Yak-38 was also known as "Match", "Grill", "Blowtorch" e.t.c. in USSR AF for it's ability to fall flat onto aircraft carriers deck, setting it self, it's pilot and surroundings on fire.

@ericvantassell6809

2 жыл бұрын

well labeled but the best soviet nickname was the one that got translated as "booze cruiser" in english (Tu-22)

@einundsiebenziger5488

10 ай бұрын

... its* ability, its* pilot (it's = it is)

@championknife

2 ай бұрын

There were advanced rescue seats on Soviet aircraft. All the pilots of the planes that crashed at the time of takeoff and landing survived. If an accident occurred during takeoff or landing of a harrier aircraft, the pilots died.

@sergeykoshelev4566

2 ай бұрын

@@championknife At least 11 crashes with casualties. At least one known event if death due to ejection seat malfunction. Overall around 50 incidents.

Yak41 is a work of art.

Pretty damn good video, Ed. The Yak-41 was an amazing story for It’s time. I wasn’t surprised at all when I heard about the purchase Lockheed made for the technical and testing data. If I recall correctly, they were very interested in the technology surrounding the engine, for good reason.

@emjackson2289

2 жыл бұрын

For the same reason I cant understand why Elon Musk et. al. didn't buy the plans for Buran.

@mikemontgomery2654

2 жыл бұрын

@@emjackson2289 that’s actually a very simple reason: normal rockets are actually much more efficient and safer than shuttles.

@SussyImposter9856

Жыл бұрын

it was actually just flight data that was shared, Lockheed had already designed the engine before they ever entered into any co-op with YAK

Awww, it looks like a baby Mig-25+F-35 hybrid

@mohdafiq8149

3 жыл бұрын

baby? mig-25 + yak 41 have baby name f-35

@invertedv12powerhouse77

3 жыл бұрын

@@mohdafiq8149 man, the f35 has hardly anything to do with this plane. Lockheed bought data for it. Probably just to decide what VTOL method they'd chose

@danieladmassu941

2 жыл бұрын

@@invertedv12powerhouse77 Give it up. It is a damn straight rip-off of the Yak-41. The only improvement they made, and I think it is significant, is the use of a single engine for the front fan as well.

@invertedv12powerhouse77

2 жыл бұрын

@@danieladmassu941 it's not lmao. This VTOL/STOL variation already existed. The planes don't look anything the same nor function anything the same, nor even have the same role.

@kerbrainbrain9174

Ай бұрын

​@@invertedv12powerhouse77 😅😅😅😅 you give it up already? It's been like over two years now.

Excellent Episode as Always …. USMC Harriers Jumped our Carrier during Exercises one Lovely Mediterranean Morning … We were running without Radar and they got to us first … they came screaming in .. on the deck out of the rising sun … made the simulated kill and then showed off with a nice break to port so we could read their markings … I’m glad it wasn’t for real … cause they had us ….it was a case of an amphibious assault ship beating a super carrier… which in 1981 … as the author points out was the very scenario Russia was considering ..and Britain… after all the Harrier was a Brit

@einundsiebenziger5488

10 ай бұрын

What is it with the silly multiple fullstops?! Makes your otherwise interesting story a nuisance to read.* Just separate sentences with a single fullstops,* as it is the rule for all languages using the latin alphabet! If a sentence has several parts,* you separate them with single commas.* Again, other than that, you told a truly interesting story.

Never heard of the Yak-41. Very interesting.

@leefithian3704

3 жыл бұрын

It is the early evolution of the F35 , a great idea at time , but the technology has not caught up till now , with of course , many new , and important innovations , but the credit of this configuration must also be given to soviets , but few are respectful as victors in time traditionally are , but history buffs love this shit

@nupagadii5834

3 жыл бұрын

@@leefithian3704 Even today there R Russian engineers working on the floor of F-35 and those Russian engineers doesn't have a positive opinion between each other about F-35......

@kevinwiltshire2217

3 жыл бұрын

They sold 2 non running prototypes to the US and there you go the f35

@umute1653

3 жыл бұрын

Btw its the 141 not 41

@georgebarnes8163

2 жыл бұрын

Not forgetting the Yak -38, now where have you seen those aircraft before?

I remember seeing this at Farnborough such a shame it never went into production but like you said it was bad timing with the end of the Cold War. I only found this channel a few days ago and thank you for what you are doing.

@backyardaviator2920

3 жыл бұрын

It did went into production tho,we call it now the F-35 lmao

@trollson66

2 жыл бұрын

As i recall the Yak melted the runway when it did a vtol while at Farnborough, during practice week. I was working at the RAE at the time. V interesting getting those USSR aircraft over - which where almost mythical only a couple of years earlier.

@randomperson9298

2 жыл бұрын

@@backyardaviator2920 lmao ;-;

The front section (nose, cockpit and air intakes) always reminds me of Panavia tornado's...

Another good, solid video about a little-known aircraft!

You’re like a parallel Drachinfel for aircraft and that’s all I want in a KZread channel. Fantastic content, hope you manage to monetize eventually.

@EdNashsMilitaryMatters

3 жыл бұрын

Wow! High praise indeed. I dont pretend to be an aviation historian, just someone with an interest.

@captainseyepatch3879

3 жыл бұрын

Not really. Drach is much more accurate. I like Ed but his stuff can be a bit.. umm dramatic? The Yak-41 shows pretty "Meh" Performance, so not really a "Super Harrier"

@johnladuke6475

3 жыл бұрын

I won't name any names but there are a few other channels that do the same cool aviation content with a more... polished presentation, is a fair way to say it. But... they have accents like a mouth full of marbles. Can't understand half of what they say. Ed may not have perfect diction but he could say enunciate and I wouldn't think he said incoherent.

@jaws666

7 ай бұрын

​@@EdNashsMilitaryMatterscant wait to see how big the NEW U.S.S. Entrprise (CVN-80) will be when she enters service

I really like this channel. I never heard of this plane before. you got a new subscriber here.

@akbarkhan-nq3xl

3 жыл бұрын

What?.... It was one of the first vertical take off plane.

I'm really enjoying the channel. Thanks for the great work.

Another great video. Thanks Ed Nash

Recently cam across your channel, love it mate ♥️ Keep up the good work Ed 🙏

Looks like a mishmash of different planes from different angles. Good vid again. Thanks for posting.

Just another newbie enjoying your videos a lot thanks for the effort you put in.

Thanks for posting this. I bought your book & look forward to reading it.

@EdNashsMilitaryMatters

2 жыл бұрын

Hope you enjoy it :)

I just recently came across your channel. I enjoy your videos. Good job.

Hawker Siddley at Kingston had a very active design department which came up with a series of designs (following the P1154 debacle - thanks, gov.yUK) which had *very* similar airframe concepts to the YAK-41, a long time before. Worth a similar video about the UK's Harrier follow-up designs that never were? Excellent book, BTW.

@rodjarrow6575

8 ай бұрын

How do you know thatHawker Siddley at Kingston had a very active design department which came up with a series of designs which had very similar airframe concepts to the YAK-41, a long time before? Were you a member of this design department? Or are you just a babbler who has no idea what this video is about?

@RobSchofield

8 ай бұрын

@@rodjarrow6575 Hi there, Rod me old mate. You are a troll. There's a high probability you live in a Moscow suburb and commute to your job in the Russian Ministry of Annoying Twats. If you had taken the trouble to check your facts you might have discovered them for yourself. But since you didn't bother, and you have chosen the immediate provocation route, know nothing about my professional background and have no objectivity, the route I've chosen is to tell you to "F*** R**** O**".

Very interesting. Thank you

I've seen quite a few of your videos over the last few weeks and am now happily subscribed. One thing I've always registered unconsciously, but only realised now, is how much your voiceovers remind me of old newsreels from the UK. That's why you felt so familiar to me!

Very interesting. Thank you.

I love your balance on the whole F-35 thing. So easy to just say that there was nothing or that it is a full on copy. Good to give respect to all engineers involved.

Great video! Thanks!

Amazing info brilliant research into the swivel jet nozzle

stay on it! love the channel.. maybe even have a guest or two on sometime!

I love your channel!!!! Great information!!!

When the LockMart F-35 proto came out, my gut reaction was, OMG, it's a Yak!

@zeitgeistx5239

3 жыл бұрын

They literally paid for some research data on the Yak. McDonald Douglas also paid for the shell of one of their Anti ship missile without the guidance system in order to make a missile decoy for testing for the USN.

@smellysam

3 жыл бұрын

Same here.

@AndrewLale

3 жыл бұрын

Utter horseshit

Really excellent and interesting. I have just developed an interest in modelling Soviet aircraft so very relevant to me. Thank you and take care. Rob .

great work thanks

Good job, mate! I'm headed for Patreon.

Your channel is awesome !!!

Excellent stuff

Great channel!

Perfect aircraft to do a quick run to the supermarket and back. All jokes aside, top notch vid. Thanks

Very cool link to the F35!

Great video again. It's worth noting the substantial involvement of BAE in the consortium for the JSF/F35. It is not simply an American design as many people think. I do like your channel.

@jwenting

3 жыл бұрын

Many companies across the world produce parts and did some detail development work, but the core is American with a good chunk of Soviet engineering in the flight control and engine departments.

@smarte.r.1450

3 жыл бұрын

@Arthur Humphreys to tell Rolls Royce that

@alexsvilla7962

Жыл бұрын

the f22 and f35 are not american technology but technology from a corporation that makes fighter jets.

I guess it comes down to whether you want to have smaller, cheaper carriers or more capable aircraft. The Tomcat was formidable but so were the resources (big carriers) necessary to utilize it. I think as drones and antiship missiles become more capable, big carriers will go away- too many eggs in one basket.

@jamesrowlands8971

Жыл бұрын

DF-21 go brrr.

@Poctyk

Жыл бұрын

Harpoon launched from ship - 300km. Difficult to find target, because horizon Harpoon launched from plane/drone 900km plane range + 300 km missile range = 1200km. Targeting acquired by either AWACS or fighter itself. You can see the problem.

Thanks, the minute I saw the Yak-41 photo, I immediately thought, easy to make a "Blue Peter" cardboard plane made from a Cereal Box any child would love to make. Add a kitchen roll tube, complete job.......

Thank you very cool to know

Russian mercenaries storm the F-35 unveiling, taking the Marine Corps comnandant hostage. Commandant: "What are you planning to do? Steal this thing?" Revolver Ocelot: "Steal? I'm taking it back!"

@Ninerforlife1979

3 жыл бұрын

Exactly my first thought!

@Thetequilashooter1

3 жыл бұрын

You’ve been subjected to too much Russian propaganda. Lockheed Martin had the 3-bearing swivel design twenty years earlier than the Yak in the Convair engine. If any nation has a history of copying from the West it’s Russia. From the Rolls Royce jet engine from the UK, to the a-bomb, proximity fuse, Sidewinder missile, the B-29 bolt for bolt to make the T-4 bomber, guidance systems, tractor plants, and even ball bearings, Russia has stolen it. Nowadays Russia can’t copy as easily as it doesn’t have the manufacturing capabilities to build high tech equipment on mass scale efficiently.

@Thetequilashooter1

3 жыл бұрын

@study & observation The USA didn’t copy the Mir. That’s ridiculous and there’s no proof to back it up. With your line of reasoning that means Russia copied GPS. Both the USA and Russia benefited from German technology, but before spouting off bullshit about the USA copying go read about Dr. Goddard. He was a leading rocket scientist in the world. And where did Russia go from putting the first satellite into space get them? The first communication satellite was from the USA. The first man in the moon was the USA. The USA has put multiple rovers on Mars exploring its terrain. Russia nothing! Stop the BS.

@Thetequilashooter1

3 жыл бұрын

@study & observation Here’s a good place to start: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/history/dr_goddard.html

@papalegba6759

3 жыл бұрын

@@Thetequilashooter1 goddard was never a leading rocket scientist. he was a crank tbh.

New subscriber here. Love the content

very interesting video... thanks from Ulaanbaatar.

Great to see the yak-41 feature in wargame: red dragon

@ThroneOfBhaal

2 жыл бұрын

An excellent game too! :D

Just got your book on audible

I saw your video in my feed. I clicked on it,and said. "if he is british, or australian, I'm subscribing"

@EdNashsMilitaryMatters

3 жыл бұрын

Brit ;)

@noobf8783

3 жыл бұрын

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters do you use imperial or metric units?

Very nice

Cool video . Its a shame that the yak 41 and the British p1154 projects where never realised. Truly a great aircraft

good stuff

Thanks Ed. I was aware of most of this but it was still very interesting . Are you sure that pilot escaped ? It looked a pretty fierce fire to me.

@EdNashsMilitaryMatters

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, it certainly went up! From what I've read he rejected after 30 seconds and they even managed to repair the plane!

There was a plan to tow the carrier Bullwork , which had been decommissioned at Portsmouth, to the Falklands as it had a conventional flight deck.

knowledge is bankable

"...blob of Soviet Yak-41 DNA in it's make-up..." That's just gross. How about we promote safe aerodynamic collaboration?

@DevLSpark

3 жыл бұрын

Yep that was pretty graphic. "Oh shit you're gonna make me VTOL"

@fredweller1086

3 жыл бұрын

@@DevLSpark You know it's good when your partner goes straight up

Good Video . Greetings from Berlin.

other vtol planes of dsays gone by to note are the , Yak-43 and the Hawker Siddeley P.1154 & Biritish Aerospace P125

Fascinating

Well I guess there's a lot of people out there who enjoy your content just like me. Great. Thanks. I don't feel so special anymore.

@EdNashsMilitaryMatters

3 жыл бұрын

Special enough 😉

Hey mate. I hope you do monetise your channel if you haven’t already. Your content is second to none in this niche and I have really enjoyed all of it. Thanks heaps for maintaining such an excellent standard, I wish you all the best.

Yak was ahead of its time.

Basically the same configuration as the F-35B, but with separate lift engines instead of the complicated coupled lift fan, as you concluded at the end of your video - which I still had to see when I started to write this reaction. Fair appraisal.

@sotabaka

3 жыл бұрын

what puts the F-35 miles apart from all other competidors is the LIFT FAN 🤔 as it is a cool air system it avoids the usual hot air blast that turns all other VTOL planes so difficult to manouver!

@Getoffmycloud53

3 жыл бұрын

@@sotabaka that’s beside the point - it is still a complicated coupled design.

@sotabaka

3 жыл бұрын

@@Getoffmycloud53 of course ... but its a no-pain-no-gain design in fact I STILL INSIST that they could pull the miracle bunny out of the hat ... add a top-up additional fuel tank INSIDE the liftfan compartment

The wings look tiny, but it's still a nice looking aircraft

I remember the Yak 38 but wasn’t aware of the Yak 41. The size comparison between the Nimitz class and Invincible class carriers is a little misleading. It’s not just the VTOL operation that saves space. The Invincible class was designed to take only a dozen or so aircraft (though a few more could and were piled on in war time). The Nimitz class were designed for 50+ conventional aircraft.

In the 1960s Britain had a very advanced super Harrier project which was being developed for the Royal Navy, It was going to be supersonic and have a much more advanced radar system And a longer range, it was the logical step forward for the next generation of Harrier But unfortunately the project was cancelled when the Proto type was 80% finished, In late 1970s/1980s McDonnell Douglas and British aerospace did have a joint project to develop the Harrier into the a V8B for the Americans and the Royal Air Force, one of the reasons why McDonnell Douglas was so keen on a joint project was it wanted to know how to build jump jets and how to use vectored jet technology, the project never really went anywhere, From what I can understand one of the problems that the Russians had with the yak was they just didn’t have the little black boxes technology to control it very effectively but I’m sure if they had stuck with it they would have solve the problems, it’s an intriguing to think a what if, what if in the 1990s If Britain could have gone to the Russians and said we will buy the airframes off you and modified am but we’ll put our own Engines and radars and all the other electronics in them or build the airframes Under license it’s an interesting what if.

@grahambuckerfield4640

3 жыл бұрын

You are referring to the P.1154 in the 1960's? Problems with it included the RN did not want it, meaning the RAF would have to pay for it's development of their (different, ground attack) version. The huge BS.100 engine for this aircraft WAS impressive, however the question of hot gas re-ingestion from such a powerful engine was never addressed. Some even thought that the P.1154 would need special surfaces for runways, which is rather getting away from the point of VSTOL surely? There were also serious concerns about heat and vibration from the rear nozzles, when using PCB for supersonic flight. Given that the 60's vintage avionics would be housed in the rear fuselage, aside from the issues of structure these would be problems. Deep down the RAF, like the RN, really wanted F-4's. They were glad to see the back of the P.1154, they did not want a service version of the original P.1127 Kestrel, an experimental aircraft for VSTOL. However the defence secretary who had axed P.1154, still thought there was something in the concept of VSTOL and did not want to see the UK lose out on it. The RAF, still wedded to 'East Of Suez' saw little utility in an operational version of the little P.1127, but East Of Suez was going, the RAF would have to put more emphasis into the defence of NATO, where in RAF Germany a service P.1127 could be of use, it also employed some avionics from the cancelled TSR.2 and P.1154. That aircraft was under pressure from the MoD, adopted by the RAF, they called it the Harrier. From that we got the Sea Harrier, the rest is history. You are right about the initial plan for a joint UK/US 2nd generation, though still subsonic aircraft, the AV-16. The UK pulled out in 1974, effectively rejoining a few years later what was now the AV-8B, essentially the same as the AV-16. So the second generation Harriers for the RAF were British built versions of an American version of a British aircraft! In summary, supersonic VSTOL, in particular when using the four nozzle config, was not viable in the 1960's, note neither the YAK-141 nor the F-35B uses it. But that long saga with VSTOL has given the UK a significant 'in' with the F-35B, not just in terms of the lift fan system either, (google BAe 'Replica'). Interesting though probably politically impossible idea to westernise the YAK-141, I have long felt the ESA should have kept Russia's Energia heavy launch vehicle and Buran Shuttle going with technical help and money around the same time as it, like the Yak-141 was on it's uppers. I did see the YAK at the airshow mentioned, it did look impressive, did seem to steal a march on Western VSTOL, though we knew the Cold War was over and they had no money for this sort of thing now.

@williamchick6649

3 жыл бұрын

@@grahambuckerfield4640 thank you for your reply it was very interesting gave me a lot of information I didn’t know about, I did not know about the AV16 Project, but you learn something new every day when you are interested in aircraft, From my understanding One of the reasons why the Royal Navy didn’t want the supersonic Harrier Was that they were still looking at having two new aircraft carriers for the Navy, about the same size as the present aircraft carriers and wanted an up dated Version of the phantom to operate off of them, But the Royal Navy didn’t get them for all sorts of reasons.

@grahambuckerfield4640

3 жыл бұрын

@@williamchick6649 This is true, the RN were looking at the F-4 years before any order. The P.1154 being single engined met with objections from them, so Hawker even designed a P.1154 with two VSTOL version RR Speys, though the plumbing single engine operation if one went out was bizarre and would not even work. It was another excuse against the P.1154 which had been sold as a joint service aircraft. Ending 'East Of Suez' killed the RN's big carriers, in the mid 60's the UK was spending twice the Cold War NATO average on defence, the navy were already getting the deterrent with Polaris, the nuclear attack subs too, the latter being seen as being more useful in the RN's now main role, ASW in the North Atlantic. Now they want another class of capital ships with these carriers? However these CVA-01 designs were troubled, doubts about the propulsion, wind over deck, the RN admitted they would struggle to crew them, doubts about shipyards, docks and a max displacement which to meet all armour had to be removed along with other serious compromises. The Chief Designer called the cancellation 'the happiest day of my life'. In the end they got more nuclear subs, more advanced escorts and for ASW helicopters, the Invincible Class carriers. The Sea Harrier was built to ward off large Soviet bombers in the Atlantic, which could launch their own, or guide over the horizon, large anti ship missiles from ships and subs. Not to fight a war with a large land based air force 300 miles away, still they did the job in 1982. The 1998 defence review finally plotted a post Cold War course, instead of the salami slicing before, in the sense that out of it, came the CVF carriers and the UK entering the F-35 program. But the RN gave them the same names as the CVA's of the 60's/70's would have been!

To be honest I was hoping for more in-depth review of the 41 I haven't seen anything on that on any channel

@rodjarrow6575

8 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/Zoh9xNetirGaj5s.html

#800 - Thanks!

The soviet (and British) concept does cover the US Marine F-35B. Smaller carriers, with 6 or so F-35Bs are all you need for most small conflict/police actions (or fringe sea control). You can argue the cost savings of the F-35B is within the deployment of a MEU on LHA/LHD (ESG) vs the mass of a giant carrier strike group (CSG). Whole lot of capability in a small, inexpensive package.

I subscribed bruh

My only question is how big a heat signal do the Nozzles on the F35 present and for how long after a vertical take off ?

@mombaassa

3 жыл бұрын

I can't answer your question but I am aware of a related phenomena, that might interest you. Here, in Australia, we have a new carrier. It's mainly for carrying helicopters. Our F-35's will not be able to land or takeoff from it, vertically. Apparently, the deck does not have the speacilly treated surface, necessary to cope with the heat.

@timgosling6189

3 жыл бұрын

The exhaust nozzle will get hot but once in normal flight the airflow around it is managed both to cool it and to mix the efflux with the surrounding airflow to reduce its IR signature. The exhaust nozzle is also embedded in amongst the tail planes and rear fuselage structure to hide it from most aspects. I'd say it likely has pretty good performance against current IR threats.

@timgosling6189

3 жыл бұрын

@@mombaassa the UK also had to change the deck treatment on QE and PoW for the same reason.

@mombaassa

3 жыл бұрын

@@timgosling6189 We still haven't changed ours and I don't know of any plans to do so. I suppose the only, fixed wing aircraft to use, will have to land and takeoff, conventionally.

5:24 "And one prototype was damaged in an accident. . ." as the video shows a plane crashing and exploding in flames while attempting a vertical landing on a carrier deck. Yep, I'd say that one suffered some minor damage. Which illustrates a big problem with VTOL aircraft- they're accident prone. The Harrier had a horrendous accident rate while in service with the USMC, although I don't know if that problem has been solved or not with the V/STOL version of the F-35.

@timgosling6189

3 жыл бұрын

I haven't done the statistics but anecdotally the USMC did suffer a higher than expected accident rate when the AV-8A was introduced, but this was largely due to pilot selection and training issues. It was/is not an easy aircraft to fly and RAF pilots, for instance, were the absolute pick of the crop. After that, there are not that many accidents where VTOL ops were the primary cause. CFIT, disorentation, maintenance and losses to enemy action were at levels on a par with other single-seat fast jets. However, the JSF has a completely different control ethos and I'm told by pilots is actually a cinch in comparison. Our chief Service test pilot described how his ski-jump take-offs improved significantly when he stopped touching the controls!

It’s great that moored in port takeoff lol , talk about quick response!

will you do a video on the YF-12A and XF-108 Rapier?

@EdNashsMilitaryMatters

3 жыл бұрын

Possibly, but I think dark docs covered those already? But I do want to do a whole range of stuff 😁

"Three-bearing swivel nozzle designs were studied by virtually all of the engine companies in the mid 1960s. The US Patent Office received applications for many variations of the 3BSD from Pratt & Whitney, General Electric, and even from Boeing Military Aircraft of Wichita, Kansas." CodeOne

@JA-pn4ji

3 жыл бұрын

THE earliest US patent for 3BSD was filed in 1991.

@ElsinoreRacer

3 жыл бұрын

@@JA-pn4ji "By the late 1960s, Pratt & Whitney was designing and testing a three-bearing swivel nozzle for use on the Convair Model 200 Sea Control fighter. Design drawings dated 1967 show detail design layouts. The first nozzle was built and tested on a Pratt & Whitney JT8D in the mid 1960s. The tests included operating the nozzle in full afterburner with the nozzle deflected ninety degrees. The test rig was positioned to exhaust upward to avoid heating the ground under the test stand, though subsequent tests positioned the nozzle downward at the ground to assess the effects of ground proximity back pressure on nozzle performance."

@ElsinoreRacer

3 жыл бұрын

@@JA-pn4ji www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_article.html?item_id=137 If you want to see the drawings.

@JA-pn4ji

3 жыл бұрын

@@ElsinoreRacer Convair stopped aircraft development and production in 1964, how then do you explain a 1972 design for a 3BSD airplane? I explain it by calling it a modern fabrication to cover-up an act of plagiarism.

@ElsinoreRacer

3 жыл бұрын

@@JA-pn4ji Yes part of GD by then Just Google Convair Model 200. Jesus, dude. Facts matter. Getting a little "fake moon landings" here.

Looks a bit like a MIG 25/31. It’s very big for a carrier based aircraft.

YAK 38! YAK 41! YAK 141!

Ed, without any details, why doesn't Google allow you to push this channel forward, all sorts of other chaps have multiple channels. Not fair if you ask me. Great video by the way.

@EdNashsMilitaryMatters

Жыл бұрын

Thanks man. Honestly, if someone can figure the arcane and unholy ways google works, they can become rich beyond their wildest dreams. Me, I just knock out videos :)

Hi Ed. I like your style. Understated, and - I'm not sure how I should put this - with an accent which isn't 'posh', if you know what I mean... I thought - 'a youtuber with an accent like mine!'. But who is clearly articulate, and has done his research. Not a blip on that front. I imagine you are reading from a script of sorts, and that does occasionally come through, but you delivery is none the worse for it. I also imagine that you will get a little slicker in time. Just don't lose the 'real person' with it! Having said that, I like the content, and also like that it isn't all about the same kind of hardware. I love aeroplanes, but everything in the sphere of 'hard physical metalwork' does it for me - an engineer at heart. So details that appeal to me are all the usual suspects, and you do that, without droning on for half an hour with filler/waffle. Around 10 minutes is spot on, though the occasional longer one, where content allows, would be fine by me. Just don't go too short, or I find I am just settling in when it's all over. There, that's my two penn'orth for what it's worth (for those who remember 12 pence in a shilling, 20 of those in a pound!). Cheers bro

@EdNashsMilitaryMatters

3 жыл бұрын

Cheers man, appreciate the feedback

Amazing what the Soviets managed to do with a fraction of the resources of the West. To this day Russia, with the approximate GDP of Italy or South Korea is considered an "existential" threat to the US establishment.

@FallenPhoenix86

3 жыл бұрын

Spending proportionally far more of the resources available on defence makes up the shortfall quite easily... it also bankrupts the state quite easily.

@mopar_dude9227

3 жыл бұрын

Except most of their shit doesn’t work. Russia is known for claiming their weapons can do this or that, but they can never deliver on those claims.

@yzdatabase4175

2 жыл бұрын

@@mopar_dude9227 like their ancient relics shooting down stealth bombers? cheap iranian derivatives shooting down state of the art drones?

I wondered why the thrust vectoring nozzle was so similar to the f35

VTOL - another great British invention.

@Justanotherconsumer

2 жыл бұрын

It’s not really that they invented it, but they did produce one of the only viable VTOL designs of the Cold War.

Would I be right in saying that that aircraft at the beginning of the video, that looked like a copy of the harrier, was the German prototype that didn’t get past the prototype stage? I have a vague memory of there being one… but my memory could be playing tricks on me.

@smparreira

Жыл бұрын

the harrier program was originally a multinational organization ... it actually got the final look from that german prototipe

what is the purpose of the bit that sticks up behind the cockpit?

@smparreira

Жыл бұрын

its the lid or the 2 forward vertical lift jets

I wonder how long till this plane appears in "War Thunder" PC game

@DevilDolphin734

2 жыл бұрын

I was thinking the same thing...

Been with ya since the very beginning, take my money and keep making videos lol

Mini version of the MIG-25?

2:24 'sails'.

Anyway, subbed

Book bought. Can I ask why KZread won't monetise it?

@EdNashsMilitaryMatters

3 жыл бұрын

Brilliant, thank you for buying! Hope you enjoy it 😁. As for YT/Google they say I have an ad sense account. Problem is i dont, and never have done. And Google doesnt appear to have any humans in the loop to remedy it. Trying various things to sort it, but it's a brick wall so far 🤷‍♂️

@roboaten6931

3 жыл бұрын

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters I hope 'computer says yes' happens soon!

Since we know that the Harrier was not at all useless, how do the listed limitations of the Yak 38, all shared by the Harrier, make it useless?

As well as being a clever design, the "three bearing swivel nozzle" also has the advantage of being fun to say.

During the Falklands war the war winning weapon was the sidewinder.

Why not use SU 57 with foreplane on front side for aircraft carrier

The F-35 takes a lot of its design cues from the British 1970's design for a supersonic 'harrier'.

@darrenbrashaw8409

3 жыл бұрын

The Hawker Siddley P.1154 was a 60s design, cancled in 1965. Another of the what ifs.

@binaway

3 жыл бұрын

@@darrenbrashaw8409 The main problem was the P.1154 being totally dependent on the Bristol Siddeley BS.100 engine. Bristol was having trouble in making it work with evidence mounting that it never would.

@Then.72

3 жыл бұрын

The P.1154 prototypes did have problems with landings because of the heat they emitted but the aircraft were designed and built in the 60’s and would have been fixed but the government and. NATO wouldn't fund them and chose the Harrier instead

@binaway

3 жыл бұрын

@@Then.72 The P-1154 never flew making a landing impossible. The only proposed engine, BS.100 engine, never worked.

@Then.72

3 жыл бұрын

@@binaway and who are you?

whats all the popping on sound track

I noticed something about the Yak42. It has a VERY similar jet exhaust nozzle to the Lockheed Martin F-35B VTOL version. Did Lockheed steal the design from the Russian's? Just wondering.

@rayjames6096

2 жыл бұрын

The US bought the technical data on the Yak-41 from the Russians.

@Poctyk

Жыл бұрын

Or maybe it's based on Convair model 200 nozzle that LM got during merger. Who knows

That was an interesting footnote. I never knew that designs from the Yak-41 were used in the design of the F-35B

@KB4QAA

3 жыл бұрын

PCS: Actually, Lockheeds' F-35B design is based on one prior circa 1970. The nozzle was patented around the same time by another company. Lockheed was most interested in the windtunnel/aerodynamic data the Russians had.

@terranempire2

3 жыл бұрын

In a way it could be argued that the Yak41 lift system was a copy. The Convair corporation model 200 had it been built would have used the same 2 lift jets with 3bsm configuration. But as stated was never built. In the 1990s Lockheed Martin wanted to know if the system they envisioned for F35 would work so what they bought from the Russians was the test data from the Yak 41. Not the design. The raw data.

The AV-8b made the Forger look even sadder, more weapons, better radar, better range, more speed, even a better ejection seat (something Harrier pilots got to use WAAAAY too much), and a more fuel efficient engine. As for carrier fighters; nearly ANY front-line USN fighter from the 60's onwards, would have been more than a match for the flogger. F-8 Crusader, F-4 Phantom, F-14 (any model), F/A-18 A/B, F/A-18 D,E super hornet all could have dealt with EITHER of the Soviet VSTOL fighters without much trouble!

It looks like we may be having a conflict with China in the future we as in the United States and NATO can you break down the armed forces between these two combatants show who has an edge numbers and technology this would be very much appreciated who knows even someone in the military may want to look at it

Nice summary! Of course Soviet naval air power projection wasn't helped by the carriers having even more problems than the poor old Forger!

You do well for a hobby.

Did the MA-31 become Taiwan's HF3, the western world's first supersonic antiship missile?