Russian not have V/STOL Airplane

i lock in the document i see 1 Russian airplane VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing ) yes yes i find it the name is :Yakovlev Yak-141.

is FANTASTIC:

I got the impression that it was most certainly NOT fantastic, which is why further development was stopped.

None the less:

There are some similarities..

The Yak-141 never enter on production into the Soviet / Rusian Navy, only was testbed, canceled on 1991. The only V/STOL fighter was the Yakovlev Yak-38, on flight on the 80s of the past century.

i read the story of Yak 141 and very complicated and also think that f35 was copied from the yak141 I think so .......... the Russians were the first to arrive in space and the Americans to do more are went to the moon.

The Russian navy currently uses only 1 yak 141

It was canceled because their country collapsed around the same time it started flying, and like many late Soviet projects, ended up in limbo until Lockheed bought it. F-35 isn't a copy (it was designed and flown decades later) but it was likely heavily influenced by it.

The 141 would be a poor choice, anyway, onky a couple prototypes were built and detailed data isn't likely available. A more logical choice would be the Yak-38, which is effectively a very poorly designed Harrier I knockoff. Quite a few of them were built, but they were largely for the sake of gather experience with VTOLs so a better followup (the Yak-141) could be created.

The 141 was by most accounts I've seen a capable aircraft, it just arrived at the worst possible time to be asking for money.

I got the impression that it was most certainly NOT fantastic, which is why further development was stopped.

One word, as always: funds. Well, really everything in the world is about money after all. Even die-hard communists can't deny it. And nevertheless this fact sucks, but I guess we all know that.

I totally love that one ever since I could fly it in a Jane's survey sim back in the 90s. This is really one of the very few "less than 10 pcs" planes that I'd celebrate to have as a DCS module. Well, there have been 3 Su-25T prototypes and a massive total of 8 production models. Just to compare numbers

Didn't even know there are cockpit shots of it, this is the first time I see some, thanks for posting :)

Well, there could at least be the Yak-38 based on the Kiev instead, if it's just for service time.

Also, the F-35B's swiveling engine nozzle is directly inspired by the Yak-141. Lockheed Martin and Yakovlev had a contract running from 1991 to 1997 that brought the engine technology to the F-35B and funds to the Yak-141 project AFAIK.

As others have said, the Yak-141 isn't suitable - it's a technology demonstrator like the F-15 ACTIVE, F-16 VISTA or the Rockwell-MBB X-31

Your best bet is the Yak-38 Forger with a Kiev class to go with it. However, I'm not sure hw popular that would be as it isn't exactly a particularly capable aircraft.

YAK-38

If the 38 didn't have that clunky 'extra lift engine' system, it might have been comparable to a early Harrier. Unfortunately, as it turned out, somewhat less than 'effective'. I still would buy, of course :p But yeah, it'd be getting roughed up pretty hard by... nearly everything, probably.

If the 38 didn't have that clunky 'extra lift engine' system, it might have been comparable to a early Harrier. Unfortunately, as it turned out, somewhat less than 'effective'. I still would buy, of course :p But yeah, it'd be getting roughed up pretty hard by... nearly everything, probably.

Oh yeah, so would I. Heck, I'd buy it just for the fact that it's a new face and rather unique for what it is. Plus in terms of DCS, the Yak-38 is probably one of the only candidates for a 'true' naval fixed wing aircraft that was actually operational with the Russian naval aviation.

The only other 'true' naval fixed wing combat aircraft in the Russian naval aviation are the Su-33 (which we have as in FC3) which might be a viable full-fidelity module prospect and the MiG-29K which I'm guessing is a no-go as it's a more modern development. The other fixed-wing Russian naval aviation aircraft are all land-based AFAIK.

And yes, the Yak-38 would probably be wrecked by most other aircraft currently in DCS. It's performance isn't great and it's payload capability limited. For air-to-air it can only carry the short-range IR R-60 and R-60M (up to 2 of them according to what I've found so far). For guns it had to rely on gunpods (like the AJS-37) in the form of the UPK-23-250. Air-to-ground was also fairly limited, pretty comparable to the MiG-21Bis we already have, except the Yak-38 can AFAIK carry 2 RN-28 tactical nuclear bombs instead of just the 1. Not only that but the Kh-23 could only be fired by a Yak-38 if a guidance pod was mounted on one of the pylons. It's all of this that causes doubt about any popularity for the Yak-38 considering more desirable aircraft even if not V/STOL or navalised. AFAIK it wasn't popular with those who flew it either, and the prospect of engine failure with the vertically mounted lift jets or even the thrust vectored main engine facilitated the requirement for an automatic pilot ejection system.

Yeah, there's just no need for Russia to build carriers. They're all about force projection, and the fact is Russia can walk anywhere it wants to go, sharing land borders with anywhere of note except the US pretty much.

It always disappoints me they keep talking about trying to build their own supercarrier, it would be purely for dick waving @@ Even if it was comparable to a Nimitz/Ford, so what? Are they going to build twenty of them to one up the Americans? @@ Anyway lol

Anyone have any details of the weapons avionics for the Yak38?

The sight looks very mig21ish.

From what I read it had "ranging" radar, an "advanced bombsight"

Again, it suffers from being "too old" for most DCS. Currently. We just need some 60's 70's western jets to get close.

the yak 38 was not a good plane, it only had two pylons per wing and then it was an airplane that had problems with the engine that was overheating and therefore the plane had a life of only 22 hours and then you had to repair it. had a low autonomous of only 700km Russian ships carrying 6 yaks 38 had only 2 operating the others were in repair

there were many incidents with the most important yak 38 in June 91 and then he was barred from service. the soviet union was in a bad period of decline.

I got the impression that it was most certainly NOT fantastic, which is why further development was stopped.

None the less:

 

There are some similarities..

There are similarities because :

Cooperation with Lockheed

 

Following the announcement by the CIS on September 1991 that it could no longer fund development of the Yak-41M, Yakovlev entered into discussions with several foreign partners who could help fund the program. Lockheed Corporation, which was in the process of developing the X-35 for the US Joint Strike Fighter program, stepped forward, and with their assistance aircraft 48-2 was displayed at the Farnborough Airshow in September 1992. Yakovlev announced that they had reached an agreement with Lockheed for funds of $385 to $400 million for three new prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics. Planned modifications for the proposed Yak-41M included an increase in STOL weight to 21,500 kg (47,400 lb). One of the prototypes would have been a dual-control trainer. Though no longer flyable, both 48-2 and 48-3 were exhibited at the 1993 Moscow airshow. The partnership began in late 1991, though it was not publicly revealed by Yakovlev until 6 September 1992, and was not revealed by Lockheed until June 1994.

Yakovlev did the heavy lifting, LM built the F-35...

yakolev sold her projects only for the reason that russia was in a state of crisis at the time.

But soon it will be rebuilt. I believe that Russia today in 2020 has plans for VTOL aircraft much more powerful and performing than the current F-35 and soon we will see the news.

Who knows...

Fashion is a thing. It's true that fashion is also a thing in aircraft development. In the 1960s the whole concept of VTOL was very popular, as you can easily see by looking at the huge number of related projects all over the world. Soviet Union, France, Germany, USA, Britain...

Most of them got cancelled at some point, obviously, and it's not because they were all rubbish airplanes, but because the world moved on. The Harrier got all the fame for being the VTOL fighter/attack plane and rightfully so, but had it taken another five years to develop it might have been axed as well. 'Fashion' just moved on to other solutions.

There are similarities because :

 

 

 

Yakovlev did the heavy lifting, LM built the F-35...

Why, did Lockheed sub contract out to Yak?

Otherwise, about the only detail similarities are that they both have wings

Why, did Lockheed sub contract out to Yak?

Otherwise, about the only detail similarities are that they both have wings

You think ?

Because to me, if you account for a bit of tarting up to account for reduced radar signature, they look like they came off the same drawing board 15 years apart.

vtol projects of the 60s

https://svppbellum.blogspot.com/2019/02/lockheed-x-27-cl-1200-lancer-e-cl-704.html

They do look similar, sure. But then the Yak-38 looks like a copy of the Hummingbird as well. The F-111 seems to be the optical counterpart to the Su-24. People not overly interested in aviation will easily mistake a Tu-144 for a Concorde... Planes that start their design in similar times for similar roles have a tendency to end up a little similar.

VTOL was a fad in the 60s, especially the 'lets stick on two engines for two types of flight!', even though that was probably the downfall of most of the programs (guess that changed today?). The days were also full of delta wings. The 70s seem to have been a decade of sweep wing jets.

I bet they wouldn't have had met back in the day if they didn't expect to learn something from each other. A little bit of the Yak probably lives on in the F-35, but I personally don't think it would be fair to say that it's basically the Yak-141.

GERMANY F104 VTOL

and this is another crazy projecr F-104 VTOL START FROM SUBMARINE.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=256374&page=4

German VTOL, eh? can't ignore this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_31

--

On topic, Yak-38 would be interesting but yes, it's a little limited - I can't help think that few IRL pilots would have chosen to be assigned to one if they could help it! there are a number of Russian 3rd gen I'd like to fly first.

Can't really compare to the 35 because it has a seperate lift engine - the 35 just has a fan. Can't help thinking up ways you could use the fan thrust for more than vertical flight really...

Why, did Lockheed sub contract out to Yak?

Otherwise, about the only detail similarities are that they both have wings

The F-35B, the VTOL version, besides ''wings'' as you sarcastically put it, also uses the exact same lift fan system and rotating rear nozzle. They definitely have much more than just ''wings'' in common. They're directly related aircraft, just the 35 is twenty plus years newer and a stealth aircraft.

@Gahab

The first Harriers, including the Sea Harrier, were relatively small aircraft with limited payloads, but no they weren't particularly ''bad''. The American versions were used as CAS aircraft, but the Brit Sea Harriers had radars and a2a missiles. All went through series of upgrades. There was not just ''one'' version. But they had a much more efficient lift system than the Yak, which lacked rotating nozzles the Harrier has. They wasted a lot of space and weight on those crappy nose lift engines that could have been used for avionics or weapons instead.

Harriers are small because they were originally intended to be forward based - *very* forward based, the RAF ones in Germany certainly trained for forward based CAS missions & the USMC ones could also be called forward-based if they flew off LPDs. You don't need to carry much of anything if you can just land & refuel a few miles away. If you're operating out of an airbase there's no need for the unique feature of a Harrier, so at that point it seems unsurprisingly a bit underwhelming.

The only reason for the Sea Harrier is the RN getting rid of it's last conventional carrier & deciding that yes, CAP cover actually was a good idea after all. The radar was a bit rubbish, the range was bad & it carried 2 ( later 4 ) Sidewinders only, but it was all that could be done. I suspect that's actually close to the decision tree behind the Yak-38 too.

Zhukov - the Yak uses a seperate lift engine, no? the F35 only has one engine, like a Harrier.