Why Russian canceled Yak-141 project? On paper it was a good plane, much better than any Westren VTOL of that time.
>>28344333
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPOo1jOqZTA
>>28344333
because why would a fighter/attack craft need VTOL?
if you are american it might make a little sense since aircraftcarriers
russians on the other hand have plenty of runway were they need it
>>28344333
There were serious issues with its lift system that could not be overcome.
Who needs modern fighters when you're fighting sand people?
>>28344333
Because VTOL is useless
>>28344812
Hmmm, not if you don't have carriers with catapults, like Russia.
Thier carrier version of the mig29 and su27 are severely hamstrung when it comes to payloads and fuel.
because VTOL fighters is for retards like marines or poor europeons who can't produce real carriers.
>>28344838
>"Don't limit your payload with ski jump"
>"Limit your payload with fucking heavy and expensive to maintain VTOL lift fan"
Sure thing, bro.
>>28344838
Both can take-off with full internal fuel and 6-8 air-to-air missiles, or few less and a pair of AShM. Where the limited take-off weight could hinder ops is if they wanted larger strike payloads for example, but in those type of situations they can just take-off with less fuel and top off once airborne.
>>28345932
>but in those type of situations they can just take-off with less fuel and top off once airborne.
Airborne refuelling is obscenely expensive and logistically taxing.
Because VTOL is a meme. It's another reason why only the Harrier was the only VTOL plane to see any amount of service and one of the reasons why the F35 program is a clusterfuck of shit.
>>28346092
>F-35 is clusterfuck of shit
When will this meme end?
>>28346170
Around mid 2020's when the plane is finally ready. The project to build that plane however is and always will be remembered as "clusterfuck of shit"
>>28346170
when all retarded people die
i.e, never
>>28344333
USSR collapced and Russia canceled everything.
>>28344333
As a couple of other people stated, it died because the Soviet Union collapsed and took all the funding with it. Worse, the Kiev-class carriers - the only real reason for the Soviets to develop the Yak-141 - were retired pretty quickly.
Really Yakovlev's lucky the project got as far as it did. The MFI (Russian response to the ATF program that produced the F-22) ended up getting canceled entirely, and the sole prototype from the program (MiG 1.42/1.44) only made a single short flight at the turn of the millennium without any real tests.
>>28346170
It is the one of the worst managed and overbudget projects in history.
Stop pretending that the program isn't complete dogshit.
>>28346951
>It is the one of the worst managed and overbudget projects in history.
Surely you have a source for that, right?
>>28344434
Shit happens.
>>28346951
F-35ButthurtProjection.jpg
>>28344626
>Who needs modern fighters when you're fighting sand people?
Every nation that matters?
>>28344333
I feel like STOVL planes are a great supplement to traditional carriers, but they cannot replace them.
>>28344333
Because VTOL is shit.
>>28346092
>Harrier was the only VTOL plane to see any amount of service
>>28351179
Sour grapes.
>>28347144
Not that dude, I'm even pretty optimistic about the F-35s capabilities once it enters service but there's really no denying that it is late and over budget. If you demand citation on those points you're just feigning ignorance for the sake of argument.
>>28351502
>Over budget
Source?
>>28351502
>Late
Proof?
>>28351888
>>28352091
Yes do you have any.
does /k/ planes still happen?
>>28351344
operative phrase is
>any amount of service
>>28344333
Cause India didn't want it
>>28344333
because soviet union fell apart and they had no money for further development nor a carrier program
>>28352379
>The Yakovlev Yak-38 (Russian: Якoвлeв Як-38; NATO reporting name: "Forger") was Soviet Naval Aviation's only operational VTOL strike fighter aircraft, in addition to being its first operational carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft.
>>28346914
It really didn't help that the Yak-141 was almost impossible to fly. Harriers were tough, the Yak compounded the control issue by having thrust only along the centerline, which is like riding a pogo stick.
>>28352379
it saw combat in Afghanistan
>>28355099
>saw combat in Afghanistan
If you mean some were deployed there but quickly found out they could not take off with even a basic weapons load and therefore only flew a handful of "sorties" with 50kg bombs they had to dig out from some WW2 supply depot.
Then yes, they saw "combat" in Afghanistan.
>>28352206
Yes. I was just slammed with finals and projects the past couple weeks and I'm in Chile until the new year. I don't have reliable enough internet to post another thread, so don't expect anything until the first week of January.
>>28355099
It saw a quick deployment that amounted to operational trials, and had a pretty bad showing. It was a 50-day deployment with only 12 combat sorties flown. It was notoriously poor at handling humidity, heat, and high altitudes, meaning that payloads were incredibly limited in Afghanistan - just two FAB-100s. Service trials elsewhere were even worse. When one of the Kiev-class carriers took the Yak-38 around the world to Vladivostok, the Forgers couldn't even takeoff when they were near the equator because the hot, humid air sapped engine power so much.
Granted you're right that it did technically see combat, but the Forger never really saw any significant use, especially not like the Harrier, which is what I think was what that guy was getting at.
>>28355250
so kinda just like the v-22?
Separate lift engines.Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.............
What will they think of next ?
>>28355422
No, nothing like the V-22 which excelled in combat.
>B...BUT MUH MAYMAYS!
>>28355498
But does the Osprey really fight? Isn't it used primarily for transportation?
>>28355099
All Yak-38 variants totally flew 30000 flight hours during 14 years of service. It is on average 9 (! kek) hours of flight per plane per year. If we set 200 hours per year as required number to maintain proficiency of the pilot we find that USSR could only have around 10 combat ready pilots on average during Yak-38 service.
Yak-38 was grounded plane.
>>28355794
So is the Blackhawk, Chinook, and Huey, yet nobody contests those craft having been in "combat".
>>28356684
except the blackhawk has been in combat, and they have mounted weapons on variants of those helicopters
Something that'll never happen for the osprey
>>28358398
>Something that'll never happen for the osprey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqacP10xH54
>>28356684
Those planes have flown people in and out of combat.
>>28344333
Because it was a difficult-to-control, dangerous piece of shit.
>>28358587
>Osprey doing one of their special "patrol the empty desert" missions to build up flight hours
Truly successful way to spend tax payer billions.
>>28344333
1) because there are helicopters that are just as good for the job and cheaper
2) the reason why you want a jet is to go past sonic speed, if you want to VTOL, it's almost always you want to carry or pickup something
3) the whole VTOL argument for the west is retarded. If you ARE back against the wall in a war and all your air fields are gone, the chances is that you won't have the stable resource for any kind of extensive air attacks anyway, on top of that, compare to helicopters, VTOL jets are much more shop attention intensive and takes much more resource to upkeep.
>>28358604
And so has the Osprey.
>>28358653
Which we do with literally every aircraft we have. Why keep singling out the Osprey?
>>28358716
The real killer is that operating off unprepared areas will destroy the engine with debris
So it's not something you will ever do
If they ACTUALLY wanted an aircraft to "operate anywhere", they would be building seaplanes to operate off lakes, oceans, and rivers.
>>28358716
>the whole VTOL argument for the west is retarded
The one bright spot for VTOL in the US is that, instead of having to park an entire Nimitz/Ford class carrier off someone's coast to fuck with them, the US can send one or two smaller America class amphibious assault ships loaded up with F-35Bs (which don't need all the fancy catapults and arresting gear that Nimitz/Ford based aircraft require.
Hell, the America class is approximately the same size and aircraft-capacity as the UK's Invicible class, and they retook the Falklands from the filthy Argies with its help.
>>28358783
???
>>28344812
VTOL once we have the AI and sensors set up to fully just stick the landing on auto-pilot will be fucking brilliant.
On the planes that currently feature it? High risk, medium reward.
>>28359494
I believe tailsitting UAV's are probably the optimum way to do things, longest possible endurance while still being vtol.
>>28346170
>When will this meme end?
when the F-35 program runs out of money.
they'll build like 200 planes and then can it like they did with F-22
>>28359815
>memeing this hard
>>28358783
they take harriers off from shitty dirt FOB in Afghanistan all the time
>>28345691
Jet engines have a T:W of 5:1 to 10:1; in other words, while they're dead weight in the air, they carry roughly 10x their weight in payload off the deck of the ship.
>>28361552
*5-10x their weight
>>28359815
Around 270 have already been paid for; another 70 or so are being ordered in around Jan or Feb as part of LRIP 10.
>>28359494
That's old news; the F-35B already has it's vertical landings fully fly-by-wire (human just guides it to where he wants to land; pitching up makes the jet rise into the air, pitch down makes it descend safely, roll left / right makes it strafe left / right, throttle makes it move at a set speed to match the speed of a ship.
There's also robotic K-MAX helicopters, etc.
>>28351818
>>28351888
>>28352091
is k beyond trying to fight the shills? wew.
>>28361689
Who, the Boeing supporters buttmad the inferior hueplane didn't win the JSF?
>>28344333
The acquisition budget for new equipment in Russia in the 1990s was exactly $0. Zero dollars.
Fun fact, prior to 2005, less than 200 T-90s were actually purchased by Russia.
>>28344414
/thread
