Just a coincidence? Yak-141 vs. F-35

Demonstration of the Yak-141 at the air show in Farnborough became the “swan song” of a unique fighter. OKB them. Yakovlev did not receive a single order either from domestic or from foreign customers.


Potential customers did not see the need for acquiring a VTOL. With all the advantages of the "vertical" could not be compared in combat qualities with a classic fighter. High LTH, long range and lower maintenance labor intensity were more important than the possibility of taking off from any “patch”.

“Yaku” was not at all pleased with the domestic customers from the Moscow Region. After 17 years of development, the super fighter failed the GSI (the crash of the Yak-141 aboard the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier). Sailors by that time had reassessed the tactics of applying deck aviation in the direction of fighters with high thrust-weight ratio and shortened springboard take-off. Under the circumstances, the unfortunate “Yak” could not oppose anything to the mighty Su-33.

Suddenly, Lockheed Martin appeared on the horizon, just working on a vertical take-off 5 fighter. The Americans provided funding in exchange for obtaining technical data and limited design data on the Yak-141 and other projects of domestic VTOLs.

It is not by chance that there are so many common solutions in the designs of the “Yak” and the notorious Lockheed Martin F-35!


Yak-141


Just a coincidence? Yak-141 vs. F-35

Lockheed Martin F-35B


The mention of the “Soviet legacy” of the Pentagon’s most high-tech combat system infuriates those who are not indifferent to “Western values”. What is common between the Soviet “vertical line” and the “5” generation stealth plane?

Skeptics put forward counter-arguments, proving once again that the Yankees did not benefit from cooperation with the Russians. The Yak-141 drawings, obtained with such difficulty, were rolled up and set aside. The development of the lightweight fighter generation "5" was carried out exclusively on its own, the company "Lockheed Martin" with an eye on the older brother F-22 "Raptor".


On the left - a draft design of a multi-purpose fighter Yak-43 with a shortened take-off, which became the further development of the deck Yak-141.


Of course, external comparison alone is not enough. The laws of aerodynamics are valid on both sides of the ocean. Moreover, if judged impartially, then even the outward resemblance there is far from being absolute.

In attempts to disown any associations with the Soviet “Yak”, the supporters of “Lockheed” give a number of murderous arguments. What is similar to overseas JSF and domestic 141?

The most powerful engine in stories fighter aircraft? (The afterburner is 19 tons! “Pratt Whitney F135” burns like two Su-27 engines.)

Technology reduction visibility? Radar with active phased antenna AN / APG-81? Infrared all-view detection system AN / AAQ-37?

And also with the four-barreled EQ cannon in a hanging stealth container, internal weapons compartments, a modern “glass cabin”, deep unification with two other F-35 variants for the Air Force and aviation fleet, a developed system of self-testing and automatic troubleshooting. Eight million lines of code at last.

General and really a lot! Is that the scheme “vysokoplan” and two wings. Even the keels of Lightning are divorced on 20 gr. from the normal.

But the main difference between the F-35B is a unique way of vertical takeoff.
The new scheme is fundamentally different from all that used previously on other VTOL.

Let me remind you that the Yak-141 carried out a vertical take-off at the expense of three turbojet engines: a lifting-cruising Р79В-300 with a deflecting nozzle and two lifting RD-41 installed in the compartment behind the cockpit.



Yak-43, which is usually issued for the Yak-141 and is compared with the F-35B due to a certain external similarity with the American car. That “Yak” did not have a hover mode at all, as well as the possibility of take-off at zero horizontal speed. It was created as a fighter with a shortened take-off, whose abilities were achieved by a hurricane NK-32 engine from a Tu-160 bomber with a deflected thrust vector. No other techniques were used to facilitate take-off.

The family of British “Harriers” takes off with the help of a single PMD with four rotary nozzles located near the center of gravity of the aircraft. Thus, the British “vertical line” is deprived of the need to drag in flight “dead weight” in the form of additional lifting turbojet engines. In addition to the successful Rolls-Royce Pegas engine, the project’s success was limited mass dimensions all VTOLS this family.

According to the value of the second generation “Harrier” take-off mass twice inferior to the F-35!



The design of the F-35B implemented a relatively simple and effective scheme using a “cold” lifting fan, whose transmission is driven by a lifting / cruising engine (PMD) with a rotating nozzle.

In order to avoid extreme heat loads and increase the efficiency of the fan, air is supplied to the PMD compressor in the vertical take-off mode through a special air intake on the upper side of the fuselage.



Even half of the innovations listed are enough to dispel the myth of the similarity of “Yak” and F-35. Did the cooperation of “Lockheed” with the Yakovlev Design Bureau really ended in nothing?

Americans are too pragmatic for everything to end so simply. Without denying the importance of the emergence of a super-powerful engine and radar with unique characteristics, whose creators claimed to receive the Nobel Prize, you should pay attention to the following circumstance. In any design there are a number of critical nodes on which everything depends.

In the design of VTOL aircraft, such a place is the thrust vector control of the engine. Especially in the form in which it is implemented on the F-35. The progressive movement of mechanical parts in conditions of thermal heating. When it comes to one of the most powerful aircraft engines in the world!

This is where the experience of Soviet designers and Yak-141 came in handy. A three-prong nozzle that can turn down 95 ° in 2,5 seconds. Burning (but not burning) in a raging blue jet flame!



Of course, there are skeptics who begin to argue that the design of the Integrated Lift Fan Propulsion System (ILFPS) lifting system for the F-35B was done not by Lockheed, but by the British Rolls Royce. A company with its own solid experience in this field of technology. With its secrets and know-how. For example, in six hydraulic actuators of the F-35 nozzle, aviation fuel is used as the working fluid.

Those who claim the similarity of the Yak and F-35 do not like to recall that for the first time such a three-support nozzle was designed by Konver for a deck fighter with a vertical takeoff of the Convair Model 200. It was on this concept of 1972 that the “Yakovlevists” were guided when choosing a PMD with one turning nozzle for their Yak-141.



But all of the above does not deny the fact that the world's first potentially combat-capable SVVP with a three-section moving nozzle was built in our country by the specialists of the OKB Design Bureau. Yakovlev. Supersonic Yak-141 could not fail to impress the Americans. It was important for foreign guests to see how their theoretical studies were embodied in practice.

No less controversial layout tail. “Yak” and F-35 - like twins. Identical cantilever beams, to which the plumage is attached, with a PMD nozzle placed between them.

On the other hand, what is strange about the fact that a double-jerked single-engine aircraft has a nozzle located in the space between the two keels? According to the laws of Euclidean geometry - how to place it differently? The protruding horizontal tail planes are a consequence of the small length of the engine: the designers tried to place the rotating nozzle as close as possible to the center of gravity of the aircraft.

The claimed similarity of the Yak-141 and F-35 is very vague. The available facts do not allow to draw any conclusions about copying and borrowing technologies. Too different planes of different generations.

All lovers complain about the “lost technology” I hasten to remind you that the Americans are attacking the same rake that the “Yak” once attacked. All domestic and foreign VTOL are united by the general inadequacy and lack of a clear niche for their use. In normal flight mode, the "vertical" carry "dead weight" in the form of lifting units. Engines and fans take for themselves a significant amount inside the fuselage, where fuel tanks and other payloads are usually placed.

As a result, only one of the three modifications of the F-35 (F-35B) has the ability to take off vertically. And the number of aircraft of this modification will be only 15% of the planned number of F-35. Neither the Air Force, nor the fleet, nor for export such aircraft are needed. The only customer is the marines, which over the past half century have never had to operate from advanced unprepared airfields. The choice in favor of F-35B is primarily due to the prestige and interests of the commercial structures that make up the JSF project.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

111 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Bayonet 14 October 2015 06: 29 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    A sobering article for fans to prove that we also came up with a wheel.
    1. crazyrom 14 October 2015 07: 34 New
      • 28
      • 0
      +28
      Yeah, great article, first-class proven that it was not we copied, but it turns out WE HAVE COPIED!

      And the Americans generally do not care, it turns out they have the whole plane made on Euclidean geometry and has no relation to Yak.
      1. Santa Fe 14 October 2015 07: 42 New
        • -31
        • 0
        -31
        Quote: crazyrom
        it is not us copied, but it turns out WE copied!

        Wow, you just noticed something
        Holy simplicity))

        Yes, most of the development products that are not usually have the same story.

        WS-300 project (1955 year), turned into our MiG-25
        a rectangular fuselage, bucket-shaped adjustable air intakes - all were North Ameriken's know-how.

        more details - http://topwar.ru/76417-nesluchaynoe-sovpadenie-byl-li-f-15-kopiey-nashego-miga.h

        tml

        The development of the medium-range air-to-air guided missile K-13 began at OKB-134 in 1958. In the development were used samples provided by China, the American AIM-9 Sidewinder missile. An unexploded AIM-9B, delivered to the airfield by the Chinese MiG-17 in its own fuselage, served as a model. This rocket was launched by the Taiwanese F-86 Saber during the air battle of 28 on September 1958 of the year, but did not explode after being hit. Subsequent testing of this series of missiles captured by NATO showed that parts from AIM-9 could be compatible with parts from K-13 and such a combination will work

        Well, a couple of pictures, laugh at your leisure:


        1. Scraptor 14 October 2015 09: 32 New
          • 47
          • 0
          +47
          Everything is clear - hohlotroll detective. bully

          According to the "article":
          The first word of its heading omits the space “Not simple ...” (that is, this is not a coincidence) should be.

          Further in the text:

          Clients ran around Yak, especially the Argentines, with their French-Israeli "fighting qualities" by their Air Force.
          The Harrier subsonic air defense missile system was used in the Air Force / Navy of 7 countries.
          Yak-41 - supersonic. The Russian government simply did not give permission for export.
          “Power” is “prevailing conditions”? Because of the only accident due to "pilot mistakes"? But could not the Yak-141 and Su-33 complement each other? Moreover, Yak does not need a specially constructed arofinishing aircraft carrier. Do you like to contrast supplements?

          Instead of the Yakovlevites selling it to their own aircraft, Lockheed unexpectedly arose in several other countries and took EVERYTHING for half a million dollars!

          It is no coincidence that the Americans in Yak simply changed the outboard engines to a fan from the XV-5, introduced stealth technology elements and - it turned out F-35
          And despite the fact that the whole technology was transferred to the Americans, it was doing it ... Yakovlev Design Bureau was sub-ordered, and then several of his employees left for the USA (and then thrown back from there after H-1b).

          Avionics on the plane is changing the usual "upgrade", this aircraft does not become different. The technology itself stealth (most of its elements on the F-22) was scooped up in Russia by Americans before that too. FAR and AFAR - too (the Tolkachev case, which received a tower for this and not the Shnobel Prize, then they bought the missing and only by 2006).

          Yak-43 had a hanging mode. It's just the Yak-41 with improvements and on steroids because of the larger NK-32 diver from the Tu-160
          by the way is still the most powerful.

          Harrier, because of its turbofan PMD subsonic, has a maximum speed of 100 km / h less than even the Yak-38.
          The fact that he is inferior his Problems.

          Thermal loads from the feed nozzle on the F-35 still remained.
          This air supply is mainly in order to increase the lifting force even a little.

          --- to be continued ---
          1. Scraptor 14 October 2015 09: 33 New
            • 45
            • 0
            +45
            --- Continued ---

            "The progressive movement of mechanical parts under conditions of thermal heating" and further on to "Burning (but not burning)" - here the earth itself completely flew into the heavenly axis!

            Not three-legged but three-segmented, it was first designed by the Germans on the VJ-101E (even more stubborn than the American one, and also did not work). Only Soviet earned.
            The Yakovlkeites not this Convair 200 that existed only in the form of a sketch did not orient themselves - they simply did not know anything about it. Since this pencil "artist concept" did not cause any interest in intelligence. precisely because of the lack of beams, his tail would fall off. lol

            The available facts of skipping such articles on the site allow us to make a vague conclusion that it is not entirely pro-Russian.

            Even the subsonic Harrier was operated by the British Air Force for more than 10 years from leading airfields in Europe, Oman and Guatemala before it hit the British Navy, because in the event of war, concrete airfields end very quickly. The Yak-36 was planned to be used with a short take-off and a vertical landing in the same way, moreover, it was ready earlier. But then they started searching in the style of VFW VAK 191B, which, all the same, eventually through the Yak-38 led to the Yak-41/43
            Because it was practically impossible to make a Yak-36 supersonic, but in the case of the Yak-38 scheme there were such hopes and they came true ...

            Summary:
            Another dump of crap on the F-35 fan taken from XV-5 (without mentioning this apparatus) which only F-35 differs from Yak. Write better about armor (but not about battleships) ...
            "Lokhkid" c your singing in the comments does not tower? : lol:
            By the lack of (supposedly) external similarity, they alone compare provocateurs and degenerators.
            1. aleks 62 next 14 October 2015 14: 20 New
              • 10
              • 0
              +10
              ..... Another throw of shit on the fan .... Write better about the armor (but not about the battleships) ... By the lack of (supposedly) external similarity, one provocateurs and degenerators are compared ....

              ..... wassat ...... Short and capacious .... good
          2. Juborg 14 October 2015 12: 08 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            And our American is looking at the root!
        2. Falcon 14 October 2015 10: 03 New
          • 29
          • 0
          +29
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The most powerful engine in the history of fighter aircraft? (The afterburner thrust is 19 tons! The “Pratt Whitney F135” burns like two Su-27 engines.)


          What Nonsense !!!

          12700, 19500 take-off thrust on afterburner - the afterburner was blown up and the whole business !!!

          Let's compare how the two editions of 117 on the Su-35 are harnessed, to complete the picture:



          14500 afterburner with a dead weight of 1500 kg, your super duper F135 gives 19500 with a weight of 2500 kg. That is, as it were, not twice ... and as if 8kg for 1kg of weight, and not 9,6kgs as in the edition-117.

          You would still compare F135 with AI-222-25, in general it’s ZHZHZHZHёёёOTTTTT as 8 pcs AI-222-25 wassat



          And another engine burns so burns - this is NK-25



          There are generally 25 tons of fries! weighing 3500kg ... With a comparable degree of bypass.
        3. cast iron 14 October 2015 11: 04 New
          • 52
          • 0
          +52
          I can not say about the planes - it is incompetent. But what about your leafy pictures of cars I will express. Firstly, I studied at a car designer at MAMI. Secondly, Moskvich 408/412 is no one's copy. And only a blind and stupid person will discern a copy from the Opel Cadet in the photograph. Thirdly, the VAZ2101 was not a pirated copy of the Fiat124. VAZ2101 was an OFFICIALLY PURCHASED LICENSE with all that it implies. Although Soviet limousines were created with great regard for their American counterparts, their design was creatively redesigned. And then call them a pirated copy of US cars - the opinion of an incompetent amateur. I have the honor. Laugh at your anti-Soviet next.
          1. Scraptor 14 October 2015 12: 30 New
            • 9
            • 0
            +9
            The 408th was simply unrealistic to buy - almost all went for export ...
            1. cast iron 26 October 2015 23: 20 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              408 Muscovite differs from 412 Muscovite in the main engine. He is weaker. The bodies are almost identical. Differences in interior and exterior details.
          2. _my opinion 14 October 2015 15: 00 New
            • 11
            • 0
            +11
            Quote: cast iron
            I can not say about the planes - it is incompetent. But what about your leafy pictures of cars I will express. Firstly, I studied at a car designer at MAMI. Secondly, Moskvich 408/412 is no one's copy. And only a blind and stupid person will discern a copy from the Opel Cadet in the photograph. Thirdly, the VAZ2101 was not a pirated copy of the Fiat124. VAZ2101 was an OFFICIALLY PURCHASED LICENSE with all that it implies. Although Soviet limousines were created with great regard for their American counterparts, their design was creatively redesigned. And then call them a pirated copy of US cars - the opinion of an incompetent amateur. I have the honor. Laugh at your anti-Soviet next.

            I’ll add to your words that the VAZ-2101 had an engine with overhead camshafts (our designers insisted on it) and as practice has shown, it was the overhead camshaft that got wide prospects ... yes, there were problems with the camshafts of kopecks in the first place - a certain percentage of them quickly wore out and on the scale of the multi-thousandth issue it was very noticeable.
            However, this was overcome by the introduction of surface hardening (as far as I remember, surface nitriding) ...
          3. Felix1 15 October 2015 11: 53 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            The beginning of the Russian automobile industry is Ford, which first gathered in Russia and then was produced under license.
            1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 11: 55 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              And not Russo-Balt?
              1. Felix1 15 October 2015 12: 38 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                No, not Rusobalt.
            2. Felix1 15 October 2015 12: 55 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              most likely Soviet.
        4. SPLV 14 October 2015 11: 58 New
          • 24
          • 0
          +24
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Well, a couple of pictures, laugh at your leisure:

          Thank you, probably, you should remember that the VAZ2101 is licensed! a copy and in this case the irony is inappropriate. On the other hand, I dare to remind you that the VAZ-2121 (Niva) became the pioneer of a whole class of cars - crossovers, as they are now called, and the first competitor (analog) - Toyota RAV4 appeared years later on 15. Let me remind you: the supporting body, permanent four-wheel drive, compact dimensions.
          And I also advise you to remember GAZ M 20 Victory. Compare with the one-year-old - Cadillac. In 1946, she appeared at one of Pininfarin's car dealerships with non-protruding wings, but Victory was already mass-produced this year.
          1. SergGrey318 14 October 2015 22: 22 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            In my opinion, Vitara, became the first follower. And yes, crossovers gained popularity in the 90s after the advent of RAB4 and Ts-RV.
            Threat. Duck and the term "crossover" appeared 20 years after the Niva.
            ZZY At the seed - English club of Niva lovers: http://www.ladaniva.co.uk/baxter/clubs.htm
        5. cosmos111 14 October 2015 23: 24 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The family of British “Harriers” takes off using a single PMD with four rotary nozzles located near the center of gravity of the aircraft. Thus, the British "vertical line" is deprived of the need to drag in flight "dead weight" in the form of additional lifting turbojet engines


          both the Boeing X-32B and the VTOL aircraft are equipped with an engine in the center of gravity ...
          the main engine is used, for vertical modes, additional lifting devices for (Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman lifting motors)

          the nozzle of the F119-614 engine was deflected by two nozzles, at the maximum possible angles with reaching the maximum thrust in the afterburner mode ...
          1. Scraptor 14 October 2015 23: 49 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            The British engine ... as again, almost the entire plane except the wing (a similar story was with Harrir-2).
            X-32 was an extras at the competition.
        6. Ze Kot 15 October 2015 16: 17 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Well, actually VAZ 2101 is a licensed copy of Fiat 124. So everything is legal here smile
        7. goose 19 October 2015 12: 21 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Opel with Muscovite what do they have in common? Moskvich has a redesigned BMW engine and body is completely different.
          1. cast iron 26 October 2015 23: 31 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Let's be honest, the Moscow ICE is only tilted by a cylinder block similar to the BMW M10. The rest is mine. It is enough to recall that the Moscow engine has an aluminum cylinder block, while BMWs in those days made them from cast iron)))) The differences in design are serious. Absolutely different oil channels, inlet channels differ in shape. Other attachment seats. There are many differences. But taking the inclined block and the spherical combustion chamber as a general principle does not mean “tearing it off”, because such solutions were invented and implemented long before the M10 motor from BMW of the 60s.
      2. ICT
        ICT 14 October 2015 07: 54 New
        • 12
        • 0
        +12
        Quote: crazyrom
        in Euclidean geometry and relations


        I won’t say anything on yak, but geometry and physics usually give the same answers for translating ideas

        the picture below is similar in appearance, but they are so different in the implementation of the design that you can also write an article
        1. remy 14 October 2015 11: 39 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          visually it seems that V-1V is something in between the Tu-160M ​​and Tu-22M3
        2. Scraptor 14 October 2015 12: 34 New
          • 12
          • 0
          +12
          You can not write - the Tu-160 range is one and a half times higher, the maximum speed is almost 2. The Myasischevites did it.
          1. goose 19 October 2015 12: 35 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            In fairness, although the B-1 speed never reached 2M, it was limited for strength reasons, and there weren’t much differences on paper.
            1. Scraptor 19 October 2015 12: 48 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Yes, just 1,25M, otherwise it would just not fall apart on paper. The Tu-160 2.05M.

              in Russian wikipedia I have some sort of nerus for Russians already limited to 1.6 lol so that the difference doesn’t seem so big.
        3. cosmos111 14 October 2015 23: 03 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: TIT
          but geometry and physics usually give the same answers for translating ideas


          DO NOT tell ... the Boeing X-32 project ((American idea and embodiment, BUT F-35 slammed into a series)))

          although with innovative ideas and technologies, it’s NOT inferior to Lockheed Martin in anything ...
          [/ Center]

          and an article on VO, in the subject: http: //topwar.ru/19623-programma-jsf-boing-h32.html
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. cosmos111 15 October 2015 00: 02 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) competition, McDonnell Douglas / British Aerospace / Northrop Grumman also participated, with the LPLC project (lift-plus-lift / cruise) ...

            with two power plants

            http://www.jsf.mil/gallery/gal_photo_cddr_mda-ngc-bae.htm....
            1. cosmos111 15 October 2015 00: 10 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              evolution of glider design for Jast: "Boeing" "McDonnell Douglas / British Aerospace / Northrop Grumman"
              1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 02: 06 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                the glider does not evolve, it is being built around laughing motor group, there were only two (Soviet and no British) ...
                1. cast iron 26 October 2015 02: 02 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  But I really like the glider of the American F / A-18. A beautiful fighter, what a sin to conceal.
            2. Scraptor 15 October 2015 02: 04 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              "These are but a few of the photographs" by reference.

              there is not a single photograph there, everything is drawn like this one and as below.
          3. Scraptor 15 October 2015 00: 12 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Another JSF Demotivator
            Everything is British there, except for the wing, and so on the little things ...
            With all the "innovations", he could fly vertically only in a semi-disassembled state.
            The transition from vertical to horizontal flight and vice versa has not been demonstrated even once.
            At the "competition" with the X-35 licked from Yak, he was an extras (after all, the competition was supposed to be) ...
          4. goose 19 October 2015 12: 37 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Lost in the degree of technical risk - most prototypes for this parameter are cut down. But the most prominent, sometimes conservative options come up. Depends on the political wind. If the USSR were alive and strong, the Boeing could well defeat.
            1. Scraptor 19 October 2015 12: 52 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              There are no options - no, he has non-forced rotary nozzles, and is very fire hazard ... he flew as an attraction to divert his eyes.
      3. Alex_59 14 October 2015 08: 36 New
        • 53
        • 0
        +53
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Yes, most of the development products that are not usually have the same story.
        All copy technical solutions from each other, and the Chinese duck generally did not care at all. What is this talking about? Yes, nothing. Oleg reacted so painfully to the fact that Lockheed Martin could have copied something from Yakovlev that he already muddied the article. Although any techie understands that the fact of copying (whether it was or not) does not mean the mediocrity and curvature of Lockheed engineers. He doesn't talk about anything at all. First-class engineers, equally talented, work at Lockheed and Yakovlev.

        For example, we copied B-29 - it turned out Tu-4. The work and the time frame in which this was done speaks more about the strength of our engineering school than about mediocrity. All these srachki, about who copied what from anyone, is such a kindergarten in which patients press each other with arguments like "But my father is a tankman, he will shoot your policeman from the tank." It doesn’t matter who copied what from anyone, it’s important what happened in the end.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        WS-300 project (1955 year), turned into our MiG-25
        But this is a deliberate distortion of the facts. And it lies in the word "transformed." Not only is the wording itself using the word "transformed" illiterate from a technical point of view, so it is also offensive to our engineers. The caterpillar turns into a butterfly, somehow by itself. This phrase sees an attempt to belittle the titanic amount of work that the MiG Design Bureau has done by creating the MiG-25 without relying on any phantom projects and concepts. If the phrase is written differently: “some of the layout decisions of the WS-300 project were used by the MiG-25 developers” - then everything falls into place. Concepts don't copy - just nothing to copy. What could they copy there? Layout? Duck is 0,5% of what it takes to take off. So the word "turned" in this case is the most severe humiliation of our engineers and designers, which is simply unacceptable!
        1. Cap.Morgan 14 October 2015 08: 54 New
          • -2
          • 0
          -2
          Somewhere until the mid-50s, we copied everything we could, then our own technical school developed and we were able to conduct completely independent developments. In general, there is nothing wrong with copying successful models of competitors' equipment. Saves money and time.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 October 2015 12: 03 New
          • 11
          • 0
          +11
          Quote: Alex_59
          But this is a deliberate distortion of facts

          With which Oleg, to be honest, already got it. It’s one thing to troll the audience with original statements, but why deliberately cheat?
          Quote: Alex_59
          "Some of the WS-300 project layout solutions were used by MiG-25 developers."

          By the way, it’s not a fact that our developers generally used them and did not come to them on their own.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. goose 19 October 2015 12: 40 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Oleg simply does not know how many layout decisions are considered when building almost any new model, especially in a new class. It is considered, as a rule, about 10, or even more layouts.
      4. War and Peace 14 October 2015 09: 53 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        I think that sooner or later the Americans will throw this fan behind the pilot, expand the bomb bay and there will be a plane like a plane ...
        1. Aqela 17 October 2015 11: 41 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Along the way, only it will be a completely different plane, but very very similar to the F-35. laughing
          1. Scraptor 17 October 2015 11: 47 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            This is an F-35A. Already thrown out ... (did not fly past wink )
      5. Bayonet 14 October 2015 10: 31 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: crazyrom
        Yeah, great article, first-class proven that it was not we copied, but it turns out WE HAVE COPIED!

        Before you write this, you need to think and read more with your head!
    2. Alex_59 14 October 2015 13: 33 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Quote: Alex_59
      "Some of the WS-300 project layout solutions were used by MiG-25 developers."
      By the way, it’s not a fact that our developers generally used them and did not come to them on their own.

      I agree. So you need to write correctly: "some layout solutions of the WS-300 project POSSIBLY were used by the MiG-25 developers
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 October 2015 16: 09 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        Quote: Alex_59
        So you need to write correctly: "some of the layout decisions of the WS-300 project MAY be used by the MiG-25 developers"

        In general, Oleg’s logic amuses me extremely.
        1) If the Americans bought the documentation of our VTOL aircraft - they did NOT copy our plane in anything.
        2) If the MiG-25 from afar has in some places some similarities with the WS-300, then this means that the Migovtsy copied the American development wassat
        1. Scraptor 14 October 2015 22: 17 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Apparently, he and a number of comrades are simply participating in this. no
        2. Aqela 17 October 2015 11: 53 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          And here is an example of how the American military stole the ideas of a French F-16 airplane line-up from the French:
          http://www.airwar.ru/enc/xplane/nord1500.html
          1. Scraptor 17 October 2015 13: 31 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            http://www.airwar.ru/enc/xplane/e8.html
            as if from here actually ...
    3. Civil 14 October 2015 20: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well, now the author is you, paid - zaminusut on the most October pumpkins) hold on))
  2. PlotnikoffDD 14 October 2015 06: 33 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    What does it matter now?
  3. Per se. 14 October 2015 07: 13 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    As a result, of the three F-35 modifications, only one (F-35B) has the ability to take off vertically. And the number of aircraft of this modification will be only 15% of the intended number of F-35. Neither the Air Force, nor the Navy, nor for export need such aircraft. The only customer is the marines, who over the past half century have never had to operate from advanced unprepared airfields. The choice in favor of F-35B is due, first of all, to the prestige and interests of the commercial structures included in the JSF project.
    What conclusions need to be drawn that we do not need VTOL? We no longer have them. What are we not the first VTOL aircraft created? So much of the world has been created by others. According to VTOL, only two countries until recently had the technology to build production vehicles, the USSR and the UK (the AV-8A Harrier fighter version was made in the UK, but was later converted by McDonnell-Douglas and licensed for production on the territory of USA Further modification of the fighter for the needs of the US Marine Corps provided the Harrier family with a long future.). The world's first supersonic VTOL aircraft was created in the Soviet Union, and here we are significantly torn away from the West. The Americans showed interest in the work on the Yak-141, this is a fact, they were interested in technical solutions, they bought our experience on the tail end. What the VTOL "neither the fleet nor export need such aircraft", well, well ... How are all the light aircraft carriers and UDCs on which verticals will be installed? Stop denying the obvious, time is running out, and we continue to be inactive, VTOL and convertiplane plans have appeared and will continue to develop, they will improve, would not lag behind here forever.
    1. Per se. 14 October 2015 07: 19 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      I’ll add another excerpt from Vadim Kolnogorov’s article “The Last Aircraft of the Soviet Union” (Aviamaster Magazine No.3 2003, available at http://hisofweapons.ucoz.ru/publ/rossija_sssr/sovremennaja_aviacija/istrebitel_j
      ak_141_jak_41m/48-1-0-115 )
      The growing crisis and the collapse of the union state did not allow to launch this machine in mass production. The accident served only as a formal reason to first freeze, and then completely cover up the theme of the development of V / KVP aircraft in our country. However, OKB continued to work on new promising projects for some time. In the process of creating and operating V / KVP aircraft, vast experience has been gained. As a result, the designers and scientists of our country managed to create a supersonic V / KVP aircraft, which has no analogues in the world. High flight tactical characteristics are evidenced by world records set on one of the experimental Yak-141 aircraft by test pilot AA Sinitsyn.
      By the end of the 1991 year, work at the Saratov aircraft plant on the preparation of serial production of the Yak-41M was stopped due to lack of funding. Refinishing and improving the performance of the aircraft in the Design Bureau in the following years were carried out at our own expense, counting on promising, including export orders. On the basis of the Yak-41M (Yak-141) and its promising modifications, a flexible mobile defensive system with a high degree of combat survivability could be created, capable of maintaining the combat potential of the defending side in the event of a sudden massive attack by the enemy.
      The appearance and development of V / KVP aircraft was due to the whole course of scientific and technological progress.

      The authors of some publications argue that the development of VTOL aircraft was the wrong direction, that they would never achieve the performance characteristics of conventional takeoff and landing aircraft. This is not entirely true. VTOL is an aircraft that has received new properties, and therefore new opportunities, compared to a conventional aerodynamic airplane. So, for example, the experience of the combat use of the AV-8В Harrier airborne combat helicopter showed that when using tactical helicopter tactics in close air combat, it is 2-3 times superior to the F / A-18 Hornet fighter-attack aircraft and F-14A " Tomcat ”, although in long-range combat loses to them with the ratio 1: 4.
      With the further development of the design of the Yak-41M type aircraft, the aerodynamic schemes gained the right to life, by implementing which you can get an aircraft that is not much inferior to an ordinary (classical) plane, but has several advantages. Such schemes were later to be implemented in aircraft such as the Yak-141M, Yak-43, etc. These schemes were presented at various exhibitions and published in a number of scientific and technical journals.
      In the projects of promising aircraft V / KVP worked out issues of increasing their combat effectiveness. To this end, it was proposed to follow in the direction of a significant increase in the combat range and time of locking in a given area, increasing the mass of the payload, increasing the range of weapons and improving fire control systems, reducing radar and infrared visibility. This is confirmed by the calculations, according to which the tactical and technical characteristics of the promising Yak-141М aircraft differ for the better in comparison with the Yak-141.
    2. Scraptor 14 October 2015 08: 40 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      They all "bought" for half a million dollars and not just the tail. Moreover, the entire production technology, not only design drawings.
      The American American British Harrier was unlicensed, they redone only the wing in it, increasing its area.
      They themselves did nothing.
      1. goose 19 October 2015 12: 48 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Scraptor
        The American American British Harrier was unlicensed, they redone only the wing in it, increasing its area.
        They did nothing themselves.

        Did not know thanks
        1. Scraptor 19 October 2015 13: 40 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          ... but serve it in such a way that:
          1. The ILC of the USA in AV-8A (British Harrier-1) something "did not suit" (as if they had not bought it from the British for 10+ years),
          2. Therefore, the McDonnell firm made them an order for an increased Harrier-2 (as if by herself, well, has done) and called it AV-8B
          3. The British allegedly began to buy this enlarged Harrier-2 (Harrier-GR) with an increased wing from them.

          Therefore, it turns out that Harrier-2 is an American plane! And it’s absolutely nothing that he has, for example, an English engine. Like everything else except the wing (and then on some, more on that below). Well, since Harrier-2 is an American plane, then Harrier-1 probably too ...

          In the English Harrier-FA (Harrier-2 in the version of the fighter), by the way, it remained, as in the Harrier-FRS.1, proportionally underestimated. Because the underloaded wing in battle also does not roll. Therefore, on the British Harrier-1 in the version of the attack aircraft, so that they could conduct an air battle, it was also small as on the version of the fighter. The weight of the radar shot was used to reserve a cabin or vice versa.

          And so that the American bike seemed like a reality, the right people in the British government (or in the boxes) this American increased wing to the British Harrier-GR really made BAE buy from the Americans. Only now the British Air Force / Navy (because they perish in them) insisted, and at least the Harrier-FA fighter was with its English wing. But they write to him a year of release later ... And AV-8B earlier, that is, again, the opposite is true.

          When there was a bluff with the X-32 for the competition, they also constantly danced around the "big unique and complex wing" and that it is American ... And everything else that makes an ordinary airplane vertical, as it were, does not count ... Wing " American "- and this is the main thing!
          Well, in the X-35, there was nothing American at all except the fan from the XV-5, and the Yakovlevites subcontracted it from Yak!

          The Americans themselves did not do anything on the SKVVP. In addition to the increased wing for Harrier-2, which is generally not needed.
  4. qwert 14 October 2015 07: 31 New
    • 12
    • 0
    +12
    The whole chip was in creating a rotary nozzle providing FORCING! mode of operation. Here it is the main know-how, which allowed us to create a supersonic FULL !!! vertical takeoff fighter. And here it is that know-how, having acquired which the Americans were able to create the supersonic F-35. And the external resemblance has nothing to do with it. Nobody says that we created the MiG-15 on the basis of some Western fighter, but everyone knows that we created it, at least at that time, and not 2 a year later, thanks to the successful purchase of NIN engines. So here, the Americans did not shine to create the F-35 until the 2020 year, and spending 3 times more money.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Mera joota 14 October 2015 07: 40 New
      • -3
      • 0
      -3
      Quote: qwert
      So here, the Americans did not shine to create the F-35 until 2020, and having spent 3 times more money.

      The rotary nozzle scheme was developed by American designers of Convair and used in subsequent engines by Mikulin and Rolls-Royce. Yakovlev Design Bureau could not design a nozzle because this is not their path.
      1. Scraptor 14 October 2015 08: 48 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        Convair, like the German MAN, did not succeed.
        The nozzle was made in the aircraft Yakovlev Design Bureau (it could), to the jealousy of the engine. Then they gave them for fine-tuning and adjustment to the engine ...
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Mera joota 14 October 2015 11: 13 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Scraptor
          The nozzle was made in the Yakovlev Design Bureau (it could),

          Such high-profile statements should be made by citing relevant links. Otherwise, only naive youths will believe in the tales that the Mikulinsk engineers wiped their noses ...
          1. Scraptor 14 October 2015 12: 44 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Oddly enough, you can find about it on the Internet yourself. By the way, for Convair and MAN, similar ideas, for obvious reasons, didn’t come from the engine either, which is even seen in the German nozzle.
    3. Scraptor 14 October 2015 08: 46 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      The plane was taken in its entirety, then the Americans began to tune it. This is a big difference. laughing And not by reverse development, but, "just taken."
      It has gone to this circus in the sand for 25 years (a quarter of a century). And the cardan coming from the engine to the fan from the F-35 falls out on the fly as before ... lol We decided to send the first squadron to Japan away from the eyes of taxpayers.
  5. sa-ag 14 October 2015 07: 55 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    interesting, but didn’t you try to cross the engine from F-35 with Harrier?
    1. abrakadabre 14 October 2015 13: 33 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      There, the plane is much smaller. You can cross. But for how many minutes of flight will the fuel fit in such a small airplane?
    2. Scraptor 15 October 2015 01: 56 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      We tried changing the engine from Harrier to cross with F-35, it turned out X-32

      Everything was even worse than "abrakadabre" wrote ...
  6. EvilLion 14 October 2015 08: 32 New
    • -14
    • 0
    -14
    Those who cry for the Yak-141 traitors.
    1. Scraptor 14 October 2015 08: 49 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      .. and sleep with women laughing
      1. Aqela 17 October 2015 11: 58 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Serious rebuke laughing
        1. Scraptor 17 October 2015 13: 34 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          yes, already -2000 and (8) wink
  7. Vikxnumx 14 October 2015 08: 41 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Well, a couple of pictures, laugh at your leisure:

    Well, here you are a little excited ...
    Especially with the "Penny" and FIAT-124!
    License with deep revision! 124 compared to the "Penny" - the last century!
    Yes, and “Moskvich - 412” something is not very similar to “Opel” ... And knowing the time intervals for the development of “Pugs” before production ... the same “Opel” we stole it !!!
    laughing
    1. Bayonet 14 October 2015 10: 38 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: VIK1711
      Yes, and “Moskvich - 412” something is not very similar to the “Opel” is similar ...

      And whose engine is it rooted in? BMW however. smile
  8. Hammer 14 October 2015 08: 42 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    To copy someone else’s, you need tons of documentation, specialists, a couple of serviceable samples and the aviation industry sharpened for a specific machine. The only thing the USSR copied from the west is the B29 aka Tu-4. For the sake of it, it was necessary to completely rebuild the aviation industry, discover hundreds of new alloys and thousands of technologies, retrain tens of thousands of personnel, design new equipment, build a factory to produce this equipment, and train personnel for these plants. These are the years and millions of then rubles. All this as soon as possible, in a historical perspective, gave a giant leap to domestic industry (Stalin's smart move). The only reason to copy someone else's is what I described above, that is, only to solve internal problems. The same Tu-4 was released in small and small batches. Therefore, when someone talks about “copying” someone else's, pretending to be external resemblance, I always smile sarcastically.
    1. Cap.Morgan 14 October 2015 09: 05 New
      • -5
      • 1
      -6
      Dozens more samples of captured German technology.
      The work of thousands of "prisoners of war" German engineers is modestly silent, they worked, worked, but did not work out anything, which they did not understand. But at the same time, our scientists made a leap in that period - a whole bunch of first-class models of military equipment appeared.
      1. Scraptor 14 October 2015 09: 45 New
        • 11
        • 0
        +11
        About the work of hundreds ... Thousands of waeals with Von Braun and up to this with Cepellinus in the USA.
        For example, the F-86 is a redesigned Lippish P-20 (and on a German engine).
        And because of the MiG-15, all the German designers fought “whose he is” (supposedly everyone still had a model on the table in the Reich) until he dreamed that he ... on an English engine. lol
      2. saturn.mmm 14 October 2015 12: 45 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        About the work of thousands of "prisoners of war" German engineers skomno silent,

        As the modestly silent work of thousands of engineers of the Russian Empire in Germany after the revolution.
        1. Scraptor 14 October 2015 18: 00 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          And in France and especially in the USA ...
        2. ty60 April 15 2016 21: 48 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Sikorsky, Zvorykin - nothing is heard about them?
    2. Scraptor 14 October 2015 09: 09 New
      • 15
      • 0
      +15
      Well, Li-2 (DC-3) was produced under license ... The Tu-4 was copied by reverse engineering, like the J-11 (Su-27) and before that the MiG-21 were Chinese, the MiG-19 they had under license .
      The Americans bought all the technology for Yak. But "for some reason" without a license. Then they started in the car as the pioneers poked around and tried to push it back. It didn’t work - they hired Yakovlevites for subcontracting. crying
      Also previously received all the technology for Harrier from the British (without a license). They can. The American court did not accept the BAE lawsuit. Most Americans copied the AV-8, at least a purchased engine. wassat
      The X-37 automation from the Buran.
      SM-3 was made from SM-2 by the addition of S-300 technology and only after that was it able to begin to intercept ballistic and air targets well.
      Almost everything on the ISS is Russian (except for solar panels).
      Such is the "American Dream"! laughing
      1. Air Force captain 14 October 2015 09: 42 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Scraptor - Take care of yourself ....)))
      2. gladcu2 14 October 2015 19: 59 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Scraptor

        If it `s not a secret. Where did you get such vast knowledge gathered together?

        Professionals do not use them. Historians do not specialize. Lovers are possible. But for this you need to be a fan.

        Then who are you?
      3. Blackmokona 15 October 2015 09: 40 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Why would they set automatic equipment from Buran when the Shuttle had similar automatic equipment?
        http://history.nasa.gov/sts1/pages/computer.html
        1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 10: 21 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          If she was on the Shuttle then he would land unmanned. And even more so - it was tested in the first flight.

          They even do not know how to dock in orbit automatically within the line of sight (they also bought the Soviet one), not like landing on a strip over the horizon.
    3. Alex_59 14 October 2015 10: 19 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Cap.Morgan
      About the work of thousands of "prisoners of war" German engineers skomno silent

      And about the millions who were personally executed by Stalin, too, everyone was silent. Yeah. The plot, then!
    4. V.ic 14 October 2015 10: 47 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Hammer
      The only thing that the USSR copied from the west - this is B29 aka Tu-4.

      What about "sweet couple" DC-3 and Li-2?
      1. erg
        erg 14 October 2015 12: 30 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Douglas was not copied, but licensed. But since it was planned to produce at domestic factories, where the entire machinery was graduated in the metric system, we had to recalculate the entire structure, which was successfully done. Therefore, he got the designation Li-2. In the 20s, the same thing was done with the English de Haviland, which we designated as R-1 (though the right to produce it was received by Tsarist Russia, not Soviet).
      2. Bayonet 14 October 2015 18: 28 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: V.ic
        But what about the “sweet couple” of DC-3 and Li-2?

        In the mid 30s. American company Douglas has created a truly revolutionary twin-engine passenger aircraft DC-3. Its high flight data and sufficiently large capacity attracted the attention of not only American companies, but also numerous foreign customers. Among the latter was the Soviet Union, not limited to the acquisition of finished aircraft, but also purchased a license for its production.
        The production of machines under the designation PS-84 was established in 1939 at the factory number 84 in Khimki, Moscow Region. After the evacuation of the enterprise in the second half of 1941, production was transferred to the aircraft factory in Tashkent. The aircraft produced here received the designation Li-2 - by the name of V.P. Lisunova, engaged in the introduction of the machine into production.
    5. van zai 14 October 2015 12: 25 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      "Tu-4 was produced in small and small batches" Ha! more than 800 units are small batches ???
  9. Engineer 14 October 2015 08: 54 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    It would be better to write about dreams of a modern battleship than to compare a plane with pictures.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 October 2015 12: 06 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Engineer
      It would be better about the dreams of a modern battleship wrote

      DO NOT!!!!! Although maybe you are right laughing
    2. The comment was deleted.
  10. Alex_59 14 October 2015 08: 55 New
    • 20
    • 0
    +20
    Personally, I will mercilessly minus the authors who use epithets “for the Nobel Prize” and “the most ... in the history of fighter aviation” in writing articles and comments on Western designers, and for our designers the dismissive “turned”, “chuckle at leisure "... There is bias. This is not analytics, this is agitprop diluted with interspersed technical facts.
    And I am sure that even Lockheed Martin engineers would support this position of mine, because they somehow know what titanic work is being trampled into the mud with the careless words “copied” and “transformed”.
    1. Avenich 14 October 2015 09: 09 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Alex_59
      respect to our designers dismissive "turned", "laugh at leisure" ...

      The respected Aftor used similar statements to Russian and Soviet engineers before. "Only a fool ... what (censorship)" and so on and so forth. The trouble is that your obedient servant is also such an engineer, and so the gracious sovereign Oleg has an eternal minus and “caustic comments” from me, regardless of the topic of the article.
    2. Scraptor 14 October 2015 09: 48 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Their PR to my commentary on their no less obscene article on this subject gave less than 48 hours to sag. They even banned the neutral English there.
      This is the GMO that stole, sat on the stolen horse of his LiveJournal, forges grandmothers, smiles, rides and mocks at all, especially over those whom they surrounded ... yes
    3. erg
      erg 14 October 2015 12: 52 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      It seems to me useless. It is difficult for some people to explain that the appearance and design of the product is dictated by the environment in which this product will have to work. That copying implies accurate reproduction of both the appearance and the design, up to the reproduction of the method of joining individual parts. That having the same appearance, can vary greatly in internal design. A study by designers of the experience and achievements of colleagues from other countries, companies, etc. - This is the norm and does not mean blind copying. And finally, to make a high-quality copy, you need to have your own developed technical school and excellent specialists, otherwise what the hell happens.
      1. Scraptor 14 October 2015 18: 06 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Therefore, it’s easier to come and “buy” or take everything away from the Russians, as the British had done before, and if you don’t get what you want to do yourself, then hire them as a subcontractor or purchase thermo-loaded engine parts or even the whole thing with a harrier.
  11. FID
    FID 14 October 2015 09: 14 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    An extreme example of our “copying” of someone else’s technology is the Yak-130 (a poor company of Yakovlev, everyone copies everything) ... All unbelievers can compare ...
    1. Scraptor 14 October 2015 09: 51 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      You would have explained to people that everything is the other way around and these are “Italians rich” (again, having received everything from Yak-130 for 5 million lire), otherwise they would think ... belay
      Another Yak-3 from the collection of this glorious design bureau somewhere was gone during a foreign exhibition at that time.
      1. FID
        FID 14 October 2015 10: 46 New
        • 14
        • 0
        +14
        And what to explain? Above is the diagram of the “product 70” and B-1B ... How many times has it been said that THESE ARE DIFFERENT airplanes, but speculation about it was stolen, not stolen, and they are still walking. They can’t calm down ... Yakovlev’s design bureau, like Tupolev’s design bureau, Ilyushin’s were thoroughly gutted in the cursed 90s ... The Americans are only now putting “sharklets” (wingtips in the form of a shark fin), but for some reason they don’t remember where these endings were developed and where did the Americans communize them ... (I will send the inquisitives to the Tupolev Design Bureau, and, later, to the Ilyushin Design Bureau). But few people know about it ... But to shake the air with the ingenuity of the Americans is fashionable ...
  12. Pate 14 October 2015 09: 42 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In an interview with Channel One, namely, the Shock Force, the designer of the Yak-141, said that the Americans simply stole the scheme, if they did not steal it from us, then why didn’t they choose the Boeing VTOL aircraft.
    1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 01: 50 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Pate
      Designer Yak-141

      Awesome ... this comment someone put 2 minuses.

      In general, he did not say “scheme” but “aircraft” to mine ...
  13. tomket 14 October 2015 09: 46 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Already fed up like that .... Kaptsov again deuce !!! The fact that the Marines did not use their VTOL aircraft from unprepared airfields does not mean that they do not use vertical take-off when starting from the deck of the ship.
  14. maximghost 14 October 2015 10: 42 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    But the main difference between the F-35B is a unique way of vertical takeoff.
    The new scheme is fundamentally different from all that used previously on other VTOL.

    The engine is different, but the layout of the f-35 with the yaks is the same and the principle of take-off "at 2 points".

    The design of the F-35B implements a relatively simple and efficient design using a “cold” lift fan, whose transmission is driven by a lift-propulsion engine (PMD) with a rotary nozzle


    Simple and effective? Are you kidding me? The fan drive from the nifga engine is not simple, it was brought up for a very long time. At the same time, the fan weighs more than 2 Yakovsky PMDs, takes up a larger volume and gives less traction, while at the same time eating up the traction from the PMD (as a result, the f-35 is not capable of normal vecicle take-off with combat load and full tanks). In addition, the fan does not shine with reliability (cracks in the fan), and the entire system provides vertical landing without a plane flipping (which is described in each article about f-35) far from always.

    The only customer is the marines, who over the past half century have never had to operate from advanced unprepared airfields. The choice in favor of the F-35B is primarily due to the prestige and interests of the commercial structures included in the JSF project.

    Marines need verticals so that they can fly with UDC and depend less on the fleet. In addition to the American marines, the F-35b will order Britain to equip its aircraft carriers, while other countries that have light aircraft carriers and the Udk are considering replacing the harriers with the F-35.

    “Yaku” was not at all pleased with domestic customers from the Moscow Region. After 17 years of development, the super fighter failed the GSI (the crash of the Yak-141 aboard the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier).


    They have already commented on the ICG, so I will not repeat the above ...

    Sailors by that time had reassessed the tactics of using carrier-based aircraft in the direction of fighters with high thrust-weight ratio and a shortened springboard take-off. Under the circumstances, the unfortunate “Yak” could not oppose anything to the mighty Su-33.


    What is the reevaluation of tactics? What is the competition with the Su-33? What are you talking about? The USSR had 4 ships specially designed for helicopters and vertical aircraft. + the possibility of basing on Kuznetsovo was also worked out (if the stern “helicopter” launching positions were not changed, the heat-resistant material would cover it, like on “Kiev”). If interested, then upon arrival home I can find a photo of 38 yak on Kuznetsov's deck.
    1. Scraptor 14 October 2015 12: 55 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The engine nozzle (rotary assembly) is no different. The matching fan control system, depending on the alignment angle of the aft nozzle from the same engine control systems on the Yak, is also. This is it! "Purchased" with the plane, at the price of BMW ...
      1. maximghost 14 October 2015 13: 03 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Speaking of the difference, I meant the fan drive. The idea with a fan is certainly interesting, but, kmk, a scheme with a PD is still more effective ...
        1. goose 19 October 2015 13: 58 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: maximghost
          Speaking of the difference, I meant the fan drive. The idea with a fan is certainly interesting, but, kmk, a scheme with a PD is still more effective ...

          The fan circuit was invented when the weight output of the engines and their control systems left much to be desired using EDSU and more intense thermal parameters, hoisting motors from the beginning of 2000 were beyond competition. By mass returns to mechanics. Outdated technology with less technical risk.
          1. Scraptor 19 October 2015 14: 20 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            In the 60s are still outdated. The fan also controls the EMF, and the Soviet one. Everything is Soviet there except for this fan from XV-5. It’s just that the car should have had at least something of its own. They lie that "they took only the nozzle, and they didn’t take it because they had it" ... It was but not like that, and it did not work, but there was no EDSU at all. The Germans even had an emf.
            And without EDSU, that engines and fans can be installed only in front and behind on the sides of the center of mass of the aircraft as it was on the VFW VAK 191B, and it is subsonic (the rear will interfere with the marching nozzle).
  15. Ilya77 14 October 2015 10: 49 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    In short, Oleg got into the wrong steppe) Better about battleships and armor ...
  16. Protonbrest 14 October 2015 11: 26 New
    • -5
    • 0
    -5
    An engine in the 90s sold a bottle of vodka. Probably with intent. What the US Air Force has brought today.
  17. qwert 14 October 2015 11: 26 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Quote: Mera Joota
    The rotary nozzle scheme was developed by American designers of Convair and used in subsequent engines by Mikulin and Rolls-Royce. Yakovlev Design Bureau could not design a nozzle because this is not their path.

    Who is arguing ???? I'm talking about the afterburner combustion mode in the rotary nozzle. Here it is the task. I say this as an aircraft engine engineer with a diploma.
    And one nuance. The average development period for an aircraft is from 5 to 10 years; the cost of an engine for it is from 7 to 15 years. Those. the engine is on average one and a half times more complicated than the entire aircraft.
    Ours were able to provide this mode and create a nozzle for it with all the kinematics. The Americans took advantage of our experience.
    And in general, we have dvigatelistov use the expression: The engine flies, everything else is already a load.
    1. Scraptor 14 October 2015 13: 22 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: qwert
      Who is arguing ????

      The American and German systems were unsuccessful. Moreover, although earlier and somehow similar, they did not even take up the prototype because nobody knew about them in the USSR. Usually intelligence is not looking for misfortune.
      When this engine began to be made in the USSR, they began to look for whether something similar was being done abroad.
    2. goose 19 October 2015 14: 00 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: qwert
      And in general, we have dvigatelistov use the expression: The engine flies, everything else is already a load.

      With thrust ratio> = 1 - the true truth.
  18. sevtrash 14 October 2015 11: 27 New
    • -6
    • 0
    -6
    To create advanced models of weapons, we need some well-known things.
    The material and technical base - that the Americans will most of all direct funds for the development of armaments will cause no objections? That their design bureaus and factories have the best / one of the best hardware, software, etc. also?
    Personnel - Americans have more human resources, the quality of education, if not the best, is one of the best. Just type the query "top universities" and take a look. And if we take into account their policy of attracting promising scientists from all over the world to work / residency. And this means that the level of fundamental developments that can be used to create promising weapons models is higher, the personnel working in firms, design bureaus are among the best. Everyone remembers the sacramental - "cadres decide everything"?
    Of course, this does not mean that other countries / firms cannot create separate breakthrough or American-style weapons. And, of course, this applies to the Soviet Union / Russia, as well as Great Britain, France, Germany.
    Ultimately, everything is determined by personnel and resources. The United States has more than the rest. And this can be seen from the 5th generation at least - f22 was created already about 20 years ago, operation began 10 years ago and no one has such. And f35 for 200 pieces have already been released.
    But there are spots in the sun. For some reason, they needed VTOL, little Osprey. And note - officially collaborated with Yakovlev Design Bureau and bought the documentation. As they say used to create a nozzle and the location of the fan.
    In general - many probably copied / stole ideas. If you estimate the volume, the more affected, probably just the United States. Just because they had / have things that others don't have.
    1. Scraptor 14 October 2015 13: 29 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Get in trouble ... Have you seen a few crow's nests with all sorts of different brilliant things that their masters no longer have?

      Before the Osprey was the Canadian CL-84, so where is it? And where are the British harriers now? Unlicensed copy of which is the American Harrier AV-8B. Everything should be only the world hegemon ...
      1. sevtrash 14 October 2015 16: 33 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Scraptor
        Unlicensed copy of which is the American Harrier AV-8B.

        Yes Yes. Harrier 1 did not suit the Marine Corps in range and load, which is why they decided to upgrade it to the AV-8B Harrier II version. Both McDonnell Douglas and British Aerospace / Hawker Siddele co-built Harier 2. Can you imagine? Jointly.
        Quote: Scraptor
        Before the Osprey was the Canadian CL-84, so where is it?

        Of course of course. Only you have forgotten the Falcon project of 1934, the German p1003, fa269. And mi30 was also. And, imagine, a whole bunch of Americans - Bell XV-3, Boeing Vertol VZ-2, Bell X-22A, XC-142A, Doak VZ-4, etc. And yes - Canadair CL-84, as many as three experienced built.
        Do you know which envelope plan - the only one - went beyond the scope of the project and tests and is in service? Imagine - just the Bell V-22 Osprey.
        1. Scraptor 14 October 2015 22: 37 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          If Harrier-1 didn’t suit the U.S. CLC in range and load, then they would have taken it under the designation AV-8A from the British before ...
          Imagine - Harrier-2 British company BAE has developed itself! Moreover, which is amazing, based on (its non-American) Harrier-1 lol And then the Americans came up with the idea of ​​creating a joint venture with her “to adapt it for the ILC,” McDonnell received the full documentation for the Harrier-2 from the British as part of the project, and immediately after that the British asked the joint venture, creating unbearable conditions for them.
          But on the new engine, the British did not share everything at all, so 25% of the dvigles were licensed, and 75% were made in UK laughing
          If the “priest” of the ILC was supposedly “not happy” with something in Harrier-1, this does not mean that Harrier-2 is American or joint. The American Harrier-2 differs from the English only in a slightly enlarged wing, that’s the whole “joint development”.

          Of course, only here it is acceptable in the west from the tiltrotor only CL-84 flew (and passed the test by the way), and better than the V-22 now flies (like the Yak-41 it flew much better than the F-35).
    2. Arikkhab 14 October 2015 18: 49 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      1) about the article - the article is very controversial to say the least ("the f-35 has tail shafts 20 cm shorter, which clearly proves that we have a completely different plane ..."). how interesting (albeit indisputable) the author’s articles related to the Navy, but here - not in that steppe
      2) is the quality of education one of the best? "top universities" say? good education (as they say - in elite American universities, Russian professors teach Chinese mathematics ...), but "top" is also a specific concept - this is about the country's credit rating - who makes it up? one thing bothers me - if they have such great science and education - why can't they repeat the flight to the moon? and what ? a new century, new materials, new industry opportunities ... why can't they create a normal functioning rocket system? everything that the Soviet Union did in space - all the same, Russia is able to repeat at a new level (send people into space, and a moon rover if anyone needs it ...). and the Americans - a complete regression, dopilivanie old weapons, and the new only f-22 more or less, and what else? aircraft carriers ??? no, here I certainly bend a little, the fleet is strong, SSBNs and aircraft carriers are being built (and where else to push money?), but there are no “breakthroughs”, there is a quiet evolution, but something revolutionary in technology or weapons has not appeared for a long time.
      the level of "elite education" is a separate issue ... let's take for example everyone's favorite jane psaki - she graduated from the College of Wilhelm and Mary - a state research university, which was established in 1693 and is the second highest educational institution in the USA (!) and in According to Forbes magazine, the ranking of the best American state universities was ranked 4th - and this is probably one of the best graduates of this cool educational institution (and also a diplomat) believes that Russia imports gas from Poland ??? plus a bunch of the rest of the crap she carries ... however ...
      1. sevtrash 14 October 2015 20: 10 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: ArikKhab
        as they say - in elite American universities, Russian professors teach Chinese mathematics ..


        Well, yes - another myth. Of course, there are also from Russia, as well as from other countries.
        Just take it, count how much, it's simple, take one of the leading universities in the world - Massachusetts Technological, count at least how many Nobel Prize winners they have, how many Americans, how many different nationalities, how many Russians. Go to the website of this university yourself, count it yourself, maybe one more myth will disappear.

        Quote: ArikKhab
        why can't they repeat the flight to the moon?

        What for? For check? So they did it already, the great space race is over. Or, hint that they were not there? Well, yes, another myth.
        And if you think that nothing has been done since then - at least Hubble to help. Or Mars.

        Quote: ArikKhab
        plus a bunch of the rest of the crap she carries ... however ...

        She carries the crap that she must bear in her position and in the concept defined by her leadership. It is said that Russia is a country of evil - that’s all. Also say that diplomats are models of truthfulness.
        1. Scraptor 14 October 2015 23: 37 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Maybe take a look and see? Le 10 ago it was exactly like that.
          how prizes are distributed - it is known.

          Then, that Saturn-5 was very unreliable, like its F-1 engines, which were not used on any rocket anymore. Apollo 13 was nearly lost from the unnecessary shaking.

          She used to work at Lockheed. This is that adder, especially now.
        2. Arikkhab 15 October 2015 00: 02 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          You can take, of course, the number of Nobel Prize winners at MTU, if not one but ... do you think that the distribution of this prize is not politicized and reflects the laureate’s real merits to science? That is, according to your logic, except in MTU, nowhere in the world have they practically discovered anything new? I understand that there are also talented scientists there, but many received the award as applicants (America is the best, right?), It seems like they simultaneously discovered something new ...
          PS of course, the hubble and the rover are achievements, but still not of the same level as the lunar program ... you don’t need to check, but for a country with such a potential, a set of Nobel laureates and buy rocket engines from enemies? Something wrong...
        3. goose 19 October 2015 14: 07 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: sevtrash
          Well, yes - another myth. Of course, there are also from Russia, as well as from other countries.

          Not a myth. Officially, no more than 4% of Americans study in the technical specialties of American universities (in medical, legal - more than 80%)

          The teaching and research staff is completed as follows: the department of emigrants and the chief is American. First-hand information. In science and technology, Indians, Chinese, immigrants from the USSR, Latinos, and only then the indigenous nation and Europeans.
        4. ty60 April 15 2016 22: 01 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The best example of dill obedience to Mr. Biden!
  19. saturn.mmm 14 October 2015 12: 01 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    After 17 years of development, the super fighter failed the GSI (the crash of the Yak-141 aboard the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier).

    I would like to know where this fact came from.
    The drawings of the Yak-141, obtained with such difficulty, were collapsed and laid aside.

    Is it possible to clarify what kind of work it was?
    Technology reduction visibility? Radar with active phased antenna AN / APG-81? Infrared all-view detection system AN / AAQ-37?

    Do we compare aircraft, avionics or weapons?
    There really are a lot in common! Unless the scheme is “high-wing” and two wings. Even the keels at Lightning - and they are divorced by 20 grams. from the normal.

    So the F-35 has two wings?
    But the main difference between the F-35B is a unique way of vertical takeoff.
    The new scheme is fundamentally different from all that used previously on other VTOL.

    So far no one has proved that a solution with a fan is better than with a lifting motor
    air supply to the PMD compressor in vertical take-off mode is made through a special air intake on the upper side of the fuselage.

    Air supply for lifting engines was also carried out through the upper air intake.
    A tricycle nozzle that can turn down 95 ° in 2,5 seconds. Burning (but not burning) in the raging blue flame of a jet stream!

    This is too artistic. Still, kerosene burns and not the nozzle.
    Those who claim the similarity between the Yak and the F-35 do not like to recall that the first such three-support nozzle was designed by Conver for the Convair Model 200 vertical take-off fighter.

    The escort beyond the figure that you did not advance in the article, they did not even have a desktop layout.
    According to the laws of Euclidean geometry - how to place it differently?

    And in relation to the MiG-25, the Euclidean geometry does not work?
    Engines and fans take a considerable amount of space inside the fuselage, where fuel tanks and other payloads are usually located.

    Despite this, the Americans are allocating huge funds for the development of the concept of vertical take-off and landing, which is expressed not only in the F-35 but also in convertiplanes.
    1. goose 19 October 2015 14: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      And in relation to the MiG-25, the Euclidean geometry does not work?

      No, the MiG-25 was so advanced that the calculation was carried out based on non-Euclidean 5-dimensional geometry. For Americans, these technologies are not yet open.
  20. castle 14 October 2015 12: 31 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And because of what kindle the cheese boron? From pokon centuries all borrowed from each other. The laws of nature are the same for everyone, physics, mathematics, chemistry, metal science, etc., for all the same. Sometimes they either invent something earlier than those others, or vice versa. The F-35 is made of completely different materials (titanium and some similar grades have become there) and using other technologies and other control systems, based on new electronics, and the aerodynamics there are not quite the same as those of the Yak-43. F-35 is just another plane (I will not judge whether it is good or bad).
    It seems like smart people, but you pull the entire blanket over yourself. Who borrowed from anyone, that’s the solution to all the problems!
    You have no other problems?
    And you can talk about borrowing coincidences in a separate article. Anyone wishing to write a true article?
    1. Scraptor 14 October 2015 14: 10 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Here is a true comment:

      Yak has titanium, steel, and even composites.
      The fan on the F-35 is controlled by the Yakovlev system, which is more than "characteristic".
      Stealth came to America from the USSR
      Onboard headlight / AFAR came to America from the Russian Federation
      The virtual helmet came to America from Israel taken from the crashed Syrian MiG-23.
      US only uses Russian titanium on planes - even the SR-71 was made entirely from Soviet titanium, their own is too fragile.

      SCVVP differs from ordinary aircraft in that
      1. balancing is more difficult because it should be able to hang
      2. need OBT at a larger angle (just for hovering)
      3. It is necessary to synchronize this OBE (differential pull), especially in transition modes from the hovering mode to horizontal flight.

      The plane wasn’t even copied, it’s all Soviet, it’s just Lockheed got the full production technology of Yak up to its last node, but for some reason without a license ... Therefore, as you can see, at least the laws of law are different for them.
      And then they patented it all at home, and everyone pretends that it is good.

      Prior to that, they slightly changed the wing at the Bhartan harrier and began to release it unlicensed at home, and everyone pretends that this is good.

      Even before that, the company that made the Canadian CL-84 was bankrupted (for some reason, it suddenly lost interest in the customer’s Yak-41 in the Canadian Air Force), and then the American "Osprey" appeared.

      Even before that, there was "more" ... laughing
      1. Ilya77 14 October 2015 21: 26 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Scraptor
        Here is a true comment:


        Stealth came to America from the USSR
        Onboard headlight / AFAR came to America from the Russian Federation
        The virtual helmet came to America from Israel taken from the crashed Syrian MiG-23.
        US only uses Russian titanium on planes - even the SR-71 was made entirely from Soviet titanium, their own is too fragile.


        I was surprised with titanium, and with a helmet, I don’t know! Why is it that everyone knows that the KGB bought machines for the production of propellers for the Sharks, they remember it at every corner, but it’s silent. Some of them are getting out of their way, belittling our engineering school, trying to prove that we all stole from the west, but in fact it’s not so simple.
      2. alex86 17 October 2015 19: 40 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        And the Cherepanov brothers - and the prominent Kryakutnoy - and Mozhaisk - and Ivan the Terrible with oral sex and "X" rays ...
        And Russia is the birthplace of elephants.
        Sorry - could not resist.
        1. Scraptor 17 October 2015 19: 49 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Ever heard of mammoths? They are twice as large as elephants ...
          French pranks in Russia never loved

          Maybe someone will forgive.
          1. alex86 17 October 2015 20: 25 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Actually, this is from a joke about the fact that everything was invented in Russia (suddenly they did not understand). Copy elephants from Russian mammoths?
            And yet - I did not drink with you on the Brudershaft.
            1. Scraptor 17 October 2015 20: 52 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: alex86
              Actually, this is from a joke

              closer to the topic ... it was an urchin over Truth, go no? Y / N?
              N- well, so let's have a drink! yes
              Y- I wouldn’t be with you. bully

              No, the mammoths went to warmer countries, bald there, squandered and chopped 2 times, which is typical.
              So Russia is truly the birthplace of elephants.
              Those remaining on the spot were destroyed by a glacier or people ate (which is also characteristic).
              Export of ivory from warm countries exceeded Russian relatively recently.
              1. alex86 17 October 2015 21: 14 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                “Have you stopped drinking cognac in the morning? Quickly answer - yes or no” (Carlson).
                It was an attempt to convey that such peremptory statements could not be Truth (in your statement) due to the fact that engineering works exist regardless of your point of view and territorial nationality. And trying to uniquely identify authorship is a thankless task. But the successful implementation of an engineering solution with access to serial samples is a very real indicator of state attention to solving the problem.
                Once again - I didn’t drink with you on the Brudershaft.
                1. Scraptor 17 October 2015 22: 02 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Then the second option (Y).

                  They are true:
                  They took the Soviet pre-production sample and all its technology in full, in bulk.
                  the technologies listed above are complete (but in parts), and much more.

                  that it depends on my point of view and other things or not, you don’t know, it cannot be known, and it’s none of your business.

                  With your jokes, etc. similar - you are of no interest.
                  1. alex86 18 October 2015 18: 35 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    The Prophets claimed the Truth in the intelligible history of mankind, the last was Mohammed - do you claim his laurels?
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    that it depends on my point of view and other things or not, you don’t know, it cannot be known, and it’s none of your business.
                    - this is at the level of "D.U.r.a.k."
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    With your jokes, etc. similar - you can’t imagine any interest
                    - so mutually, it is sad that such paranoia finds a place on this site (and in life) ...
                    1. Scraptor 19 October 2015 00: 00 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      It’s on the level of go and teach Him or the supreme mufti of Chechnya ... just don’t try to speak first.

                      sad for you, yes, but (Y) is valid.
                      1. alex86 19 October 2015 17: 53 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        sad for you, yes, but (Y) is valid

                        Yes, somehow your location is not important to me and we didn’t drink on the Brudershaft - I remind you. Bad manners in communication do not decorate.
                        Regarding the truth with a capital letter - once again - the last prophet to claim it was Mohammed. Your claim to knowing any truth, especially with a capital letter, testifies only to insecurity in your position, reinforced only by faith in it. Nothing in this world can be said with absolute certainty, especially some time after what happened. Try to look critically at your position - and you will immediately feel better ...
                      2. Scraptor 19 October 2015 21: 42 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        I remind you: (Y) = "but I would not have become with you."

                        Do you have any knowledge of the subject?
                        Quote: alex86
                        claiming to know any truth, especially with a capital letter, testifies only to insecurity in one's position, reinforced only by faith in it. You can’t talk about anything in this world with absolute certainty, especially after some time after the incident. Try to critically look at your position - and you will immediately feel better ...

                        I have a good memory.
                        go look for a fool and accuse anyone else, "catechist".
                      3. ty60 April 15 2016 22: 11 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        You can’t trust anyone in this world! An old Jew exclaimed in the middle of a busy intersection! Even to myself! After all, I just wanted to fart !!
              2. Scraptor 17 October 2015 22: 23 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                If suddenly someone was embarrassed by a long list (of which I personally doubt), then America took away a lot of things even from its closest members of the British, for example, the same Harrier-2, and released it unlicensedly, though it choked on its engine ...
    2. goose 19 October 2015 14: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Scraptor
      The plane wasn’t even copied, it’s all Soviet, it’s just Lockheed got the full production technology of Yak up to its last node, but for some reason without a license ... Therefore, as you can see, at least the laws of law are different for them.
      And then they patented it all at home, and everyone pretends that it is good.

      Prior to that, they slightly changed the wing at the Bhartan harrier and began to release it unlicensed at home, and everyone pretends that this is good.

      American patent law legally in the United States has an advantage over international. These are the things ...
  21. ty60 April 15 2016 22: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    All from childhood, who pees higher on the fence.
  • Logos 14 October 2015 13: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: crazyrom
    Yeah, great article, first-class proven that it was not we copied, but it turns out WE HAVE COPIED!

    If you look, then in the history of absolutely any invention so many predecessors from different countries are mixed that it is simply impossible to talk about anyone's priority.
    But to propagandists (on both sides of the ocean), it’s much easier not to mention such “trifles” at all and to broadcast about “having no analogues in the world”, this well reinforces the myth of tribal superiority strengthened among the masses
    1. Scraptor 14 October 2015 18: 24 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      And therefore there is no patent law? (where people also sit).
      There is another topic - to steal and spread the reverse fables about the “scoop”, even if everything is sewn with white thread.
      Especially if they are really dumb and can only play on the stock exchange ...
  • serverny 14 October 2015 13: 08 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Mdams, too much deliberate distortion of facts and deliberate lies. And this is if you ignore the general mocking and mocking tone in relation to the Soviet engineering school.

    Still, some sort of moderation of the articles must take place, at least post factum, in order to cut out such deliberately misinforming opuses.
    1. Scraptor 14 October 2015 18: 33 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Yeah, just not along with dissatisfied and revealing comments ...
  • Zaurbek 14 October 2015 14: 46 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    So you need to take the Yak base, remove the auxiliary engines, put a new engine with an OVT with a thrust of 15-20000 kg, and make a stealth body. Than you do not front-line fighter to replace the Mig 29. Do not carp at me in general terms expressed the idea. And with a compartment for weapons to succeed.
  • UNAUTHORIZED 14 October 2015 14: 51 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    I thank Scraptor a for today's work, otherwise I can’t even put a plus sign, I just registered.
  • qwert 14 October 2015 16: 03 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    A lifting engines are a priori lighter than a fan of the same draft, taking into account the power take-off from the main engine. Those. The Yak-141 scheme is more pragmatic and practical.
  • tehnoluks 14 October 2015 17: 51 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    F-35 would not have happened without the Yakovlev rotary nozzle. Amer did not have it and did not foresee it. This fact is known and undeniable. All other considerations of similarity / dissimilarity are demagogy. Kapkova - shnyaga for repeatedly chewed minced meat.
    Another thing is to give a legal assessment of the sale of the nozzle design to the enemy (for a penny - otherwise the United States would spend billions and decades to develop such a nozzle), find and put the guilty. There should not be a limitation period here.
    Anticipating the objections of some readers, I will answer:
    1. One of our enterprises in similar financial conditions did not sell GOS missiles to more than persistent Americans.
    2. Edmond Pope was convicted of espionage on the topic of the Flurry, which was outdated at that time.
    3. ... - MUST BE DESTROYED!
    1. Serg koma 18 October 2015 05: 47 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Oleg Danilovich Kalugin - In the Russian Federation in 2002 was convicted in absentia of treason to 15 years in prison with a sentence in a maximum security colony

      Evgenia Nikolaevna Vasilieva - On May 8, 2015 she was sentenced to 5 years in prison in a penal colony for fraud. On August 25, 2015, the district court, where the colony is located, granted the request for parole

      Serdyukov ......

      It became easier ???
      1. ty60 April 15 2016 22: 17 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Penkovsky headed the list of goats. The cutter is one of the current ones. But you never know how many, anyway!
  • Yak28 14 October 2015 17: 52 New
    • -3
    • 0
    -3
    Given the fact that in the 90s corrupt politicians, security officials, and the military were actively destroying the country's defense, many military factories that were left without state support were forced to sell their groundwork in order to survive. Or make pans or other garbage, such as I still remember on TV showing how we actively destroy excellent planes and missiles by the thousands, why do we not have a vertical take-off and landing plane for Russia? production.
  • Bayonet 14 October 2015 18: 40 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    I noticed that our and American shoes are strikingly similar in shape! I wonder who anyone stole the idea? smile This I mean, when comparing the appearance of aircraft, some want to identify someone's priority. hi
    1. Yak28 14 October 2015 19: 22 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Industrial espionage has always been, for example, the SU-24 is strikingly similar to the American F-111
      1. Scraptor 14 October 2015 23: 12 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Explain, even if in shoes, please ...

        Quote: Bayonet
        I mean, comparing the appearance of aircraft ...

        the fact is that there is also “too much in common” inside laughing

        And the appearance of even a simple AK-47 before the Hungarian rebellion of 1956 was secret.
  • IAlex 14 October 2015 18: 54 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Why is there no photograph in the article of a real prototype or experimental Convair Model 200 aircraft?
    1. Bayonet 14 October 2015 20: 26 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: IAlex
      Why is there no photograph in the article of a real prototype or experimental Convair Model 200 aircraft?

      Clickable. Convair Model 200
    2. Scraptor 15 October 2015 00: 17 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Bayonet
      Clickable. Convair Model 200

      this is a sketch, not even a drawing ... moreover, the tail is not drawn, but what is drawn is wrong
  • Taoist 14 October 2015 23: 57 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Kaptsov, you are a phenomenal deer ... here I just have no other words.
    For reference: the VTOL aircraft that you described (except for Ф -35, of course, my specialization) and this history (including what exactly and in what form was used from 41 to Ф 35) I know what is called first-hand ... and not from the press.

    You need to understand in detail what exactly and how exactly you deer? Or believe in the fact itself?
    Damn, I’ll analyze your article for quotes and when I’m sad to re-read it ... Xpert Karl room ... It’s better to write about battleships ... there is at least a familiar topic with a familiar set of nonsense ...

    Pissed off my honest word ...
    1. AlexAl 15 October 2015 01: 03 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Answer him please! I would like to learn something new, but you, so to speak, can tell you firsthand. Although no, the deer does not need to answer, just tell something interesting. I'm quite serious.
      Sincerely.
      1. Taoist 15 October 2015 14: 42 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        For a good article, you need to write ... and even that topic is quite vast. There are a lot of details that themselves must be explained with a mass of theoretical calculations. Separately disassemble the "human factor". If I were retired, I would probably try to write memoirs ... I would definitely have enough for a book. It was really interesting time. It’s a pity they lowered everything into the toilet so that now such “Kaptsovs” would carry all nonsense ...
        1. AlexAl 15 October 2015 21: 00 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          Thank. I remember that time, even though I was a kid. Indeed, now from all that was gone and is unlikely to return. But even now there are interesting questions and their solutions, though with great agony and less effectiveness in solving them.
  • Ze Kot 16 October 2015 00: 12 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Quote: Scraptor
    the glider does not evolve, it is being built around laughing motor group, there were only two (Soviet and no British) ...



    But nothing that the first jet engines in Britain bought?
    1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 10: 19 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The first were German ... No - nothing. They were bought and not "gifted" like the Yak, and after that the British nuclear program independent of the United States rose.

      Would not sell - there were still options, and proudly better ...
      1. Ze Kot 16 October 2015 21: 35 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Scraptor
        The first were German ... No - nothing. They were bought and not "gifted" like the Yak, and after that the British nuclear program independent of the United States rose.

        Would not sell - there were still options, and proudly better ...


        German trophy. And the British bought it. In any memoirs of Soviet aircraft designers.
        1. Scraptor 17 October 2015 14: 25 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          These engines to
          Quote: The Cat
          Quote: Scraptor
          the glider does not evolve, it is built around the motor group, there were only two of them (Soviet and no British) ...

          that motor group no side.
          X-32 had a British (unsuccessful)
          X-35 Soviet

          X-32 simply "played the role of an extras" ...
  • rohl 21 October 2015 01: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yes, and let them. Everyone had their own mistakes.
  • bzbo April 21 2016 14: 57 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The trap was not in technical copying, but in ideology - needed - no such plane needed. And pinDOS were led to the fact that the Russians have such a plane.
  • ALEX 100 13 June 2016 21: 20 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    History of European vertical take-off aircraft development: http://www.robertcmason.com/textdocs/GermanVSTOLFighters.pdf. In the 1960s, the Rolls-Royce company designed and tested the RB.153-61 engine with the original rotary three-position nozzle with afterburner for Harrier on the ground stands: http://s018.radikal.ru/i506/1606/d2/ dfecf5695563.png, but a series of marching engines of a different design went into the series.
  • Carnifexx 9 May 2020 12: 16 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    There should be a GIF with Keanu Reeves from the wow matrix.
    Thanks for the robust article!