Yak-141
Posted on 07/18/2017 8:02:34 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
ZHUKOVSKY (Moscow Region), July 18. /TASS/. Russia’s Defense Ministry is in talks with aircraft builders to develop an advanced vertical take-off and landing fighter jet for a future aircraft cruiser on the basis of planes produced by the Yakovlev Company, Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said on Tuesday.
"The Defense Ministry’s plans … somewhere at the finish of the state armament program for 2018-2025 envisage the commencement of the construction of a new aircraft cruiser and, of course, a new generation of aircraft will emerge by that time," Borisov said.
"Today, Su-33 and MiG-29 aircraft are the backbone of aircraft carriers, specifically, the Admiral Kuznetsov. The Defense Ministry’s plans envisage developing an advanced short take-off and landing aircraft and, possibly, a vertical take-off and landing plane, and we are discussing this with our aircraft-building companies," he said at the MAKS-2017 international airshow outside Moscow.
"This is the development of the Yakovlev family of aircraft that was terminated. Such plans exist and we are discussing them, including the possible development of these areas for an advanced plane for aircraft carriers," he said.
More: http://tass.com/defense/956811
Yak-141
Yakety Yak, don’t fly that!
Yakolev. How’d that flying banana Yak 9 work out for you? I think the Yak 12 or 15 was just as bad.
Stick to Ob Ugrian herders. They know how to handle Yaks, and can milk them too.
I wonder if they’ll pick-up where they left off with the Yak-141 or if Yakovlev shall start with a clean slate.
I’ve always wondered how that upturned end of runway deck has worked for the Russians? Seems to me better than a flat-top as the planes wings provide a better angle to provide more lift.
There was an “advanced” derivative of the 141 called Yak-43; don’t think it came near prototype stage.
A waste of money on their part if you ask me. They have no lines of communication or overseas interests demanding an aircraft carrier. Just the same as we have no need to fill CONUS with SAM missile sites.
We won’t be attacked at home by enemy aircraft, and they have no need to have fixed wing off a carrier that I can see. Syria is a fine example. They had a land base closer when they flew from Kuznetsov.
Their naval need is to interdict our atlantic sea lanes if we wanted a land war with them. That says “buy attack submarines”. Their other need is destroyer or heavy patrol craft to protect their coastlines.
Maybe they hope to sell them internationally to small carrier operating nations?
Maybe we should just leak the “plans” (with some minor adjustments) for the F-35 to Yakolev.
That should have the entire Russian Navy screwed to a bulkhead for the next 30 years.
(Actually, I’d heard rumors when working on the B-1 that an FOIA request had turned out to be to a Red AF inquiry, but “we” had sent ‘em back plans that included odds and ends such as an anchor for a light cruiser and detailed specs for a photon torpedo. Same game a couple of years later with the Shuttle.....)
Man, do I enjoy Dirty Tricks Division duty.
Pretty much everyone but us and the French build only ski-jump carriers now. They’re cheaper and simpler as they have no catapaults and can allow heavier aircraft to launch than a catapault carrier can launch but the tradeoff is that the payloads that ski-jump aviation can carry are much lower than a catapault launched fighter or bomber can haul.
A wild guess but I guess they are referring to the Chinese and Indian carriers, both of which use those fighters and had originated in the Soviet Navy.
Their only remaining carrier. They sold one to the Chinese, who currently are working it up and building more like it. They were going to get some French amphibious assault carriers but that got blocked.
Also, the Russians provide carrier aviation and tech to the *Indians* - so there’s a lot of Russian carrier tech running around, it’s just not actually owned by the Russians.
I think that we should give them the F-35
It will reduce their capability quite a bit and cost them a fortune.
It didn’t, it was to be a Yak-41M re-engined with the propulsion units off the Tu-160 bomber.
Fun fact, Lockheed got the VTOL tech that went into the F-35 from Yakolev. That’s right, the F-35 uses purchased Russian tech to fly.
We don’t have to. They already have it. The F-35 VTOL variant flies with the tech from a Yak-48.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141#Cooperation_with_Lockheed
“and can allow heavier aircraft to launch than a catapault carrier can launch”
No. A ski jump carrier aircraft carrier cannot launch heavier planes than a catapult ship can. Not even close. A supercarrier can launch a plane at about 80,000 lbs.
A ski jump doesn’t even come close.
The only tradeoff is that the ships are cheaper and easier to build, that’s about it.
A Harrier-yak?
This is the future. Smaller carriers and vertical takeoff aircraft means you can have more vessels and probably near equivalent air capability with each vessel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.