Does Russia need an unmanned "faithful wingman" Yak-141

November 25, 2021 62

In 2017, Deputy Prime Minister Yury Borisov said that work had resumed in Russia on a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that could be based on aircraft carriers of the Russian Navy. However, a lot of criticism immediately appeared that a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft would always be inferior in terms of performance characteristics to conventional horizontal takeoff and landing aircraft, and therefore there was no need to swell an unmeasured amount of budget billions into a "dead end" project. There is some truth in this, but is everything as simple as it seems at first glance?

Obviously, we are talking about the development of the concept of the Soviet project SKVVP Yak-141, which was ahead of its time, and then was undeservedly forgotten. We'll come back to this plane, but for now let's talk about what is the bottleneck in aviation. Surprisingly, this is by no means the design and mass production of aircraft. The most difficult thing is to prepare combat pilots for them.

Robots, not people, do their work.

Training takes many years and is very expensive. An experienced pilot is worth its weight in gold, especially a carrier-based pilot who has to land on the rocking deck of an aircraft carrier even in adverse weather conditions. Military pilots take a long time to train before they turn into effective combat units, and then they go into a well-deserved retirement, and everything has to be started all over again. The loss of an aircraft in combat or in a plane crash is always a disaster, but the loss of a pilot is an irreparable tragedy in every sense.

For this reason, one of the most promising areas in the aircraft industry is the drone drone programs. UAVs are always cheaper than manned aircraft:

At first, they save the lives of pilots, and at the same time save huge amounts of money on their many years of training. For remote control of the drone, an ordinary operator with a joystick may be sufficient.

Secondly, due to the absence of a living organism in the cockpit of the aircraft, the safety and comfort of which must be taken care of, UAVs can theoretically be operated with powerful accelerations and overloads during maneuvers, which increases their performance characteristics beyond the capabilities of the human body.

Thirdly, UAVs can be quickly reproduced and put into operation, compensating for losses, which cannot be done promptly in manned aircraft.

To date, there are three main areas for the development of unmanned aircraft: remote control by the operator, the “true follower” format, and the use of artificial intelligence (AI). The latter is technically the most difficult and poses serious ethical problems. However, the first concept is already being really successfully used, and the second one is being actively tested, including in our country. In Russia, this is a program of interaction between the fifth generation Su-75 fighter and the S-70 Okhotnik heavy strike UAV, which serves for reconnaissance, target designation and fire support, increasing the power of the slave aircraft. The Australian division of the Boeing Corporation is testing a Loyal Wingman UAV with similar functionality.

Unmanned fighter jets?

A recent video advertising the capabilities of the fifth-generation Su-75 light fighter has prompted some pretty interesting considerations. A completely unmanned version of the aircraft was demonstrated there, even without a cockpit for the pilot. Of course, this is the future, but very promising. Let's say Rostec masters a fully unmanned version of the Su-75. What will it give?

A lot: it will be possible to use the fifth-generation heavy fighter Su-75 and the fifth-generation light unmanned fighter Su-75 in conjunction, where the second will act as a “faithful wingman”. Or not one, but several Su-75s at once. It turns out that just one Su-57 pilot will be able to lead several aircraft into battle at once, loaded to capacity with missiles and bombs, which are not so scary to lose due to their unmanned capability and relatively low cost. Imagine how much the effectiveness of the actions of the RF Aerospace Forces will then increase.

Very tempting. Alas, there are some limitations. Horizontal takeoff and landing aircraft require a good runway. In the event of the outbreak of active hostilities, military airfields will be destroyed in the first place. If we talk about the use of an unmanned fighter in the fleet, then a horizontal landing on a relatively small deck of a ship rocking in the waves can become too difficult for automation and even for the UAV remote control operator. However, things can change for the better if you “marry” the option of “faithful wingman” and remote control with the function of vertical / short takeoff and vertical landing.

Here we again return to the Yak-141. Indeed, a VTOL aircraft has the worst performance characteristics, since it spends a lot of fuel on such takeoff and landing, which reduces its combat radius and combat load. It would seem, why bother with them at all? But no. Imagine that on the basis of the Yak-141, a fully unmanned SKVVP fighter was made with the functions of a “true follower” and remote control by the operator. What will it give? Much. Very, very much.

First of all, by removing the pilot with the entire cockpit and life support systems for him, we will seriously lighten the fighter itself. This will save fuel and at the same time perform the most extreme maneuvers for the aircraft. The option of short or normal horizontal takeoff instead of vertical takeoff is also capable of reducing fuel consumption. But at the same time, the Yak-141 can still be lifted into the air and landed vertically on almost any patch. This will make it possible to use it as a front-line unmanned fighter if airfields and highways are destroyed, as well as as a carrier-based one. A remote-controlled Yak-141 can be made to take off in a shortened pattern with a TAVRK or UDC, and then land safely in a vertical mode. Automation or AI will be able to cope with this. The “faithful wingman” option will allow the use of UAVs in conjunction with manned fighters, which will increase the effectiveness of Russian aviation.

If you "marry" unmanned control systems and technology short / vertical take-off and landing, this will open up a lot of new opportunities for the RF Ministry of Defense.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Michael1950

+1

25 November 2021 16: 33
- The problem is the absence of an engine like the F135 in Russia:
http://airwar.ru/enc/engines/f135.html
which would allow the implementation of a scheme similar to the F-35B. The scheme with additional lifting engines Yak-141, firstly, is much more dangerous if one of them fails (instant inevitable somersault of the aircraft due to longitudinal imbalance), and secondly, these two lifting engines in flight are tinkering just like ballast.
1. Marzhecki
  
  +1
  
  25 November 2021 16: 42
  
  And it seemed to me that it was the Yankees who "cut off" a lot of things.
  Counter proposal: to make such lifting motors that will not refuse. How do you like the idea?
  In the unmanned version of the aircraft, "ballast" will probably not be such a problem.
  1. gunnerminer
    
    -6
    
    25 November 2021 20: 11
    
    And who will make not uncle from the UEC! At least make a squadron manned. Yakovlevites are engaged in MS-21 (trunk aircraft of the 21st century). All the rest of the Yakovlevskoe is buried. Well, and a little cruise missiles and satellites. 141 world records were set on the Yak-12 during the tests.
    Harrier became an excellent attack aircraft only thanks to the unique Rolls-Royce F402-RR-401 engine. This was not the case in the USSR, and the UEC will not be able to do it.
2. mark1
  
  +3
  
  25 November 2021 16: 47
  
  There is no particular problem with the PD, or do you think that the fan with the transmission in the F-35 is much lighter than the PD in the Yak-141? You probably know that the variant with a lift fan was considered in the Yakovlev Design Bureau, but based on a set of characteristics, they decided that it was preferable to PD
  1. Marzhecki
    
    +2
    
    25 November 2021 16: 57
    
    So it's like they are writing to us from Israel. It is not often that you can hear something good about Russian weapons from there. Bindyuzhnik will not let you lie.
    1. Binder
      
      -4
      
      25 November 2021 18: 36
      
      Quote: Marzhetsky
      It is not often that you can hear something good about Russian weapons from there. Bindyuzhnik will not let you lie.
      
      Well, if Mr. Marzhetsky considers the fair opinion of SW Michael1950 that the Russian engine building is not able to create an analogue of the F135 as something good, then he has a clear lack of understanding of the printed text. However, the author is generally far from the aviation theme as the Chukchi are from the tropics.
      
      Quote: Marzhetsky
      In the unmanned version of the plane
      
      Marzhetsky, drones are initially created according to other principles, it makes no sense to build a full-fledged fighter and then sculpt AI on it. And yet - despite the loud victorious reports, the only real UAV in the Russian Armed Forces is still the unfading Outpost, which is just a licensed copy of an old Israeli Searcher, assembled in the Russian Federation using a screwdriver assembly method from Israeli components. And all these Orion-Altair hunters simply do not exist, like the Su-75, and the lone Su-57 has not yet become a combat unit.
      1. S WITH
        
        +1
        
        25 November 2021 23: 36
        
        we do not need an analogue of an engine whose blades burn out
        https://naukatehnika.com/problemyi-s-lopatkami-dvigatelej-na-istrebitelyax-nevidimkax-f-35.html
  2. gunnerminer
    
    -4
    
    25 November 2021 20: 12
    
    There is no particular problem with PD
    
    If there was no problem, there would be drumming at all corners, and a second barn would be built in Dubai, with cologne.
    1. mark1
      
      +1
      
      25 November 2021 20: 26
      
      It's not about the problem, it's about the approach. Why attach PD to chess if initially it is a commercial project mainly for countries that do not particularly think about verticals. There are also a couple of dark horses, it is possible that Yakovlev's design bureau was involved.
      And yes, according to the following - we have no failures in the UAC, we have a painstaking development of competencies
      1. gunnerminer
        
        -5
        
        25 November 2021 20: 49
        
        UAC failures - Su-57, Il-112V, Mi-28N, SSZH-100, Il-76MD-90A, Il-78MD-90A, Be-200 UEC failures - Il-112V, Il-114-300 engines, engines Be-200, An-124 engines, Tu-160M2, Tu-22M3M, Su-57 engines.
        The silence of Yuri Slyusar is not surprising, because the corporation is working in the red. The total debt of the United Aircraft Corporation, accumulated since 2015, exceeds the structure's revenue. The corporation owes 535 billion rubles to banks alone, although the company's revenue is several times less, not to mention profit. The last time the state received a profit from the activities of the United Aircraft Corporation was in 2014. In 2019, the net loss of the enterprise amounted to 60 billion rubles, but this is most likely not the limit. The main problem of the enterprise is that it is unable not only to produce high-quality products, but also to sell them.
        The debts of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) to banks amount to about 530 billion rubles, Anatoly Serdyukov, head of the Rostec aviation cluster, admitted in an interview with RBC in 2020.
3. gunnerminer
  
  -5
  
  25 November 2021 20: 05
  
  Manned would do .... Too many failures in the UAC, with avionics, with engines.
  1. S WITH
    
    0
    
    25 November 2021 23: 32
    
    with avionics? would you first compare the performance characteristics of the Irbis with afar f22
    1. gunnerminer
      
      -3
      
      25 November 2021 23: 56
      
      Serial radars with AFAR cannot be produced in Russia. One of the reasons for the Indian Defense Ministry's jump out of the FGFA program. You can revel in the individual characteristics of radars with PFAR for as long as you like, but this will not give any idea about their relative advantages or disadvantages to competitors.
      Radar with AFAR (active phased arrays), with which NATO countries have been armed for twenty years, and which are installed on Chinese aircraft, is the same as a powerful racing motorcycle compared to a moped! In short, AFAR systems have many times better performance compared to PFAR with the same power. The AFAR radar is much less susceptible to interference, and can itself work as an electronic warfare tool. AFAR is devoid of all the shortcomings of the PFAR in terms of forming several beams, since it is a complex of thousands of transceivers, each of which is controlled individually. AFAR has a significant advantage in tracking targets on the aisle - during shelling, their number remains exactly the same as in overview mode. In PFAR, when firing, the number of targets being tracked is reduced - the cyclogram is overloaded, and it is no longer possible to squeeze the positioning of the beam for each target into the scanning cycle at the same time as highlighting the ones being fired, say.
      You are trying to pass off the poverty of the KLA and Rostec as a virtue.
      1. S WITH
        
        0
        
        26 November 2021 00: 18
        
        afar su57 protein is the world's first afar made of gallium nitride microwave modules, they can withstand more power than afar f22 based on gallium arsenide, as a result, su57 has a large detection range
        
        gunnerminer
        
        -3
        
        26 November 2021 00: 44
        
        The squirrel was made at the Fazotron Research Institute for the exhibition. Things didn’t go any further. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies of NATO blocked the stream of electronic components. Crews will not converge horse to horse in battle. NATO has dozens of AWACS and U complexes. direct fighters. There are only four A-50Us in the Russian Air Force. So everything is normal with NATO’s range. But the Su-57 is not mass-produced, like the Belka. KNAAZ could not. The KRET concern could not.
4. S WITH
  
  0
  
  25 November 2021 23: 31
  
  before the development of the yak141, the yakovlevites shoveled all the options for the vertical, including the fan lift, but settled on the option with two simple light engines, if you look closely at the su75, you can see that its fuselage is significantly longer than f35, which means that two lifting engines will fit behind the cockpit , it remains only to move the front chassis forward and widen the air intakes
  1. gunnerminer
    
    -4
    
    25 November 2021 23: 57
    
    The Su-75 is just a plywood shed; there is nothing to look closely at; not even a prototype, like with the Su-57.
    1. S WITH
      
      0
      
      26 November 2021 00: 04
      
      you can repeat this a hundred times before going to bed, but he will still go into the series as su57
      1. gunnerminer
        
        -3
        
        26 November 2021 00: 08
        
        Serial production of the Su-57 failed for well-known reasons. KNAAZ is interrupted from bread to water. Because the piece production of prototypes of the Su-57 does not make money. The Su-75 was even offered an "open architecture." modern battle. But this kunstuk did not work. Even the new cologne did not help.
Sergey Latyshev

0

25 November 2021 18: 02

Fantasies that have arisen after articles about the conversion of old aircraft in China and America.

question1. basic.
How many yak 141 are in stock? Not one?

Question 2. How many aircraft carriers / UDC do we have? none., in perspective 3.

Question 3. Is there any development of heavy drones instead of yak? yes, even without a vertical.

Question 4. Do UAVs need high-speed verticals, taking into account that it is expensive, weak, and small ammunition?
Depends on the economy.
The Returned CR trend will completely replace.
1. Marzhecki
  
  0
  
  25 November 2021 18: 25
  
  Fantasies that have arisen after articles about the conversion of old aircraft in China and America.
  
  I hear it for the first time. And not fantasies, but reasoning on the topic. These are two different things.
  
  question1. basic.
  How many yak 141 are in stock? Not one?
  
  The relevant Deputy Prime Minister announced the revival of the project. He knows better than you, probably? No? Here is a quote from him:
  
  "Now we are working on a conceptual model, prototypes. Of course, this is the future. For all types of aircraft carriers, a new fleet of aircraft will be needed. For this, various technologies are used that allow for shortened takeoff and landing or simply vertical takeoff. Conceptually, such work is underway. in the Ministry of Defense since last year, "he said.
  According to the Deputy Prime Minister, the timing of the creation of the new aircraft is determined by the technological cycle.
  
  “As a rule, it is seven to ten years, if you go into series,” explained Borisov.
  
  This is not the first time I have already pointed out to you, by the way, that in arms you must first think about why you need it, and only then do it. And for some reason this truth does not reach you.
  
  Question 2. How many aircraft carriers / UDC do we have? none., in perspective 3.
  
  Aircraft carrier 1 is under repair. It will last another 14 years at best, then for scrap. There will be nothing to base aircraft with horizontal takeoff and landing. The UDC will remain, where only SCVVP can be operated.
  UDC is planned 2, in 2026-2027 somewhere. Just about then the Yak-141 can fly, if they do not lie that they are doing.
  
  Question 3. Is there any development of heavy drones instead of yak? yes, even without a vertical.
  
  There is a Hunter and Altius, but they are SUBSONIC, and the Yak-141 is SUPERSONIC. Feel the difference. By the way, it is precisely because of her that it is not entirely clear how exactly the Hunter should interact in battle with the Su-57. But with the Su-75 or Yak-141 unmanned as a slave, it's understandable.
  
  Question 4. Do UAVs need high-speed verticals, taking into account that it is expensive, weak, and small ammunition?
  Depends on the economy.
  
  Why is it weak? Why is the ammunition small? Normal ammunition there, like that of a fighter, which makes it head and shoulders above any conventional UAV, and at the same time in all performance characteristics. What is the advantage of the KVVP version, I seem to have explained in detail in the article.
  Expensive? Well, the result is worth it, isn't it? Now it is the most promising direction in aircraft construction.
  It depends not only on the economy, but more on the tasks set for aviation.
  1. gunnerminer
    
    -4
    
    25 November 2021 20: 18
    
    The relevant Deputy Prime Minister announced the revival of the project. He knows better than you, probably? No? Here is a quote from him:
    
    He can say a lot of things. He is not responsible for the final result. There is either a padishah or a donkey. The Yak-141, despite better performance than the Yak-38, had a very short range (690 km when taking off like an airplane) and loitering time (1,5 hours when taking off by plane). And how could it be otherwise? Both the Harrier and the F-35 have one powerful engine, while the Yak-38/141 has three. Two of them fly after takeoff and landing by passengers. You can brag about the Yak-141 as a technical achievement in the absence of a good engine. But do not try to build a unique combat fighter-bomber from the Yak-141. Both in the first and in the second, it is unsuccessful and cannot withstand competition with Western and Soviet competitors. Probably, American aircraft designers could borrow something from the Yak-141 for the F-35 project. Why not, if there was an opportunity to work together in 1994. But they can only talk about what they can "copy" from the Petrosyan workshop.
    
    and Yak-141 - SUPERSONIC
    
    Which will lead to a reduction in flight time, and a decrease in flight range.
  2. gunnerminer
    
    -5
    
    25 November 2021 20: 50
    
    Aircraft carrier 1 is under repair.
    
    Aircraft-carrying cruiser, half-dead.
  3. Sergey Latyshev
    
    0
    
    25 November 2021 21: 50
    
    Eco you mix everything. And what's right and what's wrong together
    
    not fantasies, but reasoning
    
    on the topic - if only they were not linked with the old Yak 141, but with something newer and simpler., such as a hunter or a modernized Yak-130, then yes.
    
    said the profile deputy prime minister
    
    - Promising does not mean getting married.
    And Rogozin promised a lot, and Chubais, and Putin. They don't take it seriously anymore
    Rather, there will be a bet on the "non-semimetric answer"
    
    weapons first need to think about why they need it, and only then do it.
    
    - General elementary yes.
    But if they don’t do it, then it’s unnecessary in terms of price and quality. You never know, wrapped up after some development
    
    for some reason this truth does not reach you.
    
    - this is just a crap from the authors.
    Not the first time
    
    in 2026-2027 somewhere. Just about then the Yak-141 can fly,
    
    This is no longer Yak-141, but something else. And first - a pilot one, if it looks like a real plane, and not like a "hunter" -type UAV
    
    Feel the difference.
    
    - and how much supersonic it gave out? 20 minutes a little? There is not much difference in a modern rocket.
    And who's stopping to upgrade the hunter / upgrade to a supersonic SV Hunter for the same 7 years? It already exists, new engines promise, the ways are known, it is cheaper.
    But not a vertical, yes.
    
    Why weak?
    
    - it is well known that verticals are much worse in performance characteristics than conventional fighters.
    Even for ordinary aircraft they write in the performance characteristics - either, say, 8 tons of weapons and 3 tons of fuel, or vice versa. And with verticals - even more so. Earlier it was more critical, but now the F35 with a "shortened takeoff" is noticeably more puny than its counterparts.
    
    In general, if without rudeness, a normal modified maritime Supersonic UAV will be much cheaper and angrier. IMHO, the cost of an analogue of the Yak-141 will fit at least 3 pieces
    1. Marzhecki
      
      +1
      
      26 November 2021 12: 04
      
      In general, if without rudeness, a normal modified maritime Supersonic UAV will be much cheaper and angrier. IMHO, the cost of an analogue of the Yak-141 will fit at least 3 pieces
      
      Cool. Or you can drop the link to normal modified maritime supersonic UAV
      What kind of animal is this that does not exist in nature?
      1. Sergey Latyshev
        
        -1
        
        26 November 2021 13: 14
        
        Ie do not mind the rest?
        
        And about that - just read the comment more carefully.
        the same place earlier: "And who prevents the modernization of the hunter / upgrade to a supersonic SV Hunter for the same 7 years? It already exists, new engines promise, the ways are known, it is cheaper."
        
        Marzhecki
        
        0
        
        27 November 2021 08: 05
        
        I object. It's just too lazy to re-paint.
        Do you know how much the Hunter costs? 1 billion rubles apiece. Subsonic UAV. For comparison, for a supersonic fighter Su-75 they ask for 2 billion rubles. Do you see what I'm getting at?
        If you make the Hunter supersonic, it will be, for the price, like a full-fledged fighter.
        Why is this necessary? If you can make a piloted and unmanned version of a fighter at the same time?
        
        Sergey Latyshev
        
        -1
        
        27 November 2021 09: 44
        
        That is why these are all fantasies, not "reasoning"
        
        Compare insured individual hunter - "After the start of mass production, the cost will be reduced by 40-50 percent." and a non-existent vertical landing aircraft / UAV, which will obviously be more expensive than the non-existent Su75 ???
        
        It all depends on the complexity. The classic "hunter" is positioned as an "unmanned bomber", or an expensive "station wagon", with a good transonic speed
        If your favorite radar, reconnaissance gunner, interceptor is being developed, then it may be cheaper. (Purely by analogy with airplanes)
        
        Marzhecki
        
        0
        
        27 November 2021 09: 50
        
        Compare insured individual hunter - "After the start of mass production, the cost will be reduced by 40-50 percent."
        
        Look, here you believe the developers' statements, but you don’t believe in other things. Oh well.
        
        and a defunct vertical landing aircraft / UAV
        
        On the Yak141 project, all R&D has been carried out for a long time, by the way. The plane was and flew. It doesn't need to be created from scratch.
        
        If your favorite radar, reconnaissance gunner, interceptor is being developed, then it may be cheaper.
        
        I don't quite understand why some kind of radar has become my favorite? Are you talking about the AWACS aircraft? so our military needs it, not me personally.
        
        It all depends on the complexity. The classic "hunter" is positioned as an "unmanned bomber", or an expensive "station wagon", with a good transonic speed
        
        A subsonic UAV makes no sense in conjunction with a supersonic aircraft. he is simply useless as a follower. It only makes sense to transform the fighter itself into a UAV, in manned and unmanned versions.
        
        Okay, continuing the conversation doesn't make any sense.
        
        Sergey Latyshev
        
        0
        
        27 November 2021 10: 20
        
        On the Yak141 project, all R&D has been carried out for a long time, by the way. The plane was and flew. It doesn't need to be created from scratch.
        
        Yak141 is the old Yak141. even if the entire technological chain is restored, no one will make the old plane. Only new to develop.
        
        A subsonic UAV makes no sense in conjunction with a supersonic aircraft.
        
        - however, the media stubbornly associate the hunter with su 57.
        The hunter is transonic in itself.
        These can act quite by themselves around the ship. As amerovsky earavschiki UAVs, for example.
        
        by the way, according to wiki and media, the speed of the Yak141 is less at the ground than that of the hunter 1250 km / h versus 1400
2. gunnerminer
  
  -3
  
  25 November 2021 20: 13
  
  Depends on the economy.
  
  With a resource-based rental economy, such an aircraft cannot be created, and even with a new engine.
  1. Marzhecki
    
    0
    
    26 November 2021 12: 02
    
    And with what to create?
    1. gunnerminer
      
      -3
      
      26 November 2021 16: 39
      
      Balanced, not raw, not rentable. As in the USA, as in Japan, as in South Korea.
      1. Marzhecki
        
        0
        
        27 November 2021 08: 05
        
        How exactly does a resource-based rental economy get in the way of building an engine?
        
        gunnerminer
        
        -2
        
        27 November 2021 10: 02
        
        There are no funds left for the creation of engines. Such an economy cannot allocate the necessary funds for the development of fundamental science, for the equipment of laboratories, for the training of modern engineers, for the acquisition of the necessary materials, for salaries for skilled workers, for attractive salaries for young workers and engineers. values knowledge, the study notes. Therefore, there are few material incentives to master "difficult" professions. Thus, a doctor in Russia earns on average only 20% more than a driver. For comparison: in the USA the difference is 261%, in Germany - 172%, in developing Brazil - 174%. 75% of graduates of St. Petersburg universities work outside their specialty.
        History says that if a country agrees to its raw material orientation, that is, to be in the role of an appendage of the world community, then this country will not lead to anything good. We extract and sell raw materials, and in Western countries, including even Belarus, they process it and sell a product ready for use, including us. Following the logic of mercantilism, "smart" countries seek to benefit from foreign trade by selling high value-added goods to other countries in exchange for cheap purchases of raw materials.
Marzhecki

-2

25 November 2021 18: 38

Quote: Bindyuzhnik
Well, if Mr. Marzhetsky considers the fair opinion of SW Michael1950 that the Russian engine building is not able to create an analogue of the F135 as something good, then he has a clear lack of understanding of the printed text. However, the author is generally far from the aviation theme as the Chukchi are from the tropics.

And here is Bindyuzhnik himself.

Marzhetsky, drones are initially created according to other principles, it makes no sense to build a full-fledged fighter and then sculpt AI on it. And yet - despite the loud victorious reports, the only real UAV in the Russian Armed Forces is still the unfading Outpost, which is just a licensed copy of an old Israeli Searcher, assembled in the Russian Federation using a screwdriver assembly method from Israeli components. And all these Orion-Altair hunters simply do not exist, like the Su-75, and the lone Su-57 has not yet become a combat unit.

An evil Israeli clown in his repertoire.
1. Binder
  
  -4
  
  25 November 2021 19: 01
  
  Quote: Marzhetsky
  An evil Israeli clown in his repertoire.
  
  A kind Russian liar-dreamer. What have I misrepresented in my comment?
  1. The comment was deleted.
zenion

0

25 November 2021 18: 59

And now a powerful drone rips the air to shreds, covering the rocket speed and at the same time getting rid of the excess, the tail, wings and everything from the inside.
Michael1950

-1

25 November 2021 19: 09

Quote: Marzhetsky
And it seemed to me that it was the Yankees who "cut off" a lot of things.

- This is a fairly typical Soviet, and then Russian delusion, intensely fueled by the officialdom ...

Counter proposal: to make such lifting motors that will not refuse. How do you like the idea?

- Haha! "Easy to say"... But "miracles in this world", in the words of one of the Strugatsky heroes, "there are only bad ones"...

In the unmanned version of the aircraft, "ballast" will probably not be such a problem.

- In terms of security - of course. Only "iron" perishes. But it is better when the engine power can be completely switched from the fan to the longitudinal thrust. This is a more progressive method - it affects both the combat radius and the carrying capacity ...
Michael1950

-3

25 November 2021 19: 15

Quote: mark1
There is no particular problem with the PD, or do you think that the fan with the transmission in the F-35 is much lighter than the PD in the Yak-141?

a) safer
b) it is energetically (and tactically) more useful.

You probably know that the variant with a lift fan was considered in the Yakovlev Design Bureau, but based on a set of characteristics, they decided that it was preferable to PD

- Yeah, they probably had an engine similar to the F135 lying around in their warehouse: 19.5 tons of thrust on afterburner at the start "by airplane", or "the fan takes the power of 29 thousand hp and creates the maximum thrust 9072 kg, a 7122 kg of vertical thrust is created by the gas jet of the engine. Side nozzles create thrust along 884 kg each"?
http://airwar.ru/enc/engines/f135.html
1. mark1
  
  +2
  
  25 November 2021 20: 56
  
  Quote: Michael1950
  Yeah, they probably had an engine similar to the F135 lying around in the warehouse: 19.5 tons of thrust on the afterburner at the start "by airplane",
  
  What is it that you Misha, are fixated on the "unique" F-135 - is it okay, the takeoff masses of the aeroplanes are very different? So the 15500 kg thrust of the R-79go in the shortened take-off / vertical landing mode is quite enough for the Yak-141 with a fan, and on the way there was a modification with a thrust of 17500 kg
  And at the expense of safer and more tactically / energetically more useful - your conjectures against the results of the research of the profile design bureau. And by the way the plane was a VTOL aircraft against a castrated UVVP
Michael1950

-1

25 November 2021 19: 18

Quote: Bindyuzhnik
Marzhetsky, drones are initially created according to different principles, it makes no sense to build a full-fledged fighter and then mold AI on it.

- It makes sense (I can't always agree with my half-brother. ) So it is planned at first on a number of models, including NGAD ...
1. Marzhecki
  
  +2
  
  26 November 2021 11: 59
  
  Of course it makes sense Bindyuzhnik is just really Russophobe
  1. Binder
    
    -6
    
    26 November 2021 14: 05
    
    Marzhetsky, Bindyuzhnik is not a Russophobe, but a realist.
    1. Marzhecki
      
      +1
      
      26 November 2021 14: 09
      
      I would tell you who you are, but there is censorship
      well, you know
      1. Binder
        
        -5
        
        26 November 2021 14: 22
        
        Marzhetsky, your negative attitude warms my soul more than any other praise.
        
        Marzhecki
        
        +1
        
        27 November 2021 10: 05
        
        I don't think you have a soul at all You sold it long ago for a barrel of jam and a box of cookies.
        
        Binder
        
        -3
        
        27 November 2021 11: 00
        
        Your thoughts are completely indifferent to me.
        
        The comment was deleted.
Michael1950

-2

25 November 2021 19: 23

Quote: Marzhetsky
Fantasies that have arisen after articles about the conversion of old aircraft in China and America.

I hear it for the first time. And not fantasies, but reasoning on the topic. These are two different things.

question1. basic.
How many yak 141 are in stock? Not one?

The relevant Deputy Prime Minister announced the revival of the project. He knows better than you, probably? No? Here is a quote from him:

"Now we are working on a conceptual model, prototypes. Of course, this is the future. For all types of aircraft carriers, a new fleet of aircraft will be needed. For this, various technologies are used that allow for shortened takeoff and landing or simply vertical takeoff. Conceptually, such work is underway. in the Ministry of Defense since last year, "he said.
According to the Deputy Prime Minister, the timing of the creation of the new aircraft is determined by the technological cycle.

“As a rule, it is seven to ten years, if you go into series,” explained Borisov.

This is not the first time I have already pointed out to you, by the way, that in arms you must first think about why you need it, and only then do it. And for some reason this truth does not reach you.

- IMHO: Russia (washed by numerous seas and oceans) makes sense to have aircraft with a short take-off run and vertical landing, because it is possible for them to make a lot of aircraft carriers of relatively small tonnagewhile the Russian economy simply "cannot afford it" to build aircraft carriers of the Ronald Reagan type.
Panikovsky

+2

25 November 2021 21: 04

This plane does not exist. The project was closed in 1992, i.e. 30 years ago. Perhaps some developments will be used in promising aircraft, but this is the business of specialists and designers and, of course, MO.
1. gunnerminer
  
  -3
  
  26 November 2021 00: 01
  
  In an optimistic scenario, this will take 30 years of hard work, and if there is a short bloody war in the Western, Southern, Eastern military districts, then there will be no such aircraft or UAVs at all.
Michael1950

-1

26 November 2021 01: 52

Quote: S S
with avionics? would you first compare the performance characteristics of the Irbis with afar f22

- Let's compare, for fun ?! I'm just afraid that according to the results of the comparison, someone would not go to hang themselves in the toilet ...
Michael1950

-2

26 November 2021 02: 29

Quote: mark1
Quote: Michael1950
Yeah, they probably had an engine similar to the F135 lying around in the warehouse: 19.5 tons of thrust on the afterburner at the start "by airplane",

What is it that you Misha, are fixated on the "unique" F-135 - is it okay, the takeoff masses of the aeroplanes are very different? So the 15500 kg thrust of the R-79go in the shortened take-off / vertical landing mode is quite enough for the Yak-141 with a fan, and on the way there was a modification with a thrust of 17500 kg

- Hm...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141#Specifications_(Yak-41)
Wing area: 31.7 m2
Empty weight: 11,650 kg
Max takeoff weight: 19,500 kg
Powerplant: 1 × Soyuz R-79V-300 afterburning vectoring-nozzle turbofan, 108 kN thrust dry, 152 kN with afterburner
Powerplant: 2 × RKBM RD-41 turbojets, 41.7 kN thrust each canted rearwards from vertical
Maximum speed: 1,800 km / h
Ferry range: 3,000 km
Service ceiling: 15,500 m
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Specifications_(F-35B)
Wing area: 43 m2
Empty weight: 14,729 kg
Max takeoff weight: 27,200 kg
Fuel capacity: 6,123 kg internal
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135-PW-600 afterburning turbofan, 125 kN thrust dry, 191 kN with afterburner
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6 at altitude (1700 km / h)
Combat radius on internal fuel: 935 km
Service ceiling: 15,000 m
====================
Yak-141:
19,500-11,650=7,850 kg
F-35:
27,200-14,729=12,271 kg
What can be compared here?

And at the expense of safer and tactically / energetically more useful - your speculations against the results of the research of the profile design bureau.

- This is not my speculation. And bullshit should not be passed off as "the result of research" - "we did so because we considered this option the best". As if the Yakovlev Design Bureau had the opportunity to make such an option as Lockheed Martin!

And by the way the plane was a VTOL aircraft against a castrated UVVP

- So he wasn't. He was would. First flight 9 March 1987, passed 34 years, Russia has earned trillions of petrodollars since then. But he is not ...
1. mark1
  
  +1
  
  27 November 2021 13: 28
  
  Quote: Michael1950
  As if the Yakovlev Design Bureau had the opportunity to make such an option as Lockheed Martin!
  
  Had ... And, Mishan, who ripped off whom? You at least do not confuse the chronology of events and do not mislead others. One follows from the other and not the other way round.
  All your other comparisons also do not make sense, but only a simple distortion.
Netyn

0

26 November 2021 11: 49

we are talking about the development of the concept of the Soviet project SKVVP Yak-141, which was ahead of its time, and then was undeservedly forgotten

Why is it forgotten? Even went into the series
Marzhecki

0

26 November 2021 11: 59

Quote: Michael1950
- IMHO: Russia (washed by numerous seas and oceans) makes sense to have aircraft with a short take-off run and vertical landing, because it is possible for them to make a lot of aircraft carriers of relatively small tonnage, while building aircraft carriers of the "Ronald Reagan" type for the Russian economy is simple " it is too expensive".

I totally agree. For a transitional period. I write about this on a regular basis.
Cat

0

26 November 2021 19: 21

Well, of course he will. And certainly not soon. And why? Yes, because in the presence of such modern GZPKR as the Zircon, such a knowledge base as "Manned aircraft strikes against the enemy's KUG / AUG" is removed from our aircraft-carrying ships. But to fight off dozens of enemy anti-ship missiles, you won’t get enough of the S-400 alone, since the best “SAM” at a distance of 400 km is just our anti-ship missile fighter, etc. GDP with a dozen UR explosives!
1. gunnerminer
  
  -3
  
  26 November 2021 19: 49
  
  Zircon is just ammunition that has not been put into service, without a hypersonic ramjet engine. Without an active guidance system. It is launched as a missile defense system. On a pair of boosters, with acceleration into hypersonic for a couple of minutes. Without a heat-resistant cap. you need to fulfill the conditions for a whole list. The Civil Code of the Russian Navy is not able to provide most of this list to its subordinates.
Michael1950

-2

27 November 2021 13: 45

Quote: mark1
Quote: Michael1950
As if the Yakovlev Design Bureau had the opportunity to make such an option as Lockheed Martin!

Had...

- Well, damn it with two! There is still no such engine as the F135 in Russia. On the basis of what the Yakovlev design bureau could even think about the F-35 scheme ??

And, Mishan, who ripped off whom?

- Sodral what?? Will you also tell me that the Wright brothers tore off the scheme from the Mozhaisky plane?

You at least do not confuse the chronology of events and do not mislead others. One follows from the other and not the other way round.

- I repeat: the Americans bought a license for the Yak-141 rotary nozzle for extremely ridiculous money - there is no more "not a single rivet" in the F-35 from the Yak-141 ...

All your other comparisons also do not make sense, but only a simple distortion.

- Come on ... There are not only "teapots" on the forum, there are people who understand, - do not make them laugh with propaganda flood ...
Michael1950

-1

27 November 2021 13: 46

Quote: Marzhetsky
Quote: Michael1950
- IMHO: Russia (washed by numerous seas and oceans) makes sense to have aircraft with a short take-off run and vertical landing, because it is possible for them to make a lot of aircraft carriers of relatively small tonnage, while building aircraft carriers of the "Ronald Reagan" type for the Russian economy is simple " it is too expensive".

I totally agree. For a transitional period. I write about this on a regular basis.

- So this is completely natural ...
Michael1950

-2

27 November 2021 13: 52
Quote: Cat
Of course HE will be. And certainly not soon. And why? Yes, because in the presence of such modern GZPKR as "Zircon" from our aircraft carrying ships such a BZ as "Strikes of manned aircraft on the enemy's KUG / AUG" is removed.

- And who told you that the Aegis air defense system, continuously being modernized, will not be able to shoot down ANY missiles - even a BR, even an ICBM, even a hypersonic one? Completely vain hopes.

But to fight off dozens of enemy anti-ship missiles, you won't be enough of the S-400 alone, since the best missile defense system at a distance of 400 km is just our anti-ship missile fighter, etc. GDP with a dozen missile defense missiles!

- The S-400 is not able to destroy the stealth before they are bombed - mark yourself somewhere?
Siegfried

0

27 November 2021 18: 09

relying on the remote control of an unmanned fighter, whether a ground operator or as a wingman, carries great risks of losing this controllability. The race of EW capabilities between the West and Russia is far from Russia's supposed advantage, especially when it comes to onboard EW systems on aircraft or containers. It will be enough for the enemy to find a way to neutralize the control signal in order to deprive Russia of all its fighter UAVs (and not only them). True combat sustainability will only be achieved with the full autonomy of the AI-powered fighter. This is what we need to strive for now. Even without a platform, you can start working out AI algorithms on existing devices. Why not take the Yak-130, make an unmanned version of it and give birth to the Russian fighter aviation AI on it.