Italians are some of the most loyal to us.

- No, Hungarians are bigger, even officially.

[futurohunter]

I don't argue about the Hungarians. That's why I wrote "one of"

[Good Evil]

But the title of the article turned out to be catchy and enticing!
It's slowly turning yellow...

[solar]

Austria plans to buy stolen Yaks from Italy to replace Swedish Saab 105s

Is this a competition, who will write the biggest nonsense? It would be fine in the title, but the same nonsense is written in the text of the article. The plane was created with the money of the Italians, with their active participation in the technical part, naturally, they received a set of documentation and the rights to distribute it in the world outside the CIS.

[alexoff]

But there are so many comments and views right away!

[Diverter]

Beautiful plane! It will fly for a long time!

[Frettaskyrandi]

The M-346 Master was developed by the Yakovlev Design Bureau in collaboration with the Italian company Aermacchi. The Italian company's participation consisted of financing the project, and all the work was carried out by the Yakovlev Design Bureau. Aermacchi subsequently withdrew from the project at the final stage of development and, based on the stolen design and technical documentation for the Yak-130 airframe, created its own aircraft, the M-346; the Yakovlev Design Bureau completed the creation of the Yak-130 without a partner.

Mr. Ketonov, you can't lie so brazenly in print, even on the VO website. Judging by the flags below, the website is also read abroad, and there could be serious reputational losses.
Aermacchi withdrew from the project in 2000 because for five years, until 1998, the Italians paid for the development almost entirely, and from 1998 onwards, completely, while their “wants” in terms of adapting the project to the requirements of European customers were ignored, but their technical developments were used to the fullest extent.
When leaving the project, Aermacchi paid 130 (seventy-seven million) dollars for the design documentation for the Yak/AEM-77.

[Dedok]

и based on stolen design and technical documentation for the Yak-130 airframe created its own aircraft M-346; Yakovlev Design Bureau completed the creation of the Yak-130 without a partner.

and where is the military prosecutor's office??

[Zaurbek]

For Austria, the M346 could be made the main aircraft of the Air Force.

[gribanov.c]

This is roughly the kind of plane we need, only smaller, cheaper, and unmanned.

[Fitter65]

The Italian company's participation consisted of financing the project, and all the work was carried out by the Yakovlev Design Bureau. Subsequently, Aermacchi withdrew from the project at the final stage of development and, based on the stolen design and technical documentation for the Yak-130 airframe, created its own aircraft, the M-346;

The author is not aware of what really happened? The Italians financed our development, after completion everyone received their own set of documentation and parted in peace. Thanks to the financing of the Italians, we received our Yak-130, for which the state simply did not have the money. The Italians received theirs and began to make their own plane.

[Pavel57]

The Italian company's participation consisted of financing the project, and all the work was carried out by the Yakovlev Design Bureau; subsequently, Aermacchi withdrew from the project at the final stage of development and, based on the stolen design and technical documentation for the Yak-130 airframe, created its own aircraft, the M-346; the Yakovlev Design Bureau completed the creation of the Yak-130 without a partner.

This is ignorance of the topic or a desire to escalate. The Italians paid more than 70 million dollars, received documentation for the glider, and then the projects in Italy and Russia live independently.

[Vasily_Ostrovsky]

The author insists that these planes are stolen. And the documentation for them is also stolen.

However, experts are not aware of such a fact; no claims have been indicated on the Yakovlev Design Bureau’s websites, and the Design Bureau has not appealed to the court.

Moreover, the Italians received documentation for the basic version according to the contract.

Maybe the author knows something that others don't?

And if the documentation is not stolen, then maybe the author will apologize for distorting the facts? Otherwise, this is already slander on pages 7a of VO....

By the way, the publication may be sued, and I'm not sure that the owners will have enough money to pay it....

[Mazunga]

I thought there were some tramps somewhere who had made a letable and shoved it to the Finns, but here))) hot news

[futurohunter]

What a scandalous headline! Is there no other way to attract attention to yourself? If it comes down to it, the Aeromacchi and the Yak-130 are only similar in appearance, but even the author wrote that they have different engines and different avionics. There are far more differences between these aircraft than between a Zhiguli-Kopeyka and the original FIAT-124. And then there is the Chinese L-15, which is also similar in appearance, and to which the Yakovlev Design Bureau also had a hand

[futurohunter]

If we follow the author's logic, then the Indians also fly on stolen Sukhoi.

[nordscout]

"Austria plans to buy stolen Yaks from Italy to replace Swedish Saab 105s" Very pompous, and most importantly very "patriotic", and in the spirit of the current Euro-Russian relations at all levels and directions... Well, now in order... Firstly, Austria "wants" (plans) to buy not "Yaks" at all, but completely legal Italian "M-346 Block 20", which Italy is building, on the basis of a contract and 100% financing of design work, by the Russian Yakovlev Design Bureau, on the airframe of a promising light training aircraft... On the basis of which, the aircraft manufacturing company "Leonardo" (Italy) received a set of design documentation and drawings for this airframe... And then, everyone went their own way: "half-dying" Russia was finally able to get a very successful, reliable training jet "Yak-130" to replace the Czech ones, "breathing on incense", from the dilapidation and old age of the "Dolphins" and, perhaps, to save the "brains" and "school" of the Yakovlev Design Bureau from general destruction, and Italy - the universal jet " "M-346" ... As they say - nothing personal, just business ... Those who thoroughly "cleaned" the shelves of our aviation design bureaus, and not only aviation ones, were our, in the past, "close partners" - the USA ... One only has to "cast" a quick glance at the "old man" "F-22" or the "star" of movie screens and wallets of NATO-EU taxpayers - "F-35" will immediately be visible "school" and design thought "MiG", the contours and layout of promising machines, still from the Soviet period, which, to this day, "Lockheed Martin Corporation" (USA) does not like to remember ... And with Italy everything was as it should be on the market: "money - goods - money" ... There were "deals" and "worse", only now, they don't really like to remember and talk about this, there, with us, at the top... And the title of the article is right in the spirit of the "market" media - the more incredible and "yellow", the larger the circulation and audience... It's a pity that such a respectable publication, as VO positions itself, prints all sorts of rumors and speculations, without particularly bothering itself with an editorial "audit".... And to Mr. S. Ketonov, without offense and nothing personal: "I heard the ringing, but I don't know where it is...." And it would be possible to look for the original source of the "ringing".....

[Tomsk123]

The partners have deceived us again, and on top of that they have crossed all the lines. Where do we get such detective managers? Or is Dzerzhinsky right? Maybe it's time to dump their children in the West?

[Tomsk123]

Bdzezinsky was right. The elite that teaches children in the West are traitors!

[Maks1995]

IMHO, the author lied about something...

[Voronezh]

The fruits of "partnership"... They took away the plane...

[Rage66]

Long and boring article with dubious arguments

[Larich]

Of course, spaghetti took advantage of our confusion and poverty, what can you do. But the Yak 130 has a lot of groundwork specifically for the airframe. An example is the Hongdu L15. So it's not over yet. And the electronics, well, they age quickly

[AC130 Gunship]

Why insert an obvious lie right into the headline? Italy did not steal the Yaki. The plane was developed jointly by the two countries. At the end of the project, the parties went their separate ways, and each made their own small changes to the practically finished plane.

[Horn]

"If you sit down to play with thieves, beware of your wallet!.." (N-P). It seems that Yakovlev Design Bureau doesn't like the classics.

[storm]

Aermacchi left the project at the final stage of development and, based on stolen design and technical documentation for the Yak-130 airframe, created its own aircraft, the M-346;

Smart people write down all the risks in the terms of the contract, and fools only complain that they were deceived again....