The US Stole Russia's Classified Vertical Takeoff Fighter - Yak-141 

Military contracting in a nutshell. They'll make impossible requests like "let's incorporate foreign designs and work with foreign companies but we cant share any information or give any foreigners access to anything and for political and economic reasons we need to keep all the production domestic".

So you could buy the whole aircraft, but you were not allowed to know what they used to call it? But the name was supper similiar to what they used to call it? Have I got this right?

@@Shakespeare1612 Didn't you listen? It was sold to Lockead as they were working on the F-35 lightning 2 at the time, so it literally was incorporated into the the US miltary.

@@JohnGone-wl8uo The VTOL segment was developed by lockheed in collaboration with Russian firms. This is a well known fact. Similarly Russians also collaborated with Chinese. All the current gen of Chinese aircraft are basically developed by Russian firms. Cash is king. The only thing the channel is guilty of is sensationalizing an already well known item.

@@JohnGone-wl8uo Believe whatever you like while ignoring the question, why did they buy the company? For shits and giggles? No. Also I saw you instantly liked your own post, pretty lame man, pretty lame. The augumented helmets have been used for a lot longer than you think as well, but a ra ra American is as educated as a cow turd, so it is hard to hold it against you.

Hang on a minute, why no mention of the British Harrier jump-jet? Not only was it put into production, it distinguished itself in the Falkland war and after the US bought some they later produced an updated version. manufactured their own version based on the

You don’t need vertical take off if your plane can take off from normal roads though

@@thekraken1173 Still, Saab had a bunch of VTOL projects. 1500-01 was like the Harrier. 1418 like a B-58 with the engines really far forward. But my favorite is the project 1410 with afterburners in the wing flaps.

We see the USA still unable to produce and build a VTOL capable fighter aircraft. The F-35B was claimed by the USA, to be able to do what the Harrier could do, while also being supersonic, stealthy, with modern avionics systems, etc etc, this is what we were told. Only one of the biggest technical headaches the British always had to build the Harrier, was the VTOL - transferring from ''lift'' (downward nozzles) to forward flight (rear-facing nozzles) and flying away. Apparently to achieve it took the British a hell of a lot of technical work, three - four months at a time over 3 years. (Look up all the variants they made) but they never gave up, and they finally figured it out. I said long before we ever saw the F-35B, it wouldn't be VTOL capable, even with the Rolls-Royce lift engines, because the USA has tried many times before, and failed, only managing to produce the British Harrier able to do so. Every US airframe (and there have been many), have all failed. At 7 mins 50 seconds, you'll watch a Harrier perform a proper VTOL. Copy and paste “2013 MCAS Yuma Air Show - AV8B Harrier Demo” into RU-vid search. Watch it from lift off, (to more importantly), flying away from the lift-off, and you'll see the transfer of nozzles take place. You'll not find a single piece of footage of the F-35B doing this. I've had (Americans) tell me all sorts, like it is VTOL and can do it, even saying they've seen it? LOL, only when they can't show it? They quickly change, and instead we'll read them claim it was never intended to be VTOL capable? LOL. Sure, when Lockheed Martin's very own page on RU-vid clearly shows them trying to suggest it is VTOL capable, when it so clearly is not? Copy and Paste “First F-35B Vertical Takeoff Test” into RU-vid search. Watch it, you'll see it lift off, only you'll see it take off go straight up & hover then return straight back down? You'll never see it fly away from the lift-off? Believe me, if it could, we'd see it doing so in every piece of footage we have on the F-35B - like we still see on all the footage of the Harrier doing so. But you'll never find any footage anywhere of the F-35B doing that. Now for the less educated among you, that will try to show me the F-35 fly into a hover, and fly away from that hover? Only that has nothing at all to do with a VTOL? To hover, we use forward flight (rear facing nozzles) with pitch and yaw, to find our centre of gravity to control the hover (would be CPU controlled today), so you don't need to transfer the nozzles from lift (downward facing nozzles), to forward flight (rear facing nozzles) to hover. So, they'll then go on to say it's not necessary? LOL, while forgetting, they're to be carrier-based aircraft?, meaning even just slight damage to the deck or ramp, they can't get any jets airborne? Defeating the entire purpose of having the aircraft in the first place! You can't ever lose an entire carrier in battle, for only minor damage, whatever next. And why do we see the USA doing this? It's obviously because the USA is still the only country that's never managed to produce & build a VTOL fighter aircraft. Britain did so in the late 50s, Russia did so in the late 60s the USA has tried and failed numerous times, so it seems this time they're going to try to lie about it LOL. That country is a travesty, man! It shows us that Lockheed are not unknown to produce propaganda aircraft, as the F-22 is the same... Propaganda!

Finally someone has said it. I was about to tell the same that it is not stolen by Lockheed but was bought for $400M dollars. What you stated are on the Wikipedia pages of F35 in the past for some reason it was expunged on newer edits

@@francissalvador7046 $400?! Now that *is* a steal 🙂

Hans Dorsch ..After cloning the B-29 & other U.S. products during WWII, then stealing plans for Atomic Fission, etc. if Lockheed stole anything back: Turnabout is Fair-play.

It's just more click bait garbage

​@@francissalvador7046 Read about the Convair 200 of 1973. It was the first design with the exact kind of lift that Yak later used for the 141. The F135 engine of the F35 was developed by Lockheed for the USMC under a DARPA contract in 1986, before the Yak-141 project started, so it is literally impossible that the Yak influenced this part of the design. Next: the Convair 200 and the Yak-141 had dual lift jets in front, quite different from the F-35's lifting fan. Finally, the 141 was not Russian but Soviet. Pretty much everything you hear in a Dark Skies video is wrong.

A quick dash is not a sustainable speed - and range is a problem if using and carrying two more engines for lift used for only minutes in a sortie.

@@uingaeoc3905 This raises something I've often thought about. One of the most incredible innovations that surely got its start in military technology is the development of computer controlled electronic gyrometers. There was once a time in the not so distance past that Sony for instance, were asked by the US government not to sell PlayStations to countries like Iran, simply because their central processing units/chips contained enough power to effectively give them tech that would allow them to significantly improve their capably. PlayStations!

@@michaelhughes3302 Yes - but there is a group of idiots here who think that a technology demonstrator based on a dead end system , disproven at least 20 years before in the West, somehow influenced the design of the F35/ PW-RR 135! But then if you can say something that is detrimental to the West then all rationality flees them.

@@uingaeoc3905 "if you can say something that is detrimental to the West then all rationality flees them" Exactly. There is a huge number of non Russian people on RU-vid and elsewhere online who receive a certain thrill to find/make claims that favor the USSR over the USA. Hopefully recent events will help to keep them quite for a while.

@@dogsbd I very much doubt it - if they can blame Trump for Putin's invasion even after watching Trump berate the NATO defence ministers for not spending enough then they will believe anything.

But it took 30 for it to work😂

​@@TheCommissarIsDead Ok, Vlad.

@@TheCommissarIsDeadWas you alive in 1982??....

@@TheCommissarIsDead Took what 30 years to work? P1127- Kestrel the predecessor of the Harrier first flew in 1960 and the Harrier entered service in 1968.

@@uingaeoc3905 Harrier first flew 1967 entered service 1969, best version had fusalage strakes added and flew with US Marines.

Convair 200 has a major design flaw due to forward hot air flow being ingested into the main engine.

Patents usually don't require an working prototype? Since When? Edison never invented the "Light bulb" He HAD TO HAVE A WORKING UNIT. Still he did not invent the bulb. He is credited for it because of the Edison Screw that fit into the light holder. The Arc Light is a British invention. Basically the first time to get light from electricity. Edison tinkered with the patent application and got a filament in place of an air gap which gave an even glow...much less harsh than the ARC spark brightness of the air gap. Edison was pushing for DC electricity to be used. DC has a short range like 4 square blocks before it died out.(Menlow Park) Then another generating station was required. . A Serbian worked for Edison, and he saw AC as being the better power source. Eddy did not want to hear about something other than his DC power source. That Serbian also created step up capacitors, so that the power on the wire could go on for miles. That Serbian was Nickolas Tesla. He invented a lot of stuff for the AC system to work. An inventive genius who died penniless because he was not a promoter. He could have created free energy for all the people, and the bankers could not see how they could make any money from that so dropped Tesla like a hot rock.

@@bunzeebear2973 Since forever, maybe learn what a Patent is and how to get one, they are quite simple and there are many things patented before there is even a working prototype, you can patent anything you want as long as you can draw and describe it, it does not need to actually exist in more than someones imagination.

The Tu-4 was a virtual carbon copy of the B-29 Superfortress

@@devildog5657 I WOULD NOT GO THAT FAR.....HE WAS DEAD RIGHT ABOUT TESLA!!!!!!; NOW AS FAR AS THE LIGHT BULB ITSELF; IT TOOK APROX 1,1OO DIFFERNT MATERALS UNTILL EDSON FOUND A DURABLE FILMENT MATERAL; & A PERFECT VACUME TO KEEP FROM BURNING UP!!!!!!!

That visibility it's useful during landing.

RUSSIAN aircraft are very sexy and I'm a red blooded Yankee doodle but the Mig 21 ,SU 37, MIG29,MIG 31👈🏽ALL SEXY LADIES 👍🏽😁🇺🇲🦅💪🏽

Reminds me of the Grumman F5

The plane should fly and not look.

@@robertkummings6829 LMAO @ SU-37? You must mean the SU-30 and SU-35.

The Pegasus engine was developed in tandem with the Hawker P.1127. Bristol Siddeley developed the Pegasus from their earlier Orpheus turbofan engine (none VTOL), with Olympus compressor blades for the fan. The Pegasus's thrust is directed through the four rotatable nozzles. In 1966, manufacture and further development continued under Rolls-Royce Ltd, after they purchased Bristol Siddeley. "Hawker Siddeley received an order for six pre-production aircraft in 1965, designated P.1127 (RAF), of which the first made its maiden flight on 31 August 1966. An order for 60 production aircraft, designated as Harrier GR.1, was received in early 1967. The aircraft was named after the Harrier, a small bird of prey. The Harrier GR.1 made its first flight on 28 December 1967. Hawker Siddeley and McDonnell Douglas formed a partnership in 1969 in preparation for American production, but Congressman Mendel Rivers and the House Appropriations Committee held that it would be cheaper to produce the AV-8A on the pre-existing production lines in the United Kingdom-hence all AV-8A Harriers were purchased from Hawker Siddeley."

Same here!

👏👏👏

war is madness at it's most basic human form, man has killed each other since pre-history and will do so until we are no more, is this innovation ? or man's need to kill one another, for no real reason

Dark skies is not very informed and obviously don't know what he's talking about.

@@rayjames6096 I second this comment. See my earlier stand alone comment. I was involved in the early concept design of the aircraft that became the F35B. In 1989 and 1990, I was busy doing this concept design work along with a team of other engineers. I oversaw the first layout drawing for the Lift Fan system in 1990. The Soviet technology had nothing to do with what we did. The Soviet plane used lift engines (plural). Our system uses a shaft driven Lift Fan. That is not a minor difference. This guy makes more stupid factual errors than about anyone else on RU-vid.

Try to have a discussion about any military aircraft, with any American, and you'll be shocked just how unaware they really are? They all talk endless rubbish, and so much so, they even start to believe their own rubbish. It makes no difference, if you show them, or explain to them, or even go through it in fine detail with them. You can conclusively prove things to these people, and they'll ignore it, and just carry on saying the same thing? Even when they've just been shown, and had something proven to them, (something that they were completely wrong about), makes no difference at all. Nope, they'll just deny it, or ignore it, seriously, you can talk to any of them about any military hardware, at all, and you'll always come to find, they actually know nothing about any of it. Even when you point things out to them, things that they've so obviously just dreamt up in their own head?, all you'll then get back, is a few lines of remedial illegible rubbish. But you'll then see them somewhere else, repeating what they now already know to be complete rubbish??. Honestly, you could not make it up! If people could think for themselves today, they'd all be questioning why the USA made a point of announcing to the world, they've made it illegal to sell the F-22??. The USA seemingly want it believed, it's because it's so good, they don't want anyone else to have it?. But, that actually makes no sense at all, because the reality is, they've no idea what's around the corner in modern technology terms, and with the speed we're seeing new military tactical hardware being designed, developed, and created today, It could well of made great sense to sell the F-22 at some stage?. (If it actually works). If it worked?, they'd have been able to recoup much of the resources spent on the aircraft, if not the resources in their entirety. Now, there's another reason the USA would make a point of announcing they've made it illegal to sell the F-22?, a point that the American people seem to want to neglect today? And that's, If, it doesn't work, If it is, as I suspect it is, a lemon?, and if the USA have then used the F-22 as a propaganda purpose aircraft?, then what better way of preventing anyone else from finding out that it actually doesn't work, and it's really a lemon?, than making it illegal to sell? Really, and logically, the only possible way to explain that stunt, of the USA announcing they've now made it illegal to sell the F-22, can only be because it's a propaganda aircraft, a failure! 16 years the US have had F-22, and they've been in wars the entire time, only they've never used it, and they removed every F-22 from the Middle East, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, and Saudi just after Russia arrived in Syria in 2015. You can think about this as much as you like?, that is the only real possible reason the USA would do that. Absolutely no doubt about it, I guarantee we'll never see the F-22 involved in any sort of war scenario, or any major sortie, as it's basically junk. They've even trashed all the infrastructure they had in place to build more of them.

READ THE RUBBISH WE SEE HERE? LOL, None of you have a CLUE. We see the USA still unable to produce and build a VTOL capable fighter aircraft. The F-35B was claimed by the USA, to be able to do what the Harrier could do, while also being supersonic, stealthy, with modern avionics systems, etc etc, this is what we were told. Only one of the biggest technical headaches the British always had to build the Harrier, was the VTOL - transferring from ''lift'' (downward nozzles) to forward flight (rear-facing nozzles) and flying away. Apparently to achieve it took the British a hell of a lot of technical work, three - four months at a time over 3 years. (Look up all the variants they made) but they never gave up, and they finally figured it out. I said long before we ever saw the F-35B, it wouldn't be VTOL capable, even with the Rolls-Royce lift engines, because the USA has tried many times before, and failed, only managing to produce the British Harrier able to do so. Every US airframe (and there have been many), have all failed. At 7 mins 50 seconds, you'll watch a Harrier perform a proper VTOL. Copy and paste “2013 MCAS Yuma Air Show - AV8B Harrier Demo” into RU-vid search. Watch it from lift off, (to more importantly), flying away from the lift-off, and you'll see the transfer of nozzles take place. You'll not find a single piece of footage of the F-35B doing this. I've had (Americans) tell me all sorts, like it is VTOL and can do it, even saying they've seen it? LOL, only when they can't show it? They quickly change, and instead we'll read them claim it was never intended to be VTOL capable? LOL. Sure, when Lockheed Martin's very own page on RU-vid clearly shows them trying to suggest it is VTOL capable, when it so clearly is not? Copy and Paste “First F-35B Vertical Takeoff Test” into RU-vid search. Watch it, you'll see it lift off, only you'll see it take off go straight up & hover then return straight back down? You'll never see it fly away from the lift-off? Believe me, if it could, we'd see it doing so in every piece of footage we have on the F-35B - like we still see on all the footage of the Harrier doing so. But you'll never find any footage anywhere of the F-35B doing that. Now for the less educated among you, that will try to show me the F-35 fly into a hover, and fly away from that hover? Only that has nothing at all to do with a VTOL? To hover, we use forward flight (rear facing nozzles) with pitch and yaw, to find our centre of gravity to control the hover (would be CPU controlled today), so you don't need to transfer the nozzles from lift (downward facing nozzles), to forward flight (rear facing nozzles) to hover. So, they'll then go on to say it's not necessary? LOL, while forgetting, they're to be carrier-based aircraft?, meaning even just slight damage to the deck or ramp, they can't get any jets airborne? Defeating the entire purpose of having the aircraft in the first place! You can't ever lose an entire carrier in battle, for only minor damage, whatever next. And why do we see the USA doing this? It's obviously because the USA is still the only country that's never managed to produce & build a VTOL fighter aircraft. Britain did so in the late 50s, Russia did so in the late 60s the USA has tried and failed numerous times, so it seems this time they're going to try to lie about it LOL. That country is a travesty, man! It shows us that Lockheed are not unknown to produce propaganda aircraft, as the F-22 is the same... Propaganda!

@@hotstepper887 COPE

@@oldpain7625 What has that got to do with anything I've said, the British carrier was to be a catapult (CATOBAR) design until we found out the F-35 is not VTOL capable!

@@hotstepper887 I think it's time you be quiet

honestly i thought they meant literally steal one like the us physically stole a soviet helicopter

@@mrexists5400 I was wondering how they got their hands on a non-operational and very-secret aircraft

We see the USA still unable to produce and build a VTOL capable fighter aircraft. The F-35B was claimed by the USA, to be able to do what the Harrier could do, while also being supersonic, stealthy, with modern avionics systems, etc etc, this is what we were told. Only one of the biggest technical headaches the British always had to build the Harrier, was the VTOL - transferring from ''lift'' (downward nozzles) to forward flight (rear-facing nozzles) and flying away. Apparently to achieve it took the British a hell of a lot of technical work, three - four months at a time over 3 years. (Look up all the variants they made) but they never gave up, and they finally figured it out. I said long before we ever saw the F-35B, it wouldn't be VTOL capable, even with the Rolls-Royce lift engines, because the USA has tried many times before, and failed, only managing to produce the British Harrier able to do so. Every US airframe (and there have been many), have all failed. At 7 mins 50 seconds, you'll watch a Harrier perform a proper VTOL. Copy and paste “2013 MCAS Yuma Air Show - AV8B Harrier Demo” into RU-vid search. Watch it from lift off, (to more importantly), flying away from the lift-off, and you'll see the transfer of nozzles take place. You'll not find a single piece of footage of the F-35B doing this. I've had (Americans) tell me all sorts, like it is VTOL and can do it, even saying they've seen it? LOL, only when they can't show it? They quickly change, and instead we'll read them claim it was never intended to be VTOL capable? LOL. Sure, when Lockheed Martin's very own page on RU-vid clearly shows them trying to suggest it is VTOL capable, when it so clearly is not? Copy and Paste “First F-35B Vertical Takeoff Test” into RU-vid search. Watch this, you'll see it lift off, only you'll see it take off go straight up & hover then return straight back down? You'll never see it fly away from the lift-off? Believe me, if it could, we'd see it doing so in every piece of footage we have on the F-35B - like we still see on all the footage of the Harrier doing so. But you'll never find any footage anywhere of the F-35B doing that. They'll then go on to say it's not necessary? LOL, while forgetting, they're to be carrier-based aircraft?, meaning even just slight damage to the deck or ramp, they can't get any jets airborne?. Defeating the entire purpose of having the aircraft in the first place! You can't ever lose an entire carrier in battle, for only minor damage, whatever next. And why do we see the USA doing this? It's obviously because the USA is still the only country that's never managed to produce & build a VTOL fighter aircraft. Britain did so in the late 50s, Russia did so in the late 60s the USA has tried and failed numerous times, so it seems this time they're going to try to lie about it LOL, that country is a travesty, man! It shows us that Lockheed are not unknown to produce propaganda aircraft.

Seemingly these Americans have no idea the F-22 and F-35 can't see, track, or target any other stealth aircraft from BVR (beyond visual range). Stealth alone defeats high-frequency (short wave) radar by absorption and deflection, it does not defeat low-frequency (long wave) radar. Therefore, to see, track, and target stealth aircraft you must have long-wave radar, but it must also be enhanced to remove all background clutter for targeting purposes. Neither the APG-77 radar used in the F-22, nor the APG-81 radar used in the F-35, can see any other stealth aircraft from BVR (without enhanced long wave radar) - This fact the US Air force obviously know! Only it seems the reality is, that when the F-35 radars were being designed 13 years ago, there were no other stealth aircraft to think about as a potential threat? So how can these US aircraft be seen as any sort of threat to either China or Russia, who both have these aircraft technically beaten? They can see and target US jets from BVR, yet the US jets can't even see them from BVR? Russia's new 5th generation Byelka (2band) radar, used in SU-57, does have enhanced long-wave radar, they've designed and developed the first L-Band fighter radar we've ever seen. They've cleverly embedded L-band AESA radars in the leading edges of the wings. The new L-band AESA radar data gets processed in real time through extremely powerful Russian Elbrus computers being significantly enhanced removing all clutter, meaning it can see, track, target, and engage enemy stealth aircraft from BVR. The technology along with its impressive range parameters and jamming ability over large areas make this aircraft deadly to all other aircraft types. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters at long ranges. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of hostile (i.e. Western) IFF and SSR transponders at long ranges. High-powered active jamming of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters. High-powered active jamming of satellite navigation receivers over large areas. High-powered active jamming of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges. High-powered active jamming of guided munition command data links over large areas. Effectively neutralizing the USA's use of AWACS for their detection. They can also interact in ''real-time'' with each other member of the squadron, (auto selecting) the best placed BVR missile, that can be fired by anyone of the squadron with a bogie on radar, they can also take control of surface-to-air (SAM) missile defence systems - (that alone is lethal), and they can see track, enemy stealth fighter aircraft long before Russian airspace, from much greater distances, with "real-time" data from massive Russian ground long wave stations (that are all protected today with the networked S-400 defensive system). Therefore, as they'll always know where the enemy aircraft are, they'll always be able to approach any enemy aircraft head on, and therefore stealthily, (Russia wisely sacrificed rear end stealth for much better manoeuvrability) meaning today, the US fighter jets would not even be able to see them coming!! Russia's Byelka (2band) radar covers all aspects of frequencies across all channels, that are used for tracking, targetting, and also jamming. It's part of Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES) on board the SU-57. Russia tested much of this new radar suit on the SU-35, so they also have the option of fitting this radar into SU-35's permanently, meaning Russia's SU-35S flanker will be at no disadvantage with F-22/35. As although the SU-35 can be seen and targeted from BVR, the SU-35 with the new 5th gen radar is as able to see and target the US jets from BVR, seeing the all-important Russian advantage in BVR missile distance, plus the excellent manoeuvring, neither the F-22/35 have, as more than critical, if you're going to avoid simply being blown out of the sky.

The x-35 is the f-35 that's like saying the yf-22 inspired the f-22 the x-35 was the experimental variant of the f-35 usa had trouble on the engine so they bought the yak for the engine

Who even said that the Yak-38 was superior to the Harrier? Even the Soviet Navy admitted that their Yak-38s was a disappointment.

Duh, even the soviets know the harrier was better

…and that’s compared to the first version - the Harrier “A”

The Yak was supersonic, the Harrier is subsonic.

@@rayjames6096 speed only helps you get there and back faster. It doesn’t win fights.

Even better they Russian engineers from Yakovlev not that long ago still has been working on the floor in US. "....Following the announcement by the CIS on September 1991 that it could no longer fund development of the Yak-41M, Yakovlev entered into discussions with several foreign partners who could help fund the program. Lockheed Corporation, which was in the process of developing the X-35 for the US Joint Strike Fighter program, stepped forward, and with their assistance aircraft 48-2 was displayed at the Farnborough Airshow in September 1992. Yakovlev announced that they had reached an agreement with Lockheed for funds of $385 to $400 million for three new prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics. Planned modifications for the proposed Yak-41M included an increase in STOL weight to 21,500 kg (47,400 lb). One of the prototypes would have been a dual-control trainer. Though no longer flyable, both 48-2 and 48-3 were exhibited at the 1993 Moscow airshow. The partnership began in late 1991, though it was not publicly revealed by Yakovlev until 6 September 1992, and was not revealed by Lockheed until June 1994..."

Russians dont need VTOL, their only aircraft carrier - Kuznetsov is rusting away in a harbor, because there aren't any facilities to repair it.

Seemingly these Americans have no idea the F-22 and F-35 can't see, track, or target any other stealth aircraft from BVR (beyond visual range). Stealth alone defeats high-frequency (short wave) radar by absorption and deflection, it does not defeat low-frequency (long wave) radar. Therefore, to see, track, and target stealth aircraft you must have long-wave radar, but it must also be enhanced to remove all background clutter for targeting purposes. Neither the APG-77 radar used in the F-22, nor the APG-81 radar used in the F-35, can see any other stealth aircraft from BVR (without enhanced long wave radar) - This fact the US Air force obviously know! Only it seems the reality is, that when the F-35 radars were being designed 13 years ago, there were no other stealth aircraft to think about as a potential threat? So how can these US aircraft be seen as any sort of threat to either China or Russia, who both have these aircraft technically beaten? They can see and target US jets from BVR, yet the US jets can't even see them from BVR? Russia's new 5th generation Byelka (2band) radar, used in SU-57, does have enhanced long-wave radar, they've designed and developed the first L-Band fighter radar we've ever seen. They've cleverly embedded L-band AESA radars in the leading edges of the wings. The new L-band AESA radar data gets processed in real time through extremely powerful Russian Elbrus computers being significantly enhanced removing all clutter, meaning it can see, track, target, and engage enemy stealth aircraft from BVR. The technology along with its impressive range parameters and jamming ability over large areas make this aircraft deadly to all other aircraft types. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters at long ranges. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of hostile (i.e. Western) IFF and SSR transponders at long ranges. High-powered active jamming of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters. High-powered active jamming of satellite navigation receivers over large areas. High-powered active jamming of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges. High-powered active jamming of guided munition command data links over large areas. Effectively neutralizing the USA's use of AWACS for their detection. They can also interact in ''real-time'' with each other member of the squadron, (auto selecting) the best placed BVR missile, that can be fired by anyone of the squadron with a bogie on radar, they can also take control of surface-to-air (SAM) missile defence systems - (that alone is lethal), and they can see track, enemy stealth fighter aircraft long before Russian airspace, from much greater distances, with "real-time" data from massive Russian ground long wave stations (that are all protected today with the networked S-400 defensive system). Therefore, as they'll always know where the enemy aircraft are, they'll always be able to approach any enemy aircraft head on, and therefore stealthily, (Russia wisely sacrificed rear end stealth for much better manoeuvrability) meaning today, the US fighter jets would not even be able to see them coming!! Russia's Byelka (2band) radar covers all aspects of frequencies across all channels, that are used for tracking, targetting, and also jamming. It's part of Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES) on board the SU-57. Russia tested much of this new radar suit on the SU-35, so they also have the option of fitting this radar into SU-35's permanently, meaning Russia's SU-35S flanker will be at no disadvantage with F-22/35. As although the SU-35 can be seen and targeted from BVR, the SU-35 with the new 5th gen radar is as able to see and target the US jets from BVR, seeing the all-important Russian advantage in BVR missile distance, plus the excellent manoeuvring, neither the F-22/35 have, as more than critical, if you're going to avoid simply being blown out of the sky.

Wow looking at the convair I see the same engine layout as the Yak-141 but its lines seem to have inspired the Typhoon and Rafale.

@@stevewing6851 Yeah… It’s a bit more REAL then that

The technology was not stolen from Russia, the English had that technology before the Russians

@@stevewing6851 highly unlikely that you actually know how capable US stealth really is.

also, the Convair 200 of 1973 had the idea of vectoring rear nozzle plus two small lift jets foward. If anything, the Yak-141 was a copy of the Convair, while the F-35 was a next-generation version with a lift fan instead of lift jets.

No they didn't bridge any gap at all - the Yak 141 was a dead end and contributed nothing to the F35 programme.

@@uingaeoc3905 that’s not what the documentary says

@@alpenfoxvideo7255 The documentary is not very well informed - it doe snot matter what the Dark Skies guy says, he is out of his depth as are most of the ignorant idiot posters here. Read my comments and educate yourself.

@@uingaeoc3905 And what are your credentials or evidence or are you just a youtube armchair expert? Did you work for Lockheed or Yak by chance?

@@josephalberta1145 You didn't ask me, but my credentials are that I am adept at doing my own research. From which I have learned: Every aspect of the F-35; the lift fan, the 3-bearing swivel duct nozzle, the overall layout of the aircraft pre-existed any Lockheed contact with Yak and/or knowledge of the Yak-41/Yak-141. Pratt & Whitney tested the 3-bearing swivel duct nozzle on a JT8D in the mid to late 1960's, including full afterburner tests with the nozzle swiveled 90 degrees. If anyone copied anything it was the Russians who copied the US Convair 200 design of the early 1970's and the Pratt & Whitney 3-bearing swivel duct nozzle from the 1960's.

Lockheed and American / British military does not like the two separate engine layout of the Russian Yak-38 and Yak-141. if one of those lift engines fail in VTOL flight the jet will flip with its nose or tail pointed vertical and be fatal to the ejecting pilots. So the west likes a one engine system like the Harrier AV-8s where if that one engine fails... the aircraft drops strait down so the pilot can eject strait up. Lockheed smartly came up with the idea of having a long external drive-shaft between and connecting two " engine " assemblies where the main turboshaft driving turbofan rear horizontal and 90 degree vertical pointing down engine drives the front vertically aligned fan module assembly. So kind of making two engine lifting sections one, so if it fails it drops strait down in theory.

In fact Lockheed Hummingbird and the Ryan XV5 Vertifan both used this method - didn't work!

yak uses a lift jet not lift fan. why f-35 works because of a lift fan, instead of jet. lift jets causes over heating. hot exhaust getting sucked into the engine during hover.

@@leonswan6733 It was Rolls-Royce and P&W who invented the engine and Lockheed and Boeing were told by the Pentagon to use it in their submissions.

@@leihtory7423 I explained this ad nauseum in my comments on this vid. The title is wrong - NO Yak technology was 'stole' by Lockheed and Yak did not invent anything in their VSTOL planes, all of the technology had been invented by Rolls-Bristol in the late 1950s and flown in various prototypes in the early 1960s.

Clickbait title. Never known this channel to stoop to that before.

When the Chinese adapts US techs, you folks cried that it’s stealing.

@@madsam0320 I did not accuse the Chinese of stealing anything concerning their fighter aircraft. But it's no secret that the Russians did actually use tape on their shoes to acquire metal filings during their tour of American aircraft manufacturing facilities during detente. Let's not be naive. Does anyone doubt that Chinese and others don't engage in industrial espionage, including the U.S. when they want to know what the other side is doing? Is that stealing?

But it was copied.

@@carlingas666 Yes. Exactly. But the click-bait title of this video says "The US STOLE Russia's Classified Vertical Takeoff Fighter - Yak-141". Copying something is not the same as stealing. And they didn't copy the YAK-141. They copied the concept of putting one engine with 4 ducts in the aircraft. The title is a lie.

Sounds about right...

Me too...

They "stole" it by buying the plans and patent rights.

@@Will_CH1 The US did not steal anything by buying plans or patents because there was nothing special about the design of the Yak or its engine. FULL STOP, all of the technologies had been fully explored and implemented on various types DECADES before the Yak flew.

click bait headlines

😂 😂 😂 Huh Lol.. Then u can't tell China copy every thing..🤣🤣 Hey dude, They did buddy.. They copied.. And configuration is bit changed and remade naming it F35 stealth 😂

Wasn't it the British who invented and perfected vertical takeoff and landing with the Harrier? The British sold Harriers to US, making it unnecessary to steal Russian technology!

British Harrier is new one..And its not like YAk-141 or F 35.

@@RickMentore Sold? who told that? if it was then still USA copied from UK.😂

@@isuruthiwanka9448 "And its not like YAk-141 or F 35," the Harrier is better!

You're dense. It's the concept that matters. You still think in black and white.

Lockheed literally bought the Yak-141 data and blueprints from Yakovlev

@@fleisbester612 Search patent number US3687374. You'll find out you've been fed lies, because the three bearing nozzle was patented in the 1960's by GE, Boeing, Rolls-Royce.

@@fleisbester612 google: Russian designs of the rotary nozzle and you will find the site of topwar a Russian site that has articles in English. The F-35B had the swivel nozzle long before Lockheed engineers saw the blue prints of the Yak-141. The nozzle was invented and patented in the USA in the late 1960's it was supposed to be used on US aircraft.

@@stingingmetal9648 again the Convair predates the Yak by 2 decades in concept.

But America patented the swivel nozzle and front lift jet layout in the Convair model 200. Russiaboos claim that Americans copied it. No, Lockheed bought the data regarding landing surface wear, and operational data.

It looks like a terrible knockoff

@@dominicklittle9828 - it was built long before the F-35 - so you're just a bigot aren't you?

@@JohnnyWednesday using the racism card to try win an argument is STUPID. Russia has less black or minority population than America, you race baiting fool.

@@JohnnyWednesday now you're silent because you've lost the debate, after trying to use racism in your argument? Probably because you know less.

@Steve Wing: Your "old man"? Show some respect to your dad. Sheesh.

@@kennethcurtis1856 Haha he'll always be the old man!

Nice and funny song.

Legend

It's also a Aussie thing to call our fathers "old man" but it is said with affection, the British are no different. @@kennethcurtis1856

Well, it was made in Russia... 😉

This video maker doesn't really understand airplanes. He just reads out of Wikipedia.

I was searching for this comment. This entire script seems so dramatized.

Ya, the U.S. stole that decades ago. Ok, maybe not stolen.

The Harrier II is still being used today by the US and UK. It has fully automated controls and modern display systems. Was a big improvement over the Harrier I.

F35 copied the design from the yak not from the harrier

Exidy YT 4 days ago too bad it never was completed A total of 143 Yak-38s were produced. A total of 50 Yak-38M were produced. A total of 38 Yak-38U were produced

Як 141 живёт в ф 35,это его продолжение😢

@@stevewing6851 I said the Yak 141 was never completed. Of COURSE the Yak-38 forger was produced, it was a mainstay of the soviet navy! Jeez.

$$$

there's nothing advanced about it. The only thing it succeeded in doing was taking off vertically, and did so with such poor design and execution that it couldn't carry ordinance or travel a meaningful range after doing so.

@@lqr824 Did you even watch the video, those were the problems of the yak-38. The one talked about in the video is the yak 141 and it was ahead of it's time since the f35 uses similar technology

@@filipnikitovic6717 JFC can you not read? THE ONLY THING ON THE YAK THAT IS SIMILAR TO THE F35 IS ALSO SIMILAR ON THE EARLY 70S CONVAIR 200. IF THE F35 WAS COPIED FROM ANYTHING, YOU SHOULD CITE THE FIRST OCCURANCE OF THIS DESIGN, THE CONVAIR, NOT THE YAK. If you're going to be this stupid, please go do it somewhere else so I can't see you doing it. It's too painful to watch.

@@filipnikitovic6717 I watched the video - Dark Skies didn;''t bother to research this. The Yak 141 was only better than the Yak 38, period, it wasn't going anywhere, literally, no range or payload.

Ha! Funny about their concern about tarmac damage. Decades later, that's something the U.S. military has had to figure out with both the F-35 and Osprey.

@@AviationHorrors I worked with the Osprey program during the early years. If we did extended ground runups, the moisture in the concrete would turn to steam so fast the concrete would literally explode. I was sitting on a towtractor about 40 feet away and it sounded like someone threw a stick of dynamite next to me. Ground Chief took of running. We got around this by installing 1 1/4" steel plates about 20'x20' on the ground lined up where each engine nacelle would be. Later, the first time we went out for carrier testing. We burned a hole though the surface material on the carrier deck and superheated the ceiling of the hangar below so badly the paint and insulating material on the ceiling started offgassing...

Erm , give a single example were a Su 27 or Mig 29 shot down a US equivalent you claim was like a 'biplane'?

READ THE RUBBISH WE SEE HERE? LOL, None of you have a CLUE. We see the USA still unable to produce and build a VTOL capable fighter aircraft. The F-35B was claimed by the USA, to be able to do what the Harrier could do, while also being supersonic, stealthy, with modern avionics systems, etc etc, this is what we were told. Only one of the biggest technical headaches the British always had to build the Harrier, was the VTOL - transferring from ''lift'' (downward nozzles) to forward flight (rear-facing nozzles) and flying away. Apparently to achieve it took the British a hell of a lot of technical work, three - four months at a time over 3 years. (Look up all the variants they made) but they never gave up, and they finally figured it out. I said long before we ever saw the F-35B, it wouldn't be VTOL capable, even with the Rolls-Royce lift engines, because the USA has tried many times before, and failed, only managing to produce the British Harrier able to do so. Every US airframe (and there have been many), have all failed. At 7 mins 50 seconds, you'll watch a Harrier perform a proper VTOL. Copy and paste “2013 MCAS Yuma Air Show - AV8B Harrier Demo” into RU-vid search. Watch it from lift off, (to more importantly), flying away from the lift-off, and you'll see the transfer of nozzles take place. You'll not find a single piece of footage of the F-35B doing this. I've had (Americans) tell me all sorts, like it is VTOL and can do it, even saying they've seen it? LOL, only when they can't show it? They quickly change, and instead we'll read them claim it was never intended to be VTOL capable? LOL. Sure, when Lockheed Martin's very own page on RU-vid clearly shows them trying to suggest it is VTOL capable, when it so clearly is not? Copy and Paste “First F-35B Vertical Takeoff Test” into RU-vid search. Watch it, you'll see it lift off, only you'll see it take off go straight up & hover then return straight back down? You'll never see it fly away from the lift-off? Believe me, if it could, we'd see it doing so in every piece of footage we have on the F-35B - like we still see on all the footage of the Harrier doing so. But you'll never find any footage anywhere of the F-35B doing that. Now for the less educated among you, that will try to show me the F-35 fly into a hover, and fly away from that hover? Only that has nothing at all to do with a VTOL? To hover, we use forward flight (rear facing nozzles) with pitch and yaw, to find our centre of gravity to control the hover (would be CPU controlled today), so you don't need to transfer the nozzles from lift (downward facing nozzles), to forward flight (rear facing nozzles) to hover. So, they'll then go on to say it's not necessary? LOL, while forgetting, they're to be carrier-based aircraft?, meaning even just slight damage to the deck or ramp, they can't get any jets airborne? Defeating the entire purpose of having the aircraft in the first place! You can't ever lose an entire carrier in battle, for only minor damage, whatever next. And why do we see the USA doing this? It's obviously because the USA is still the only country that's never managed to produce & build a VTOL fighter aircraft. Britain did so in the late 50s, Russia did so in the late 60s the USA has tried and failed numerous times, so it seems this time they're going to try to lie about it LOL. That country is a travesty, man! It shows us that Lockheed are not unknown to produce propaganda aircraft, as the F-22 is the same... Propaganda!

There is so much we could talk about with the F-35?, and just looking at the reality of the F-22?, should have been showing us all the reality, before this country bought a single one, but not only did we waste our money on them, but we put our own Rolls-Royce engines in our F-35Bs. The 35s don't stand up to what we were all told they would be? An aircraft that is stealthy with much improved electronics and computer software, able to travel supersonic that, like the Harrier, would be VTOL capable. It's very clear, we would have been far better off concentrating on a new supersonic Harrier type, or we should have been looking at the new SABRE engine as a realistic look at upgrading our own air force? With the wasted money, we could have been building our very own modern fighter aircraft for the last 20 years? Today, BAE Systems is developing a HVP (Hypervelocity Projectile) for the British & US military. They've already purchased 22% of ''Reaction Engines Limited''. Reaction Engines, was founded in 1989 by three propulsion engineers from Rolls-Royce, Alan Bond, Richard Varvill and John Scott Scott. Their early work on the RB545 engine, destined for use on HOTOL was evolved and focused on producing a robust technical design for the new Synergetic Air Breathing Rocket Engine. (SABRE). They've been developing a new type of hybrid jet/rocket engine. SABRE - can lead to the development of new hypersonic aircraft and future space vehicle's. The technology has immense military value for the creation of hypersonic missiles or/and aircraft, that would be able to hit targets at speeds and ranges that are unheard-of today. Moreover, defending against such an attack would be extremely difficult. The technologies and military applications of the engine technology, could easily be applied for hypersonic missiles of both attack and defensive duties, as well as new high-speed long-range bombers or reconnaissance aircraft. Such machine's, travelling at orbital velocities, would be nearly impossible to intercept with current defensive technologies. "Skylon" Is a series of designs for a single stage - to orbit, spaceplane concept, also using SABRE (a combined-cycle, air breathing propulsion system). They're also looking at building the ''A2'' a civilian Hypersonic airliner with a cruise speed of well over Mach 5.2. So, as BAE have already bought into this company?, we can be pretty sure they've already cracked this engine. You'll soon read elsewhere the American trying to suggest something about this, will be American?, when it's not, never is, and all they've ever really done, is copy British tech, while crying China steals "their tech".

And it was a huge pile of crap.

@@egyeneskifli7808 still first though

@@yanisbaker881 I never disputed that.

@@egyeneskifli7808 yes. All Yaks are crap, except Yak-3.

@@egyeneskifli7808 the video title implies that 141 was the first.

failed in all way

USSR has fleet of 200 fully-operational, deployed, combat-ready Yak-38 VTOLs, which was based on heli carriers, with corresponding corps of naval VTOL-rated pilots.

@@MaxKrumholz the machine didn't fail

A lot of industrial espionage was going on !

@@Jester-Riddle what u mean?

@@ltdan8825 its first test was the Falklands. Passed with flying colours.

Yak-41 would've completely outclassed the Harrier in everyway if it had entered production

Surpassed by F-35B.

The harrier was average at most tbh

@@yoamal1187 average does not win a war…

Did you even watch the video?

pretty sure he mentioned that, and that the 141 type was at least the 3rd generation in development. Did you even watch the video?

@@WALTERBROADDUS then his title is purposely misleading. Look I like the guys videos but be straight up not "click bait."

@@shinycessna To be fair, The Yak -38 was a attack aircraft rather than a pure fighter. It could hardly carry bombs, let alone air to air weapons.

Preceded by the Yak-36.

They did didn't they? The Su 27s use them with vectoring rather than catapults.

@@uingaeoc3905 that is the Kuznetsov class. I’m talking about the Kiev class from the mid 1970’s.

Not amazing, fuck em

@@Earth11111 to be peaceful means you are capable of great violence, if you have no means you are just vulnerable.

@@blkmgk16 idk who your telling snd for what gain your not telling Me nothing I don’t know or haven’t already experienced.

I know it’s a simplistic view, but Lockheed did buy it and the tail pipe layout is effectively the same….. 30+ years ago, the Russians had a functioning supersonic VSTOL….. just the world wasn’t ready….

@@iancharlton678 I explained that this hot pipe vectoring had been patented by Rolls Royce for the Medway and dropped the stupidity of the separate lift-jets after both Dornier 31 and the VFW 171 showed they were useless. The Soviets had produced another 'dead end', just because it could boost to M1.5 (20 years after the Balzac III-V had done so) was useless when its ordinance and duration were reduced because carrying an additional two engines used for a few minutes per sortie. Lockheed bought it to see if it worked - it didn't; which is why they adopted for the F35 the PW-F135 with the RR Remote Augmented Fan. These are different technological approaches.

@@uingaeoc3905 Harrier didn't have a front lift fan. F-35 does have one. While much more effecient than using lift jets, the F-35 still bears a striking resembelance to this Yak design all around. They definately learned a LOT from the Yak design.

@@cpt_bill366 Exactly, the F-35 VTOL isn't a 1:1 copy of the Yak, but it's obvious it is heavily inspired by and modified from the Soviet design. There is allot of weird American pride when it comes to this, people don't want to admit that we are essentially using a modified soviet design. "copying" isn't just something China does. Every nation in history does it.

Interesting. I wonder how much value Lockheed derived from their partnership with Yak, maybe some of the control laws or aerodynamics were still carried over into the F-35?

Wish my old Nissan had come with a malfunction display; would have saved me a lot of diagnostic time.

In the 80s, I was involved in the flight testing of the AV8B. Very impressive aircraft and exceptionally fun to watch.

Yes it was the british

Brits beat them by almost three decades 😂

Back then. Now the F-35B out performs all British and American AV8 A or B Harriers. If the Soviet/ Russians was rich and smart enough to put Yak-141 into production, it would of out performed the Harrier as well. The American Bell F-109 with 8 GE J-85 engines could of been promising and would of out performed the AV8s as well.

@@leonswan6733 No - the Harrier with a single vectoring Pegasus engine was the best and simplest method. The carrying of 'dead weight' separate engines was never going to work in terms of simplicity of performance and the Yaks (2 and 3 engines), Mirage Balzac III-V (5 engines), Shorts SC5 (4) or Bell XF109 (8) and anything like them were dead ends. The vectoring of an engine exhaust exclusively for both vertical and horizontal flight was the neatest solution. The Lockheed F35 uses one engine vectoring at rear and using its ducted front fan for balance and they adopted this when they saw that the Yak 141 was problematic. Lockheed did not adopt the Yak configuration and vectoring tailpipes had been fully detailed by Rolls Royce on its Medway proposal and adopted by US companies on versions of the Teen Series fighters.

@@uingaeoc3905 OK

@@uingaeoc3905 When i said " out perform the Harriers " I meant in the horizontal supersonic top speed arena, Your statements are sound.

@@leonswan6733 I think it is still used by the US Marine Corps for close air support. My dad watched protypes being flown in the late 1950s.

Actually it’s

90%

Yeah the harrier n 35 hover tech is 100% derivative.

Nothing at all. The only common element is the 3 barring swivel of the F35B. That element was designed after the unbuilt Convair model 200

@@NinjaForHire Another RUSSIABOO. Harriers operated and has better weapons capacity than any of the Yakovlev Vtol jets. Look up the patent number US3687374 for you to realize how stupid what you said is

"Yak relied on 3 engines ... Harrier has one engine that does it all" Well you are comparing a 6800kg heavy Harrier with ~106kN thrust, with a 11600kg heavy Yak that used 1 engine for forward thrust with 176.5kN, and 2 engines for VTOL with 42kN thrust each (which is only 84kN to lift 19.5 tons, where the Harrier has 22kN more and can only lift 9.4 tons) I am less amazed by the Harrier and more amazed by the Yak-141 because it was housing 3 Engines at once instead of just 1, and it was also using the first ever Engine to have both an Afterburner and Thrust Vectoring in one Engine.

Wtf is a Harriet? LOL

We see the USA still unable to produce and build a VTOL capable fighter aircraft. The F-35B was claimed by the USA, to be able to do what the Harrier could do, while also being supersonic, stealthy, with modern avionics systems, etc etc, this is what we were told. Only one of the biggest technical headaches the British always had to build the Harrier, was the VTOL - transferring from ''lift'' (downward nozzles) to forward flight (rear-facing nozzles) and flying away. Apparently to achieve it took the British a hell of a lot of technical work, three - four months at a time over 3 years. (Look up all the variants they made) but they never gave up, and they finally figured it out. I said long before we ever saw the F-35B, it wouldn't be VTOL capable, even with the Rolls-Royce lift engines, because the USA has tried many times before, and failed, only managing to produce the British Harrier able to do so. Every US airframe (and there have been many), have all failed. At 7 mins 50 seconds, you'll watch a Harrier perform a proper VTOL. Copy and paste “2013 MCAS Yuma Air Show - AV8B Harrier Demo” into RU-vid search. Watch it from lift off, (to more importantly), flying away from the lift-off, and you'll see the transfer of nozzles take place. You'll not find a single piece of footage of the F-35B doing this. I've had (Americans) tell me all sorts, like it is VTOL and can do it, even saying they've seen it? LOL, only when they can't show it? They quickly change, and instead we'll read them claim it was never intended to be VTOL capable? LOL. Sure, when Lockheed Martin's very own page on RU-vid clearly shows them trying to suggest it is VTOL capable, when it so clearly is not? Copy and Paste “First F-35B Vertical Takeoff Test” into RU-vid search. Watch this, you'll see it lift off, only you'll see it take off go straight up & hover then return straight back down? You'll never see it fly away from the lift-off? Believe me, if it could, we'd see it doing so in every piece of footage we have on the F-35B - like we still see on all the footage of the Harrier doing so. But you'll never find any footage anywhere of the F-35B doing that. They'll then go on to say it's not necessary? LOL, while forgetting, they're to be carrier-based aircraft?, meaning even just slight damage to the deck or ramp, they can't get any jets airborne?. Defeating the entire purpose of having the aircraft in the first place! You can't ever lose an entire carrier in battle, for only minor damage, whatever next. And why do we see the USA doing this? It's obviously because the USA is still the only country that's never managed to produce & build a VTOL fighter aircraft. Britain did so in the late 50s, Russia did so in the late 60s the USA has tried and failed numerous times, so it seems this time they're going to try to lie about it LOL, that country is a travesty, man! It shows us that Lockheed are not unknown to produce propaganda aircraft.

@@stevewing6851 Dont jump on him for harriet, might be a older fellow since a couple words are written wrong

My old man was Captain, and squadron leader of 800 squadron, in the FAA (Fleet Air Arm) of the RN. He was selected to go to the States to train them, how to fly the Harrier, and show them what the Harrier could do. We off loaded quite a few of our older and retired Harriers to the US, so they could learn all about it, while training their engineers on its engines, airframe, and construction. They then got permission to build the Sea Harrier, but were only allowed to make very few modifications to the design. He also flew the Buccaneer, an aircraft I've been in many times, from the age of about 11, LOL... Well things were a lot different back then, and us kids would often get to go see the old man on a Sunday when they were at our home bases, and down here, whenever it was quiet we'd often talk our way into a flight on whatever aircraft they were with LOL. The old Fairey Gannets were awesome, what a view! I've been in the Harrier GR 5, GR 7 and the GR 9 also the Sea Harrier. Nearly every helicopter you could think of, LOL, including the old, world speed record holder, the Lynx. Gliders?, done many of those, but the most amazing and impressive of them all was indeed the Buccaneer. You can't describe what it feels like to travel at an altitude of 10 - 15 feet, at 450 mph. Seeing garden hedges as blurs LOL, flying straight over them hahaha. That aircraft, the Buccaneer I'll never forget, it scared the life out of me. Rolling down the runway throttles open wide see the mighty Phantom sway from side to side airborne again without a blip It's just one more aborted trip but we're pressing on regardless for the wg cdrs AFC Went to early briefing climbed into the Kite opened up the throttles and roared into the night leaving the flare path far behind It's dark outside, but we don't mind cos we're pressing on regardless for the wg cdr's AFC Rolling down the runway throttle open wide see the mighty Falcon sway from side to side airborne again with just 9 G I wish I had a nav with me (!) but we're pressing on regardless for the wg cdr's AFC Rolling down the runway throttles open wide see the mighty Jaguar sway from side to side airborne again, but only just It's not much fun with F*** all thrust but we're pressing on regardless for the wg cdr's AFC GIVE ME BUCCANEERS! They're British through and through The Banana Jet The Best we've had yet We are the last of the few. Don't give me the Jaguar Unless you refer to the car The car is a groundhog The aircraft is half frog Don't give me the Jaguar. Give me Buccaneers They're British through and through The Banana Jet The Best we've had yet We are the last of the few. Don't give me the Harrier jump jet You haven't convinced me yet Jets that fly backwards Are soon to be knackered Don't give me the Harrier jump jet Well… Not just yet... Give me Buccaneers... They're British through and through The Banana Jet The Best we've had yet We are the last of the few. Don't give me this computer crap It's no way to tackle a SAP It's OK for Dicks, Germans and Spicks But Gentleman always carry a map! Give me Buccaneers... They're British through and through The Banana Jet The Best we've had yet We are the last of the few. Don't give me Air Traffic Control They live in a bloody great hole… They scream, and they shout, then F**k you about Don't give me Air Traffic Control. Give me Buccaneers... They're British through and through The Banana Jet The Best we've had yet We are the last of the few. Don't give me the F-104 It's only a ground loving whore It goes in a turn, flick, spin and burn Don't give me the F-104. Give me Buccaneers They're British through and through The Banana Jet The Best we've had yet WE ARE THE LAST OF THE FEW!

It totally does, most likely is

*ahem* Harrier

@@TylerWardhaha No disrespect to the Harrier, one of my favorite aircrafts. However the F35’s lift system is much more similar to the Yak. I’m just surprised at myself that I never heard of it till this video.

Not an inspiration given the conflicting chronology of both programs developments, but certainly helped refine the JSF's development.

The F-35 is NOTHING AT ALL LIKE IT!

It was not. There was also strage looking yak 36, which was the real entry to soviet VTOL jet planes. Also yak had far more advanced automatic ejection seat then the western counterpart.

@@fko079 Point is, the Yak-142 isn't the first like the original title said

It appears that the Yak would have been a far more robust fighter than the Harrier. The latter is noted mostly just for its VTOL capability than any other distinctions.

@@ScottGSouth It's a shame the Brits never got a chance to put their Harriers into combat to see how well they might have performed - oh, wait a minute . . . .

@@jeffreycrawley1216 sure...against the Argentine fighters like the Dagger and the Super Entenarde. The Argentine air force had never considered the possibility of waging a long -range naval air campaign against a major NATO power and wasn't trained for such a mission. It's about the training of Harrier pilots and command and control, not the dubious capabilities of the Harriers themselves.

@@ScottGSouth My mistake, I thought you were saying that the unproven Yak was a far more robust aircraft than the battle experienced Harrier when you actually meant that Soviet aircrew were better than NATO ones! Silly me! Oh, and it's Super Etendard not Entendarde :o)

@@ScottGSouth Tosh! The Harrier in the air to air combat role had no equal in the Falklands conflict. 20 years later the USA purchased them for the marine core. enough said!!....

Huh? Didt they build the "Skyvan", a little parachuting job?

An extremely noisy plane, saw it at Farnborough!

😂 😂 😂 😂 Im laughing

@@dnomyarnostaw Yes and the Belfast. heavy lifter, twice the volume of the Hercules.

It was a 'proof of concept' of Rolls Royce Lift Jets, five of them - worked, but not a format for anything useful. That was decades before the Soviets tried it again and failed again.

Yeah nothing like the f35, which just has one engine vs this pos with three

These are 2 different eras of engineering designed using 2 different philosophies. It would be logical that the older design is inferior.

Apparently it was: Following the announcement by the CIS on September 1991 that it could no longer fund development of the Yak-41M, Yakovlev entered into discussions with several foreign partners who could help fund the program. Lockheed Corporation, which was in the process of developing the X-35 for the US Joint Strike Fighter program, stepped forward, and with their assistance aircraft 48-2 was displayed at the Farnborough Airshow in September 1992. Yakovlev announced that they had reached an agreement with Lockheed for funds of $385 to $400 million for three new prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics. Planned modifications for the proposed Yak-41M included an increase in STOL weight to 21,500 kg (47,400 lb). One of the prototypes would have been a dual-control trainer. Though no longer flyable, both 48-2 and 48-3 were exhibited at the 1993 Moscow airshow. The partnership began in late 1991, though it was not publicly revealed by Yakovlev until 6 September 1992, and was not revealed by Lockheed until June 1994 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141#:~:text=Yakovlev%20announced%20that%20they%20had,21%2C500%20kg%20(47%2C400%20lb).

Actually a helicopter was the first aircraft to take off and land like a helicopter.

Didn't they decommission the Harrier? ..

me too, but not just for the USSR. Evey prototype scrapped is a wasted opportunity

I have pure joy at the thought because as recent events show theres nothing good about russia well except its everyday people. the thought of this tech in the hands of the Russians scares me

@@mikepette4422 wh Dude what the fuck get your bs out of here were talking about planes. And for beto, yeah bud its a real shame

It wasn't impressive or amazing. It could take off vertically, just like the Harrier of decades earlier could. But unlike the Harrier, it couldn't carry arms or do meaningful missions after taking off vertically. The Yak was a total loser. THAT is why it got cancelled. That, and the Russians destroyed their entire economy except for pumping gas and oil, so they can't really afford anything any more.

Do you feel sad when you see a Nazi Germany prototype that failed or was cancelled? Or does your sympathy for dictatorial / murderous regimes only extend to the USSR?