Any chance for a Yak-38 in the future after MiG-29?

[MAXsenna]

Hello it has been a while i hope everyone is doing good,
 
Anyway like i have said before yes 4 years ago i was stupid and inexperienced and made a terrible mistake that i have regret all this time but i cant turn back time, Instead i stopped all those projects and Focus only in the SU-57 and YAK-38M, 4 years ago i was blind and i did not really know how hard it was to make aircraft for dcs world, its lot more than just 3d models or animations, the hard part is the development costs and licensing ect.
 
Anyway i am still here and learning and my only goal is one day becoming or joining another 3rd party in order to make DCS a better experience and after doing this for more than 4 years i have come to learn a lot and i love it, i don't regret any second or time or effort i put into learning coding,modeling,animation and the dcs overal core.
 
Again my apologies for my past but that is now behind.
 
best regards: cubanace

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Mars Exulte]

19 hours ago, IcedVenom said:

I know it's *a bit* newer than the MiG-29

  The Yak-38 isn't ''newer'', it's a 70s/80s aircraft, too.

 

19 hours ago, IcedVenom said:

but it's a really cool naval VTOL aircraft and it would be very cool to be able to learn and fly it in opposition to the Harrier.

  Not much of an ''opposition'', the Yak is basically a proof of concept (the 141 was intended as their ''real'' offering) inferior in every way. It had very short range, almost no payload, mediocre performance, and the manner of VTOLing in it was considerably more ''problem prone''.

 

19 hours ago, IcedVenom said:

I don't want any argument or discussion between the two aircraft.

  Probably shouldn't be on a discussion board then.

 

19 hours ago, IcedVenom said:

Both are cool.

  Agreed.

 

19 hours ago, IcedVenom said:

I am merely asking if there's any chance or news regarding the Yak-38.

  No news, and I'd say very little chance due to the likely short supply of info on it. The MiG-29 was widely produced and distributed, the Yak-38 was not. While that's not a ''hard kill'' on feasibility, the shorter the life cycle and more ''niche'' the plane, the less likely there'll be gobs of data available.

 

19 hours ago, IcedVenom said:

Also, by any chance does anyone know anything about a Draken coming to the game? Thanks!

  Heatblur was working on an AI version, afaik there are no planes for a flyable one yet.

[IcedVenom]

6 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

  The Yak-38 isn't ''newer'', it's a 70s/80s aircraft, too.

 

  Not much of an ''opposition'', the Yak is basically a proof of concept (the 141 was intended as their ''real'' offering) inferior in every way. It had very short range, almost no payload, mediocre performance, and the manner of VTOLing in it was considerably more ''problem prone''.

 

  Probably shouldn't be on a discussion board then.

 

  Agreed.

 

  No news, and I'd say very little chance due to the likely short supply of info on it. The MiG-29 was widely produced and distributed, the Yak-38 was not. While that's not a ''hard kill'' on feasibility, the shorter the life cycle and more ''niche'' the plane, the less likely there'll be gobs of data available.

 

  Heatblur was working on an AI version, afaik there are no planes for a flyable one yet.

Wow you're a real bundle of joy... Next time read through the thread before posting.

[Mars Exulte]

12 minutes ago, IcedVenom said:

Wow you're a real bundle of joy...

  I wasn't hostile. What do you want, fireworks and a song?

 

12 minutes ago, IcedVenom said:

Next time read through the thread before posting.

   I responded to the OP, ie what the thread is actually about, I don't really care what 47 other people's thoughts on the same thing are, I was commenting MY thoughts.

[rkk01]

I’m still struggling to understand the comparisons being made with the Harrier…

 

Yes, they are both VSTOL aircraft, and in offering up the Sea Harrier as an equivalent, both were developed for naval operation from smaller sized carriers.

 

That’s it, end of comparison…

 

The AV8B NA that we actually have in DCS is a much more modern and capable strike aircraft… NO COMPARISON to the Yak

 

The Sea Harrier FRS1 is (was) a fleet air defence fighter - again NO COMPARISON with the Yak…

 

I suppose the closest blue comparison would have been the Harrier GR3s operated from the Falklands Task Force ships

 

I still hold some hope that Razbam bring the FRS1 and GR3 to DCS, but they’ve made the (IMHO) utterly bonkers decision to prioritise other aircraft instead, whilst looking to bring a South Atlantic / Falklands map to DCS

Edited July 5, 2021 by rkk01

[MBot]

58 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Yeah, it's most comparable to a first generation Harrier, best I put it is the FRS.1, though that aircraft is superior, but they should be a match for each other.

 

The closest equivalent to the Yak-38 would be with the contemporary AV-8A, which operated off amphibious ships with the USMC, as well as off carriers in the Spanish Navy and the Royal Thai Navy.

[Northstar98]

27 minutes ago, rkk01 said:

I’m still struggling to understand the comparisons being made with the Harrier…

 

Yes, they are both VSTOL aircraft, and in offering up the Sea Harrier as an equivalent, both were developed for naval operation from smaller sized carriers.

 

That’s it, end of comparison…

 

The AV8B NA that we actually have in DCS is a much more modern and capable strike aircraft… NO COMPARISON to the Yak

 

The Sea Harrier FRS1 is (was) a fleet air defence fighter - again NO COMPARISON with the Yak…

 

Very easy, stick a Soviet carrier task force into the GIUK gap, in the 80s, which is the closest aircraft it's going to fight against?

 

And FRS.1 - Fighter Reconnaissance and Strike. It's air defence capability is AIM-9L at best, though it's edge is also with its RADAR.

 

They are almost direct contemporaries, though the Sea Harrier has the edge in basically every single aspect (only thing worth mentioning is that the Yak-38 gets the Kh-23/Kh-25 - though that's about it).

 

Quote

I suppose the closest blue comparison would have been the Harrier GR3s operated from the Falklands Task Force ships.

 

Nah, as MBot said, it's actually the USMC AV-8A, the only thing the Yak-38 has on it is the Kh-23/Kh-25(?).

Edited July 5, 2021 by Northstar98

[kseremak]

35 minutes ago, rkk01 said:

I’m still struggling to understand the comparisons being made with the Harrier…

 

Yes, they are both VSTOL aircraft, and in offering up the Sea Harrier as an equivalent, both were developed for naval operation from smaller sized carriers.

 

That’s it, end of comparison…

 

The AV8B NA that we actually have in DCS is a much more modern and capable strike aircraft… NO COMPARISON to the Yak

 

The Sea Harrier FRS1 is (was) a fleet air defence fighter - again NO COMPARISON with the Yak…

 

I suppose the closest blue comparison would have been the Harrier GR3s operated from the Falklands Task Force ships

 

I still hold some hope that Razbam bring the FRS1 and GR3 to DCS, but they’ve made the (IMHO) utterly bonkers decision to prioritise other aircraft instead, whilst looking to bring a South Atlantic / Falklands map to DCS

 

 

Nobody is comparing '70s Yak-38 or '80s Yak-38M with DCS AV-8B NA from '2000s. As Northstar98 said Yak-38/38M was a counterpart of cold war Sea Harrier, rather GR.1, GR.3 (and US AV-8A, AV-8C) than FRS.1 since FRS.1 was a fighter with doppler radar when GR.1, GR.3 and Yak-38 were attack planes with some basic fighter capabilities. But this were not 100% direct counterparts so you can compare it to any cold war Harrier.

Edited July 5, 2021 by kseremak

[rkk01]

7 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Very easy, stick a Soviet carrier task force into the GIUK gap, in the 80s, which is the closest aircraft it's going to fight against?

 

And FRS.1 - Fighter Reconnaissance and Strike.

 

 

Nah, as MBot said, it's the USMC AV-8A, the only thing the Yak-38 has on it is the Kh-23/Kh-25(?).

 

SHAR FRS1 - Fighter 1st and foremost?  It’s not a SRF1 or RSF1….

 

”closest aircraft”… agreed, in that if they ever faced off - but, what in a similar way to a Bf-109E vs a Gloster Gladiator???  
 

All hypothetical of course, but the A2A capabilities of both point to the likely outcome??  Soviet Naval doctrine was massed cruise missile attacks on surface fleets, so the SHAR probably wouldn’t have a home 

 

Yak 38 closest to a USMC AV8A - which was what…?  US bought version of the early RAF GR series aircraft and not in the same mould as the Sea Harrier

1 minute ago, kseremak said:

 

Nobody is comparing '70s Yak-38 or '80s Yak-38M with DCS AV-8B NA from '2000s. As Northstar98 said it was a counterpart of cold war Sea Harrier, rather GR.1, GR.3 and US AV-8A, AV-8C than FRS.1 since FRS.1 was more of a fighter with doppler radar when GR.1 and Yak-38 were attack planes with some basic fighter capabilities. But this were not 100% direct counterparts so you can compare it to any cold war Harrier.

which is exactly the point I was (trying to) make… Sea Harrier is a different bird altogether…

 

OK, so I guess general agreement re the Harrier GR1-3 / AV8A series aircraft… somewhat more successful though???

[MBot]

4 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Very easy, stick a Soviet carrier task force into the GIUK gap, in the 80s, which is the closest aircraft it's going to fight against?

 

And FRS.1 - Fighter Reconnaissance and Strike.

 

To be fair though, neither aircraft was to fight the other. The Royal Navy carriers were the center of ASW task groups that were not intended to seek engagements with Soviet surface forces. The small detachments of Sea Harriers on board were intended to fend off Soviet maritime patrol aircraft (*). Equally, the Kievs would also most likely have been the center of ASW task groups (in defense of their arctic SSBN bastions), or if used offensively, would have launched its anti-ship missiles and broke off long before coming into Forger striking range. Again, the Yak's primary task would have been to fend off maritime patrol aircraft. As such, the Sea Harrier and the Yak-38 had very similar operational roles, the Sea Harrier being superior due to having a radar.

 

* The Royal Navy's use of their carriers and Sea Harriers s in the Falklands War was quite in contrast to their intended role within NATO.

[kseremak]

3 minutes ago, rkk01 said:

OK, so I guess general agreement re the Harrier GR1-3 / AV8A series aircraft… somewhat more successful though???

 

Yes, Harrier's one engine concept offered an advantage.

[MBot]

An interesting statistic from one of Yefim Gordon's books. Between 1976 and 1988, the Soviet Yak-38 fleet logged 24'302 flight hours and 71'733 landings. This equals an average flight duration of just 20 minutes. As much as I love this quirky aircraft, but ouch that is short legged

[kseremak]

According to official requirements it's fighter role was of secondary importance:

 

Quote

According to TTT, the Yak-36M light attack aircraft with GDP was intended

“for air support of combat operations of ground forces in the tactical and immediate operational depth of the enemy’s location (up to 150 km from the front line), as well as when the aircraft is based on Project 1123 ships to destroy ships and coastal facilities in naval operations and visual aerial reconnaissance.

The main task of the aircraft is to destroy mobile, stationary ground and sea targets of the enemy in conditions of visual visibility. In addition, the aircraft should be used to combat air targets such as military transport aircraft and helicopters, as well as to combat AWACS aircraft and helicopters and anti-submarine aircraft.” 

 

 

Як-38 (archive.org)

 

Edited July 5, 2021 by kseremak

[Northstar98]

12 hours ago, rkk01 said:

SHAR FRS1 - Fighter 1st and foremost?  It’s not a SRF1 or RSF1….

 

Does it really matter which way around the acronym is? It has exactly the same ground attack capability of the GR.3, minus LRMTS and the moving map portion of INAS (pretty sure FRS.1 still had INAS though - difficult to come by information).

 

I mean you take a GR.3, you replace LRMTS with a RADAR, and you've mostly got a Harrier FRS.1.

 

It's still essentially a ground attack aircraft, fitted with a RADAR and more cockpit visibility.

 

Quote

”closest aircraft”… agreed, in that if they ever faced off - but, what in a similar way to a Bf-109E vs a Gloster Gladiator???  

 

More Bf-109E vs an early production Hawker Hurricane. The Gladiator was nearly half a decade old by the time the Bf-109E was introduced, and in WWII a lot changed in a small span of time.

 

Quote

All hypothetical of course, but the A2A capabilities of both point to the likely outcome??

 

Harrier has better missiles (AIM-9L), a RADAR and a better RWR.

 

The Yak-38 has the R-60M.

 

The Harrier probably has better kinematic performance, though that's common to all of them. I'm trying to find the aircraft that most suits it, most suit it != exactly the same.

 

So far AV-8A (though I'd argue as a marine aircraft it would have been even less likely to fight a Yak-38 - it probably would've mostly been in support of amphibious operations).

 

Quote

Soviet Naval doctrine was massed cruise missile attacks on surface fleets, so the SHAR probably wouldn’t have a home.

 

Yeah, but we're comparing aircraft.

 

Quote

Yak 38 closest to a USMC AV8A - which was what…?  US bought version of the early RAF GR series aircraft and not in the same mould as the Sea Harrier.

 

Essentially a GR.1 wired for Sidewinders and using American weapons (i.e Mk80 series instead of British GPBs, Hydra 70 instead of Matra SNEB).

 

Quote

which is exactly the point I was (trying to) make… Sea Harrier is a different bird altogether…

 

Except, it kinda isn't though...

 

Quote

OK, so I guess general agreement re the Harrier GR1-3 / AV8A series aircraft… somewhat more successful though???

 

Dude, the FRS.1 has pretty much the same A/A capability of the GR.3, the difference is mostly just a RADAR (though then again, you've got ship based GCI as well).

Edited July 6, 2021 by Northstar98

[Northstar98]

18 minutes ago, MBot said:

To be fair though, neither aircraft was to fight the other. The Royal Navy carriers were the center of ASW task groups that were not intended to seek engagements with Soviet surface forces. The small detachments of Sea Harriers on board were intended to fend off Soviet maritime patrol aircraft (*). Equally, the Kievs would also most likely have been the center of ASW task groups (in defense of their arctic SSBN bastions), or if used offensively, would have launched its anti-ship missiles and broke off long before coming into Forger striking range. Again, the Yak's primary task would have been to fend off maritime patrol aircraft. As such, the Sea Harrier and the Yak-38 had very similar operational roles, the Sea Harrier being superior due to having a radar.

 

* The Royal Navy's use of their carriers and Sea Harriers s in the Falklands War was quite in contrast to their intended role within NATO.

 

I completely agree.

[MBot]

3 minutes ago, kseremak said:

This is interesting as well but according to official requirements it's fighter role was of secondary importance:

 

"The aircraft (Yak-38) was to be used for close support of ground forces in the conditions of target visibility and, based on ships, for fighting ships and ground targets, and to a limited extent for countering air targets in the form of transport, early warning, patrol and helicopter aircraft."

 

That may well be the requirement of the aircraft, but it does not fit the role of the ship it has primarily served on. The Kiev class cruisers had an ASW and secondary anti-carrier role (not that any would have likely survived long enough to approach a USN carrier). As such I just don't see the ship and its Yak's being used in close support of amphibious operations (which were rather small scale anyway in the Soviet Navy). A role that I could see would be striking an unlucky forward operating small NATO corvette or small ASW frigates than would not be worth the main battery Sandbox missiles of the Kiev. For this the Kh-23 of the Forger might have been of some use. But any target with Sea Sparrow or more would have been off limits.

[rossmum]

1 hour ago, MBot said:

An interesting statistic from one of Yefim Gordon's books. Between 1976 and 1988, the Soviet Yak-38 fleet logged 24'302 flight hours and 71'733 landings. This equals an average flight duration of just 20 minutes. As much as I love this quirky aircraft, but ouch that is short legged

 

20 minutes isn't really too bad - that's about my average MiG-19/21 sortie on the Cold War server, honestly (yes, it can stay up for longer, but there's usually no need on there). I'd love to have a 38 regardless of its somewhat unfavourable comparison to the Harrier, it was an interesting little aircraft and would add something genuinely unique to DCS. We might already have a VTOL, but we don't have anything that achieves it with lift jets.

[bies]

+1, very interesting aircraft. It was similar to Su-25A in performance, capabilities and it carried practically the same weapons (250 and 500 kg bombs, S-5, S-8, S-24 rockets, 23mm gunpods, Ch-23M and Ch-25MR guided missiles etc.) just lower overall weapon mass, but with vertical takeoff and landing and a bit faster.

 

It was first and foremost an attack/CAS aircraft, it wasn't much of a fighter obviously but it could take R-60/R-60M missiles to shoot down some some slower targets like helicopters or marine recon aircrafts.

 

BTW. Soviet Union had an impressive marine landing forces with dedicated Naval Infantry forces (and additional 3 divisions and three artillery brigades hidden as "costal defense divisions") with their own amphibious AFV and tanks, more than 80 landing crafts, some 75 air-cushion landing crafts - the biggest fleet of this type in the world, big civilian fleet to be used as transport vessels etc. Yet the bulk of invasion forces consisted of Red Army units.

Edited July 5, 2021 by bies

[upyr1]

6 hours ago, cubanace said:

Hello it has been a while i hope everyone is doing good,

 

Anyway like i have said before yes 4 years ago i was stupid and inexperienced and made a terrible mistake that i have regret all this time but i cant turn back time, Instead i stopped all those projects and Focus only in the SU-57 and YAK-38M, 4 years ago i was blind and i did not really know how hard it was to make aircraft for dcs world, its lot more than just 3d models or animations, the hard part is the development costs and licensing ect.

 

Anyway i am still here and learning and my only goal is one day becoming or joining another 3rd party in order to make DCS a better experience and after doing this for more than 4 years i have come to learn a lot and i love it, i don't regret any second or time or effort i put into learning coding,modeling,animation and the dcs overal core.

 

Again my apologies for my past but that is now behind.

 

best regards: cubanace

 

Thanks for chiming in. I understand biting off more than you can chew. I don't know how to do 3d modeling or animation. I know a bit about coding. I've flown your Su-57, I think you did a good job. Don't give up, and IMHO I think once you get the YAK-38 out I think you should go for the F-84 both the jet and the streak. If you can't get enough documents from the Smithsonian, to do a full module then at least do it as part of an AI Korean war asset pack.  I will buy it and the YAk-38. 

[qcheck]

9 hours ago, cubanace said:

3d Modeling progress Externally,

I am also modeling the internals for

Better damage modeling.

 

Looks great!

[Seaeagle]

19 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Yeah, I think they are the most suitable Soviet ships for DCS - in preferably their 80s configurations (though the Udaloy did only get SA-N-9 later in its life..

Yes thats true - well they were meant to have it from the start, but the first 4 or 5(?) units were completed without it, because the Kynshal system wasn't ready yet. They also had a different radar fit(2x "Topaz" radars), while the later units had a "Podkat"/"Fregat-MA" combo. The Sovremenny class also had difffernces(including the radar) between early and later units.

19 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

- before it was FFBNW AFAIK).

Whats that?

19 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

And when talking about the Kirov, I'm talking specifically about the Kirov, with the SS-N-14s, 2 AK-100 (as in the Krivak II) and AK630s.

Hehe yeah I figured as much :)

[Northstar98]

21 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

Whats that?

 

Fitted For But Not With. 

 

AFAIK it always had the silos (if you can call it them) for SA-N-9, but they were blank, only being installed with the launch system later in its life.

 

Same for the MR-360, it had the mounts for it, but wasn't actually installed until basically the end of the Cold War, if not slightly later (as with the actual launchers for SA-N-9).

 

EDIT: According to the C:MANO database, MR-360 and SA-N-9 were installed in 1988 (so basically the year before the Cold War and the Soviet Union fell apart), though I've found at least one picture with them fitted dated in the mid 80s. The class being introduced starting in the early 80s.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Northstar98

[Silver_Dragon]

Quote

 

By Harpoon V Russia's_Navy:

Project 1143.4 Admiral Gorshkov CVHG
Displacement: 33000 std In Class: [1]
Size Class: A/Large In Service: 1987 - 96
Propulsion: Steam Turbine Crew: 2045
Electrn Cnt: 2nd Gen J&D Acoust Cnt: None
Signature: Large/Noisy Armor Rating: 0/5/180

 

Weapons: Cbt Sys: Gen 4 Semi-Automatic
PB&SB(2)6 P-500 Bazalt//Argon data link D
F&A(1)6 Kinzhal w/8 9M330//PW/SW/PA/SA 4 3P95 D
F(1)2 AK-100 100mm/70//MR-145 (9.0) C
PW/SW/PA/SA(R)8 AK-630 30mm//4 MR-123 (4@6.2A) C
F(10)2 RBU 12000 (UDAV-1) w/3 salvoes E
2 Elevators --

 

Air Group:
• Original: 12/1 Yak-38 Forger A/B, 12 Ka-25PL Hormone A, 3 Ka-25 Hormone B, 1 Ka-25 Hormone C
• 19 Ka-27PL Helix A, 3 Ka-27PS Helix C, 3 Ka-25 Hormone B, 2 Ka-27PS Helix D
• 16 Yak-38, 16 Ka-27, 3 Ka-25
• 12 Yak-38, 18 Ka-27, 3 Ka-25, 2 Ka-32
• 1990: 12 Yak-38M, 16 Ka-27, 2 Ka-27PS, 2 KA-25Ts
• Planned: 12 Yak-41, 10 Ka-27, 4 Ka-31, 2 Ka-32

 

Sensors: ES: 3rd Gen
Mars-Passat (a failure, never operational),
MR-710M-1 Fregat-M1, 3 MR-212/201 Vaygach-U,
2 MR-350 Podkat (F/A), 4 3P95 J
MGK-355 Polinom, MGK-355TA Polinom-T K
Tin Man (Laser rf/2nd Gen IR sensor) --

Remarks:
Fourth unit of Kiev class, heavily modified island. Commissioned as Baku. Fitted with stabilizers. Can launch 7 large helos at once. Fitted with Korvet-1143 [Punch Bowl] to receive data from the Legenda satellite targeting system. Can also receive Uspekh aircraft data link.
AK-630s linked to Kinzhal FCS, making them Autonomous. Two salvoes for the RBU 12000 are 1st Gen ATT defense. Provision for Yak-41 replacing Yak-38.

• 4 Oct 90: Name changed from Baku to Admiral Gorshkov.
• 1991: In reserve because of poor maintenance.
• Jul 91: Yak-38 retired, removed from air group.
• Sep - Oct 91: Yak-41 trials.
• 1993, 1994: Suffered fires, boiler room explosion while laid up. Repaired and returned to service in 1995.
• 2004: Sold to India, refitted by Russia, and entered Indian service 2013 as Vikramaditya.

 

Damage & Speed Breakdown:
Dam Pts: 0 198 395 593 711 790
Surf Speed: 30 23 15 8 0 Sinks

 

Harpoon V Russia's_Aircraft:

 

Yak-38/38M [Forger A] Attack
Man Rtng: 3.0/1.5 Damage Value: 20
Size/Signature: Small/Small Bombsight: Ballistic
Counterm: 1st Gen J Inflight Refuel: N
Sensors: Gen 0 RWR

Throttle Setting/Speed in knots
Altitude Cruise Full Mil Reheat
Low: 520 560 --
Med: 520 555 --
High: 520 545 --

Ceiling: 11000 meters Engine Type: TJ
Cruise Range: 200/325 nmi Int Fuel: 2750 kg
Additional Fuel Fuel Wt. Range Add.
500 L drop tank 405 kg 80 nmi

Ordnance Loadouts: Payload: 700/1700 kg
• Vertical Take Off (VTO), either:
• 2 R-60 or 2 UPK-23-250 gun pods
• 2 Kh-23, Delta pod
• 1 RN-28 or RN-40 or RN-41 nuke bomb, 1 FAB-250, 1 FAB-100
• 6 FAB-100 or 2 FAB-250 bombs
• 2 UB-16-57, 2 UB-32-57 rocket pods
• 2 B-8M1 rocket pods or 2 S-24 rockets
• Short Take Off (STO), either:
• 2 UPK-23-250 gun pods, 2 R-60 or 2 R-60M
• 4 S-24 rockets or 10 OFAB-100 or 4 FAB-250
• 2 Kh-25MR, Delta pod (Yak-38M)
• 2 drop tanks, 2 R-60M or 2 UPK-23-250 (Yak-38M)
• 2 drop tanks, 2 UB-16-57 or 2 S-24 or 2 FAB-250 (Yak-38M)
Remarks: In Svc: 1976/85 - 1992

V/STOL. Originally operated in vertical takeoff (VTO), use first range. Poor serviceability, treat as Third World. Regiments - 279th OKShAP Severomorsk-3, Northern Mar 77-89; 311th OKShAP Pristan, Pacific Oct 76-92. 142 Yak-38 delivered 1974-83, 50 Yak-38M delivered 1984-88.
• Strength: 5 (Jul 76), 45 (May 78), 68 (Oct 81), 106 (1983), 83 (Nov 89)
• Mar 78: Night training commences. Never cleared for all weather operations.

• 23 Apr - 29 May 80: Four Yak-38 deployed to Shindad, Afghanistan for combat trials. Due to hot and high conditions had to use conventional takeoff with payload limited to 500 kg.
• Aug 82: Rolling short takeoff (STO) increases payload to 1700 kg, use second range. Can use all STO loadouts.
• 1985: Yak-38M [Forger B] adds drop tank capability on inner wing HP. Can carry RBK-250/500 vice FAB-250/500, Kh-25MR [AS-10 Karen] vice Kh-23. VTO/STO - payload 500/2000 kg, range 205/320 nmi.
• Aug 89: VSPU-36 gun pod approved for service - can carry in any loadout.
• Jul 91: Last sea sortie.

 

 

Sorry if breaking any rule.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[Seaeagle]

6 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Fitted For But Not With.

Ah ok - yes.

6 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

AFAIK it always had the silos (if you can call it them) for SA-N-9, but they were blank, only being installed with the launch system later in its life.

Yes something like that.

6 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Same for the MR-360, it had the mounts for it, but wasn't actually installed until basically the end of the Cold War, if not slightly later (as with the actual launchers for SA-N-9).

Well there is some confusion concerning the designations for these radars - the name for the guidance post(which I believe is what you are refering to) for the Kynshal system is called 3R95(not sure if the 3D search radar part of it has a separate name) - yes the platforms for them were there on the early units, but AFAIK at least some of the later units had the system installed during construction.

 

The MR-350 "Podkat" is the name of the radar installed on the front mast(replacing "Topaz" on earlier units). So early units had "Topaz" on both masts, while later units has "Podkat" on front mast and "Fregat-MA"(MR-750/760) on the rear mast.

 

Podkat radar(on Admiral Levchenko):

[Northstar98]

13 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

Ah ok - yes.

Yes something like that.

Well there is some confusion concerning the designations for these radars - the name for the guidance post(which I believe is what you are refering to) for the Kynshal system is called 3R95(not sure if the 3D search radar part of it has a separate name) - yes the platforms for them were there on the early units, but AFAIK at least some of the later units had the system installed during construction.

 

The MR-350 "Podkat" is the name of the radar installed on the front mast(replacing "Topaz" on earlier units). So early units had "Topaz" on both masts, while later units has "Podkat" on front mast and "Fregat-MA"(MR-750/760) on the rear mast.

 

Podkat radar(on Admiral Levchenko):

 

Here's the RADAR I'm referring to:

 

I've always seen it referred to MR-360/4R95 (unsure what bit is what, but maybe you're right - MR-360 probably refers to the acquisition RADARs, whereas 3R95 refers to the guidance post (including the FCS).

 

I believe NATO refers to the complete set as "Cross Swords".