Yakovlev Yak-38 NATO Code: Forger

[binaway]

@HeildemKrieg Hawker P.1127 first flew in 1961.Hawker Harrier AV8A entered service in 1969. Yak-36 first flew 1963. As you said Yak-38 had first flight in 1971. McDonnell Douglas/BA Harrier AV8B first flew 1978.

[VonFalconerIII]

Harrier copy.

[aspiringdrummer17]

@VonFalconerIII And a bad one at that

[VonFalconerIII]

@aspiringdrummer17 exactly.

[PhilK5100]

@aspiringdrummer17 Still did the job, more than any American/French/whatever copies did. NONE of those managed what the Harrier did. The Yanks nicked the whole idea and made them in the US, and (inevitably) took credit for them. Shorts company of Belfast also did a working VTOL too. Hard to find any info on it, though.

[Rosco6767]

I just got done reading those yaks were total pieces of shit. Like the engine had to be replaced for every 22 hours of flight time. And it could only carry 2200 pounds of weapons, while an F-15 could carry ten times that much. And 1/3 of them were destroyed.... in accidents lol.

[advari001]

The Harrier is much better, why?

Because the harrier into his way of flying the flight system by wire and yak until yak141 not incorporate the system, which made him fly monumentally frustrating and inaccurate, in addition to its maximum load is less than the Harrier, the Yak 38 to 141 was replaced by the Su-25 and Su-27 naval and soon the Su-35.

Something curious is that the engine of the F-35 is the Yak-141 the Americans could do something decent and bought from Russia

[NoBrakes23]

@advari001 Uh, the Harrier has flight cables, not FBW.

[PhilK5100]

@NoBrakes23 They have FBW now, I believe.

[NoBrakes23]

@PhilK5100 You know, I just remembered that there are significant differences between the Harriers the Brits use and the Harriers I worked on in the US Marine Corps. Different Engines, different weapons delivery systems, etc. I haven't touched a Harrier since '04, and it is possible that US Harriers have switched to FBW,, but it might also be that US AV-8Bs are Flight Cable and the Sea Harriers and Crab Harriers are FBW.

[PhilK5100]

@NoBrakes23 Much better. Americans improved a number of items on the later Harriers. But it would have happened anyways - time tends to improve all aircraft. As you know.

I'd like to have seen the Shorts VTOL continue. It wasn't selected, the Harrier was.

[PhilK5100]

@NoBrakes23 As to no American, thats true up to a point. Like everywhere, it's dependent on the basic knowledge of the person. The subject dealt with by U571 - about the enigma decoding - most Americans still believe THEY not the Royal Navy, did that due to the movie. The feller that got the enigma device lived near me. VERY modest man. On the Harrier, many Europeans have actually called the Harrier American. As they did Stephenson's Rocket......:-)

[PhilK5100]

@NoBrakes23 Your knowledge is commenable, friend.

Still, the "Flying Bedstead" which was the early Harrier, went back to the late FIFTIES and the thing flew early 60s. NO American involvement (quite the opposite - they had their own, Ryan X13 being one, sat on it's tail...ridiculous)

[PhilK5100]

@NoBrakes23 I recall seeing a show where there was some American Marine Colonel had visited the British Military and saw the Harrier, and went back BEGGING to have it but US congress weren't happy with a foreign supplier, so the UK/US deal for it to be made by McDD went through.

[PhilK5100]

@advari001 No, they just took the British idea of the Harrier, made them in America too and called it their idea

Its what they do.

[NoBrakes23]

@PhilK5100 Actually the Harrier was an Anglo-American project going all the way back to the Hawker-Siddley Kestral P1127. BAe/McDonnellDouglas developed the Harrier II jointly. The separate version are interesting, though. We didn't get radar birds in the Corps until about '98-'99, but the Brits were using radar in the Falklands on the old Harriers.

[PhilK5100]

@NoBrakes23 Bullshit.

The yanks got involved in the later Harrier. Harrier II

It was never a "Anglo American" Harrier until it WORKED.

[NoBrakes23]

@PhilK5100 American and German test pilots were involved with the P1127, and NASA also played with the Kestrel as early as '68. McDD was far more involved in the Harrier II, that is true, but Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 513 transitioned from the F-4 Phantom to the AV-8A Harrier in April 1971. I have never seen a claim that the Harrier was an American jet, and in fact always heard it referred to as "That funny little British jet that the Jarheads, (US Marines) use."

[xsf908]

What made happen if Harrier has face Yak-38 in combat back then ?

[15thsquadron01]

Its Impressive an Interceptor

[15thsquadron01]

Its Impressive an Intercepter

[Mymariodude]

russian version of the harrier. (also seen in AIX 2.0 ) (Allied Intent Xtended)

[smithraymond09029]

Cold war politics aside, a lot of very interesting hardware came out of the tension between East and West.

[aspiringdrummer17]

@HeildemKrieg Learn your facts. The Hawker Siddeley Harrier first flew in 1967

[xsf908]

Carrier is weapon of the past ? damm Soviet leaders where so stupid if Soviet Navy has build Super carries back is 60s and 70s ,Soviet has been even more powerful US navy

[TheCharlie359]

The British Harrier prototype first flew in 1960, was developed and again flew in its more recognisible form in 1964 with deliverys beginning in 1969. The Soviet version, the YAK-38 first flew in 1971 and entered Soviet naval sevice in 1976 so you do the math and tell me which flew first duhhh!

[MrFalconfly]

@HeildemKrieg

You bet.

When the Russian government didn't want to finance it Yakolev in the best of capitalist spirit searched and found another costumer (Lockheed Martin).

So in a way the Yak-141 (NATO-codename: Freestyle) still live in a newer more capable shell. The F-35 Lightning II.

[johnhors]

@MrFalconfly The UK government has dropped the F-35 VSTOL in favour of the CV version.

Only the US marines still want the VSTOL version and due to development problems it is highly likely that they won't get them !

[MrFalconfly]

@johnhors

So?

The cool variant (IMHO) is the F-35A (CTOL) since it has an internal gun and larger internal weapon-bays.

Incidentally the F-35A is also the variant being considered (or rather the considerations have been halted by some iffy politicians) by Denmark as a replacement for the F-16 (the competition included the F-35A, the Saab Gripen NG, and the F/A-18E/F).

[skatugampola]

Much smoother landing than the Harrier.

[TheCharlie359]

@skatugampola, It use's 3 engines while the Harrier uses 1.

[MiGFoxhound31]

Simply amazing film its so hard to find good video of the Yak-38 thx :D

[VohnKarWarrior]

Why was it nicknamed "forger",was it copied ?

[julioissk84life]

@VohnKarWarrior Its the Nato naming system. Forger is just a name with the F standing for figter. Like MiG-29 Fulcrum- F for fighter. Hoped i helped a bit!

[VohnKarWarrior]

@julioissk84life I see,thank you :)

[JavierCR25]

GOD I MISS THE SHOW "WINGS" ON DISCOVERY!!!

[thunderlock110]

Wow that is just about identical to the Harrier....

[thelazyreader]

The Yak-38 was described in 'The Hunt for Red October' as 'a piece of junk'. That wasn't far off the mark. It needed separate engines for VTOL which became dead weight when it was airborne, the left engines had a lifespan of only 22 hours and had to be replaced every 2 days or so, it performed poorly in warm weather, didn't have a radar(it used short-range, heat-seeking missiles), had a very limited range and payload etc. It was ultimately a disappointment.

[Vyun1969]

Why the American documentary films so stupid?

[PhilK5100]

@Vyun1969 Its BRITISH. It's done well, therefore must be British. If you think this is "stupid" maybe you should go back to watching crap like "Westlife"

[Vyun1969]

@PhilK5100

some

[grah55]

that is a sick landing around 3 and a half minutes.

[StiviGun1]

OK, so why did the Russians gave up this plane and the Kiev carriers? And why didn't they continued with the Yak-141 development? I think this was stupid on their side. They should've least continue keeping this aircraft & the Kiev carriers in service.

[tHeWasTeDYouTh]

@StiviGun1 remember after the fall of the Soviet Union Russia's economy broke down. The majority of the military was axed. All the carriers but the one they have now where sold(China and India bought most of them) most of the navy and air force was cut

the Yak-141 was a good plane but it had no fly by wire so flying it was really really hard unlike the Harrier

[StiviGun1]

@tHeWasTeDYouTh The military cuts after the fall of the USSR were because of the corruption that had installed in Russia, not because it was necessary. They could've kept the Kiev carriers & the Yak-38 in service if they really wanted to. & they also could've kept the ak-141 program open until they would've had money 2 develop the airplane. Anyway, the Kiev carriers & the Yak-141 would've significantly increased the Russian navy's today capabilities, that's for sure.

[binaway]

At the beginning of this video, in the aerial shot, the Kievs' flight deck appears to be on the starboard side and in all other shots on the port side; like all other carriers. Did someone put the film in the machine back to front?

[Slavik27]

Return to Yak - 38 - in fact they were totally useless in combat. Efficient range was ridiculous, no guided weapon and no radar. I don't want even to imagine the tomcat vs yak-38 combat)))

[29Gixxer]

What do you think about the SU35's vs the EF/F22/Rafale?

[Slavik27]

F22 has superiority for sure, SU35, EF, and Rafale are more or less equal in my opinion. May be latest version of grippen also. French air-to-air missles are very good. This month is expected 1st flight of T50 5th generation plane. It should at least be able to fight with raptor, but it takes another 5 years to prepare serial production.

[29Gixxer]

I think the problem with Russia developing the T-50 is that it won't be long before the West is using hyper sonic unmanned craft. They already have the engines.

As for the F22...

Great potential although it's been cancelled. One crashed in March 2009 killing the pilot. I think the USA will keep it back for an emergency and continue developing the scramjet.

[Slavik27]

Don't underestimate T50 program. It is one of the top program for the russian government. In case of unmanned planes - russia is far behind in this direction, this is true. But next 25-30 years conventional fighters still will be actual. You cant fly su-27 all that time)))

[29Gixxer]

I think the T50 will be great. If Russia has a weakness then it's their ability to mass produce such craft these days. This is why I think their developing downgraded versions of their jets to sell to other countries so as to make money.

Putin went on air a few days ago saying that if the west puts a missile defence shield in place capable of knocking out Russian missiles then they will develop new missiles to counter this in balance.

[29Gixxer]

As we stand i think Russi's only threat to us is their massive nuke arsenal.

[Slavik27]

In fact, this is the core of the russian strategy, to have a big enough arsenal to prevent global war (main threat is china btw, from early 80s). And the rest of army will be more regional conflicts oriented. We have a lot of troublemakers on our borders in south.

[29Gixxer]

Interesting becuase I have always wondered about how Russia views China. I personally do not trust the Chinese as they are secretive which always means they have summin to hide.

In the event of China attacking Russia I hope the west (at least Europe) would help Russia. USA is a bit different although us Europeans do not hate Russia. In fact, we want them on board and have said we would like them in the EU (and they have expressed interest in this).

[29Gixxer]

European wealth and intellect + Russian resources and ingenuity = Super power :0

[Slavik27]

))) About intellect, I work in a german concern, which produces some materials. They tried to copy some russian stuff since 70s - no success))). Soviet system of research institutes was much better, and it is impossible to create this type of research centers in market economy. So soviet system had not only disadvantages)))

[Slavik27]

Since death of Stalin relationship with China was really, really bad. And even now most of the modern weapon goes to the far east. I was born there and my father was a borderguard officer, in early 80s there was tough situation.

[Slavik27]

Modern clashes with western countries is a total joke and games of politics. For example - it is very nice for US military lobby to create a picture of the enemy and recieve more money from the public budget. Russian politics uses similar methods to recieve some benefits and so on. But military conflict is not possible. my uncle was a colonel and tested ballistic missles. they never believed in a possibility of 3rd WW.

[amet1980]

@29Gixxer of course.

russians are europeans and belong into the european federation.

the plan was all along of a united europe from lisbon to nicosia to yerevan to vladivostok.

[29Gixxer]

@amet1980

With that statement I couldn't agree more mate. My dream would be to see Russia join the EU (they have expressed an interest in this and the EU has agreed in principle...they have set some conditions like economic reform, social reform etc).

From the Russians I encounter on YT...most seem to hate us though lol

[29Gixxer]

@amet1980

Finally...someone on noob tube who is both pro EU and Russian unity/partnership.....

[KHfreak7526]

@29Gixxer i am us i dont hate russia i love russia i want to go there some day

[Ag3nt0fCha0s]

@KHfreak7526

You should.

I lived there - it's great.

[29Gixxer]

But as for the Harrier...

The original Sea Harrier is nothing like what it is today. We sold the Harrier to the USA after the Faklands and Mcdonnel Douglass along with BAE systems redesigned the airframe. The UK now liscences this frame from the USA and it's now called the GR7/GR9 (AV8 for USA).

[Slavik27]

Yes, AV8 differs seriously from original. And I like their marines ships, really nice.

[Slavik27]

USA now has a lot of problems with economy, politics etc. This for sure will influence on they strategy and military spents. B2, raptor, seawolf - they are all children of cold war. But still, military lobby has a huge influence. I really don't think that there is a risk of huge conflicts. Regional - yes, and these 4+ generation birds fit better for this purpose. It is ridiculous - to bomb taliban from B2. And they already lost one.

[29Gixxer]

Yep..USA is fucked. The stupid Zionist bankers have run that country into the ground...

[krbosak]

@29Gixxer And not below surface.

[pavel280488AA]

Certainly we considered experience of British

[29Gixxer]

Anyone who thinks the Yak 141 is better than Harrier is retarded. Just 20 Harriers onboard 2 aircraft carriers owned the entire Argie air force in 1982 hence why USA wanted to buy them from us.

Harrier has been in service for more than 45 years and is still going strong.

The Yak 141 is a joke and it's record comes nowhere near the elite Harrier.

Read and weep fools :0

[pavel280488AA]

I know that it is the British plane was the first but you know nothing about yak

which surpasses in flight characteristics harrier

[29Gixxer]

I'm not hating on Russian jets as you guys have built some first rate machines. You do allot with your budget and if you had the budget of the US then lord only knows what you'd be developing :)

I only insist that the Harrier is better based on how successful they were/still are. The truth is VTOL jets were more important to us than the USSR and so we made sure they succeeded where as you guys (as your not an Aircraft carrier based nation) spent the money in other areas. Forgive any insult.

[Slavik27]

Lol, "entire Argie" had jus five (5) Exocets and Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor went to the fish feed. Imagine, if they would have more of them. And air-to-air combat succes was due to the new sidewinder, not harrier.

But anyway, both Yak-38 and Yak-141 sucks. And "thanks" to them, SU didn't built normal air carrier.

[29Gixxer]

@Slavik27:

I don't like this argument about missiles because I know what your saying about the sidewinder (and it's largely true) but then the same can be said about modern day jets (it's even worse now). Missiles/weapon systems & pilots are the key factor and the skill has been taken out of the dogfight to a large degree now.

[29Gixxer]

I never understood Russia's ideology in not building aircraft carriers. They are what a nation can use to 'project' it's power abroad. UK would never of got those Falklands back without carriers. Even China & India are now starting to realize this and are developing new carriers.

[Slavik27]

SU ideology isn't an ideology of piracy may be?)))

The fleet were built to achive an victory at the sea. In global war. Besides strategic submarines, the main target is to protect own coast and cut communication. Russian antiship missles are still absolutely superior. No doubt, carrier seriously increase a power of fleet, but it is too costly, and vulnerable.

[29Gixxer]

I agree on the vulnerability factor. Super carriers will always be vulnerable to SSN attack. Did you know that in war games a Swedish Sub managed to get a kill on a US super carrier and destroyer before it was taken out?

[Slavik27]

Another factor - russian science were much more advanced, than brain sof our generals))). In fact 949A submarine is a tru carrier killer. And a briliant idea: underwater carrier with unmanned planes. One granit missle costs like Su-27, but in the end, even now air carrier group even with aegis doesn't have any chance against this submarine. And it costs $1B + sattelite group. But this is a weapon of cold war, totally unflexible for the modern type of conflicts.

[Slavik27]

Victory is victory, no doubt. But don't overestimate Harrier abilities, there are two key factors: shitty strategy of args and new sidewinders.

[29Gixxer]

In my opinion the Harriers airframe is nowhere near as good as the likes of the F15's/Migs etc. This cannot be denied but like I said, most comes down to missile technology these days. The Argies actually had the right tactics. They would fly in low and fast aiming to hit our ships. They struggled to lock onto the Harriers engines (Harrier was quite new at the time and their missiles were crap). The F35B will be the same mate. It will replace the harrier although won't compete against other jets

[Slavik27]

No, no, I|m not talking about antiship strikes. I don't understand why args didn't use islands as a airbase. The air-to-air combats were at the limits of tactical range of their plans. They simply doesn't have enough fuel to fight efficiently.

[29Gixxer]

I thnik they did have limited bases on the islands although I don't think they had the logistical skill to be effective.

We did have an element of luck though :)

[Slavik27]

I agree, each war heavily defined by logistic.

[binaway]

@Slavik27 They looked into this but the only concrete runway was to short and to service military attack aircraft requires huge amounts of supplied and fixed maintenance facilities. These would have taken months to build. The British only had 20 Sea Harriers. They should have armed their aircraft with air to air missiles. With 200 aircraft even if they lost aircraft at a rate of 8 to 1they would have won. The RAF Harriers not having radar could not have helped.

[29Gixxer]

Where the Argies tactics failed was in the land battles. We chose to fight at night becuase we knew their poorly trained conscripted soldiers did not know how to do this.

[29Gixxer]

Nobody can takeaway what we did in the Falklands though :)

Out numbered and having to face a dug in enemy. That was the last time the bayonet was used in mass hand to hand combat.

Even Russia, USA and NATO said we didn't stand a chance but then when we won people were saying it was due to this and that lol.

[29Gixxer]

Yak is Wak. Harrier was/is much better.

Better engine to start with - Rolls Royce :0

[pavel280488AA]

idiot Harrier suck yak 141 has several world records and usa buy Engine drawings for the f 35

---------------------------

[29Gixxer]

@ pavel280488AA :

LOL

So you think world records are important?

Harrier beats them all but more importantly...compare the Harriers kill ratio to the Yak 141...

hahahahahahahaha

No, actually USA consulted you guys but the UK played a large role in developing the F35B engine hence why they were originally going to use our RR engine although canx this due to cost.

UK is the only tier 1 partner so we have access to all technology and plan to use our RR engine in the F35 :0

[hcanuck7]

In the '80's, I was captivated by this bird !

[nawitus]

They also made Yak-141 prototype, which was supersonic. Sadly it didn't go into production. Lockheed-Martin actually funded that project.

[GLR26591]

i agree too _____russian are very inteligent

[boc234]

A very bad airplane, a failure. Here are some selected quotes from a web page about the yak-38:

"Its operational radius was only about 100 kilometers (62 miles), in large part due to the excessive fuel consumption in vertical flight. . .Reliability was very poor. . .the Yak-38 was basically an operational demonstrator machine that had been hastily pressed into service for political reasons. . .Pilots despised the Yak-38. . .[some sent] a letter of complaint to the Soviet Central Committee. "

[barry9003]

So's your mom

[tracksgarcia]

i agree... russians are very inteligent people

[CaptainCool07]

cool looking plane

[jxvwp]

I think it looks kind of awkward with that long fuselage and those small wings. But if you think the F-104 Starfighter looks cool the this does too.

[ukrainesuperpower87]

ugly not succesfull plane

[darkalligator]

an awesome machine. The soviet harrier.

When you love flying machines you are able to separate politics and see the wonderful of the human mind.

[123456789mischief]

@darkalligator good comment that has no place on you tube where we are here to bicker to the point of stupidity.

I found the carrier quite intresting, the heavy armor was a good idea.

[MaDarko239]

@darkalligator You mean harrier is british Yak-38 because Yak-38 was before harrier.

[EntropicMisanthropic]

@darkalligator Calling it "the Soviet Harrier' is an insult to the Harrier, which although sharing a VTOL capability, is a much better airplane.

The Yak-38 had small dedicated engines just for liftoff, but they were so weak the payload was only 1,500 lbs on a cool day. In hot climates (like Afghanistan) they were useless during the heat of the day and could not get enough lift to take off, so they had to send them back to Russia. lol

[thegarlands04]

@darkalligator yes. both the f-22 and the su-37 in my opinion are beutiful aircraft and i get pissed off hen all these "fanboys" who barely know what an airplane is start arguing about whitch one is better

[corporacionmonstruo]

@thegarlands04 which one is better?